#not necessarily for a moral reason like thinking killing is wrong

[discountsoysauce]

Obsessed with the fact that pre-EOs Victor is just a wannabe edge lord and Eli has literally committed murder

[gallusrostromegalus]

I did not care at all for Aizen Sosuke when I first read bleach. I found him boring, and worst, unthreatening.

So it's pretty jarring for me that I have been OBSESSED with him in your AU. I'm rotating him at great speed

Walt Disney was a jackass who was flat-out wrong about a lot of very important things, but he employed a great many geniuses of storytelling, and there's a piece in Disney Animation: The Illusion of Life by Frank Thomas and Ollie Johnson that discusses a key feature of Disney Studios Character Design:

"Of all characters, villains are the most fun to develop because they make everything else happen. They are the instigators, and always more colorful than the Hero. They may be dramatic, awesome, insidious or semi-comic, but they MUST be appealing. Almost any story becomes innocuous if all the evil is eliminated, but we do not necessarily gain strength by being frightening. we want a character that will hold the audience and entertain them, even if it's a Chilling Type of Entertainment."

And I've found that to be an important principle of character design, especially the kind of canon restructuring I do.

Aizen had a LOT going for him in canon- for all of Bleach's other faults, Aizen's conspiracy and THE REVEAL are spectacularly constructed and executed. I legit screamed and threw my mug across my dorm room when I read it in the manga the first time. He's also conventionally attractive and the translations I was reading gave him the speech patterns of Every Douchebag In Your 101 Political Theory Who Thinks He's The Smartest Man In The Room, which made him a terrific combination of Unfortunately Charming, Menacingly Competent and Engagingly Obnoxious.

...But he falls flat in a few key places.

Aizen's reasoning could be MUCH more sympathetic- After all, he is RIGHT. Soul Sciety does suck ass and all the options kind of suck. Who designs a universe like that? An asshole who needs killing, that's who. The best kind of Unhinged Madmen are the kind who spell out their reasoning and you realize that there but for the grace of Not Having Super Powers Go I. Canon!Aizen makes a few Good Rhetorical Points, but seems to lack any personal connection to his all-consuming plan.

Another issue is that nearly every villain with A Plan has a clear end goal AND a lot of the menace is drawn from the fact that the plan *could* work. Aizen's plan for betraying the court guard and then killing them off before proceeding into the Royal Realm to Kill God sorta falls apart when it's clear he planned to use pretty much all his accumulated forces dealing with the court guard and doesn't seem to have a plan for the Even More Powerful Royal Guard, let alone God. For how meticulously planned the rest of the plot is, the last two VERY IMPORTANT steps are just handwaved.

So I sat down and started with the plot beats Aizen MUST hit, and tried to imagine what kind of guy would he have to be to get there? And I came up with this:

Sosuke Aizen is a fundamentally good man with genuinely good intentions who is really trying his best for the whole world.

Think about it- what lengths would you NOT go to if you think you found a genuine shot at Fixing Everything Wrong With The World Forever? We all talk about killing Hitler if we found an actual Time Machine- would you do it if your only chance was when he was a baby? Would you kill an infant if it meant you could stop World War II before it starts? Of course you would! One small life for over 75 million? You'd be insane not to! What if you found out that you could prevent the future extinction of Humanity by killing your best friend today? Ten Billion lives? For theirs? It's simple, really- Hell, it's your Moral Obligation to do that if you were SURE!

-And Aizen IS sure. He is absolutely, totally, completely sure that He Can Save Everyone if he just gets rid of that idiot sitting on the throne of heaven. He's seen the plans! He knows where the gate of heaven is! It's So SIMPLE he just has to get inside, and he knows EXACTLY how to do it, yes it'll be hard and there will be... unpleasant parts but. IT. WILL. WORK.

He is of course, insane.

Aizen didn't have One Bad Day that set him irrevocably on the path of madness. It was a succession of catastrophic disappointments and realizations that he was living in a fundamentally irrational world that made irrational thinking look sane. The Catastrophe that befell his family, working for the central 46 and later the court guard and seeing how the organizations were inept to the point of abuse or corrupt to the core, learning that The Actual House Of God is a place he can just? Go to? Anyone would start thinking you were just a handful of white lies and homicides away from Fixing Everything, Forever.

Not only is Aizen insane, he is nowhere near as smart as he thinks. He is smart- He does have a knack for being able to guess just what will spur someone to action or make them recoil in fear. But mostly he gets extremely lucky Many, Many, MANY times. On some level I think it gives him Confirmation Bias that this is what he's supposed to be doing. Aizen is also nowhere near as smart as (nearly) everyone else thinks he is. His bizarrely good luck makes him look like a hyper-competent genius when really it was really the catastrophic failure of Soul Society as a Society that let a merely mediocre conspirator to evade detection for so long.

Being that he is at most, mediocre, he had to have Outside Help, specifically Gin's emotional support and Tousen's Competence- and if there's a part of the fic that stays true to canon, it's this.

Gin is Aizen's emotional rock in Canon. He's the ONE guy that Aizen genuinely trusts, and considers his 'my only real partner' in his scheme. There's more than one occasion in the manga where Aizen more or less asks Gin "Is this actually a good idea?" and Gin backs him up every time.

...Which is more than a bit at odds with Gin's later stated goal of "I did all this to kill you at your most vulnerable to protect rangiku" . It never rang true to me. So I started thinking why on EARTH Gin would be backing Aizen up like that, and realized there was a hole in my world building that he slotted into nicely :)

On the other hand, the entire fic was started because I didn't like how Tousen's character arc ended, so you can imagine how much he's changed.

But in canon, TOUSEN DOES ALL THE FUCKING WORK.

Lab work? Tousen.

Supervising the arrancar directly? Tousen

Actually getting victims for the Hogyoku experiments? Tousen.

Altering all the archives to keep Aizen's plot hidden? Tousen.

Sending all the Orders allegedly from the central 46? Tousen.

Making sure Unohana believes Aizen's fake body is real? Tousen.

Managing all the day-to-day operations at Las Noches? Tousen.

There's even this little exchange, which is Tousen's first appearance in the Manga:

Aizen establishes this entire meeting is a little fake-out a few pages later with "now isn't that a convenieint time for the alarm to go off?"

which makes him look like he's investigating, but he's also going "Good job on disrupting everyone with the alarm Gin!" It's ballsy of Aizen to do a check-in on his plan with his main nemesis in the room, but also his style.

I think the same thing is happening here with Tousen. To make sure Ukitake wouldn't raise a huge fit about the proposed execution of his beloved lieutenant, which might fuck everything up for Aizen because Ukitake is one of like, three people Yamamoto will listen to (sort of).

...So he had Tousen poison Ukitake to keep him out of the way.

ALL. THE. FUCKING. WORK. It's even in his name! The characters for "Tousen" Refer to a legendary scholar the emperor of China sent out to discover the secret of immortality- only to kill the scholar when he returned with that secret. The character for "Kaname" means "Necessary/Vital/keystone" or "to organize/take account of". His name LITERALLY means "Scholar who is essential for the plan (that we're going to kill later)"

Another thing Kubo did well in Bleach: his name game is Off The Fucking Charts.

-but I digress.

In AEIWAM, it's much the same only this time Aizen sees this very dangerous witness who is immune to his illusions but also extremely snart and capable young man and instead of risking being caught out by the one damn guy who can see right through him, opts to Curse Kaname into doing as Aizen says, and doing all the fucking work of this conspiracy against his will.

It's Not Nice, but Aizen genuinely thinks he's doing Kaname a favor by subjecting him to this degrading and incredibly painful servitude- I mean, Aizen's only other option was to Kill him to keep his silence, and isn't it wonderful that you get to help fix the universe? You're the one always going on about Justice, I don't understand why you didn't jump at the chance to mete out some Divine Justice.

An Excerpt from the captain's meeting in between the Massacre that made the visored and Zaraki's arrival, when Kaname realizes Yamamoto is 100% serious about his promotion to captain of the 9th and goes to throw up in the garden. Aizen offers to go check on him while Unohana very politely reads the general the riot act:

---

"You broke your toy Aizen." Kaname coughs.

"…I really am sorry for running you ragged like this. I really shouldn't have gotten so mad about you hiding the the hogyoku- it was very petty of me." The bastard sighs, taking off his glasses and rubbing his face, entirely genuine.

Kaname stayed on his hands and knees, weaving slightly as another wave of nausea flowed through him, powered by disgust and rage.

"How about this- I've got a lot coming up with the new job, training Gin and disposing of Kiganjo- So how about I promise to not give you any orders for a while? You will have to keep our arrangement a secret and not interfere, of course, but other than that, you're free to do as you please for- a year and a day is traditional isn't it? No, that's not going to heal by then- Oh, would you look at that!"

Kaname didn't have the strength to offer his usual rebuttal that he won't look at anything, ever. The sides of his head tingle like his skul was being pressed between two enormous hands made of static electricity.

"It's 11:11! Alright, I won't give you any Orders until 11:11 am on November 11th, 1911. That's easy to remember! What do you think?" Aizen continued cheerfully, patting his back and the Curse nails.

"…I can't." Kaname groaned. He could scream if he had the energy, but due to Aizen's Illusions, nobody would hear him. "I actually physically can't think. Please…"

"Of course! You really are such a help to me, it would be a shame to lose you. I'll even amend our contract, so you don't get paranoid-" There was a sizzling sound and a new stroke of hot pain up Kaname's spine as Aizen did something to the wretched Bakudo. "There. No compulsions for eleven years and a day. What do you say?"

Kaname grimaced, but dropped his head. Save the energy to fight another day. "…thank you, Aizen-sama."

"Good man! Let's get you on your feet." Aizen beamed, putting his glasses back on and offering him an arm.

---

He genuinely thinks that he's doing everyone a huge favor and if they don't get it it's because they're just not smart enough, but it's alright, He's a Benevolent God and they'll appreciate all his hard work the next time around :)

Aizen is a man who is FULL of joy. He loves what he does! He actively takes pleasure in it! And I think that's something that REALLY delivers in terms of sympathy AND horror for him. Who *Wouldn't* have a great time actually fixing the universe? He's a good man who enjoys doing good works, and this is the greatest work of all!

It also Delivers on the Horror when I get to write the deliciously fun scenes where Aizen is Elbows-deep in a novel War Crime and waxing poetic about how GREAT this is, or being confused why the people around him are reacting with fear. Don't you want to make everything better too?

[ephemeralinstance]

The Veil and the Ad Hominem Fallacy

While there are many things I love about Veilguard, the way the Veil was dealt with was definitely a weak point. We know the devs were worried that people sympathized too much with Solas' goals; hence the choice to have him kill Varric. But I think this demonstrates a misunderstanding of the reasons why people liked and sympathized with Solas.

In previous games, we were shown that the Veil has consistently harmed spirits, mages, and (arguably) elves - three groups who are systematically oppressed and/or have their personhood erased in Thedas. And in Inquisition, Solas was the only person who stood up for spirits, and among one of the most vocal supporters of mage freedom; he was also (albeit inconsistently) critical of the ways elves have been treated throughout Thedosian history. So people who sympathized with those three groups were naturally inclined to have at least some sympathy both for him personally and for his plans regarding the Veil (of course pending further details, since Trespasser was pretty vague about this). It's not the case that people agreed with him blindly because they liked him or because they romanced him; they liked him because they agreed with him, at least about the harms the Veil was inflicting on vulnerable groups. The use of Cyrian as a metaphor is also telling here. Anaris is clearly intended a parody of Solas, and so the mask which makes Cyrian feels Anaris' emotions seems to be intended as a critique of people who sympathize with ancient elven gods due to empathizing too much with them. But again, this is a misunderstanding. People didn't sympathize with Solas' goals just because they think he's tragic, they sympathized for actual reasons based on the canonical evidence for the Veil doing harm.

Having Solas kill Varric was therefore not a good way of addressing this issue, because Solas' personal character and methods are completely irrelevant to the question of whether the Veil should come down or not. The same goes for showing that Solas is largely motivated by regret, or that he often gets his plans wrong - all of this is a classic ad hominem fallacy. Perhaps these things might serve to convince us that it is not a good idea for Solas to take down the Veil by himself, but none of it is relevant to the question of whether the Veil should in fact come down.

The right way to address this issue would have been to actually address the arguments for it! Allow Solas to articulate the fact that the Veil harms spirits, mages and (perhaps) elves. Allow him to tell us what he believes Thedas would look like after the Veil came down. Allow Rook to discuss Solas' claims with knowledgeable people like Emmrich and Morrigan, and assess their validity. Perhaps even allow Rook to talk with the Mourn Watch, the Veil Jumpers and so on about other possible ways to mitigate the harms that the Veil does. Give Rook a chance to convince Solas himself that there are other options!

I'm not saying that the Veil should have come down. There's no canonical answer to the question of whether that would have been a good outcome, since we got no concrete details at all on what Thedas might look like if it did. Nor do I necessarily think that would have been a better story. But I do think the game we actually got would have been strengthened if they'd trusted players a bit more and allowed us to explicitly contemplate the morality of the Veil, and to seek alternative ways of solving the problems it causes.

[decayofroses]

Succession war Kurapika

I've completed all the available HXH chapters (400), and there were a few scenes that really stood out to me with Kurapika.

I love and adore him as the main character of this arc, and we've seen his perspective and his downward spiral in yorknew.

Seeing him now, and how far he's strayed definitely makes his POV the most interesting to me.

I wanted to point out/ talk about some of the panels throughout the SW.

This panel especially stood out to me, and it's one of my favorites out of the entire manga. He mentions how every time he got a part of his brethren back- he lost something. While I think it could be a physical presence, I think he's talking about himself here more than anything.

Each time he's threatened, coaxed, paid people off, he's lost a part of himself.

Kurapika strays away from his relationships, while to protect them- and also what I believe is out of guilt (and the other which I'll go over in a moment). I think he knows what he's doing to himself, and I don't think he can handle facing it head on, or risking harming his friends physically or emotionally.

And again, when Kurapika agrees to join the zodiacs.

Straying even from Leorio, it's clear he'd rather face things alone, and without distractions. Which is exactly what they are, distractions.

His quest to collect his family is coming to an end. "Where would I go?" I think he means this in a literal, and metaphorical sense. Where will he end up by the end of this? Which path will he go down? He has no place to call home, and he truly believes he has nothing left, and nobody to welcome him back.

Despite having allies, and who quickly became close friends.

He didn't realize it at the time, but shortly after teaming up with Bill and others- he understood the importance of allies.

"Things didn't proceed so simply", things weren't as simple as gathering pawns, and walking the path of revenge alone.

He formed genuine bonds that mean more to him than simple pawns for his quest. He's now torn between his isolation, and his care for his friends. Despite this, he will continue to punish himself and walk this path alone- it's much harder than he'd originally intended. Pushing his friends away to complete his goal, because it serves as his only purpose in his eyes. Even if he knows it's wrong.

Oito asks if spying on the 4th prince is for his convenience. Kurapika takes a moment, and tells her this is simply a strategic choice. I don't think he's lying, but I do think he wants to protect her, and wobble- while still keeping contact with the Prince.

At the moment, he will prioritize protecting the two of them. I think it happens to align with his goal, but it isn't necessarily for his convenience.

The reason I bring this up is to highlight that despite the fact he wants to push his friends away, and work towards his goal- he won't risk the lives of others.

He says he will repeat it as many times as needed, that they are there to protect her and the prince. To trust him.

He tries to be someone who will risk everything for the sake of recovering the eyes, but deep down he can't. Much like how he cannot truly abandon his friends, only isolate himself.

Kurapika is loyal, and unwilling to sacrifice others for the sake of his goal. He forced a stalemate, and took advantage of his nen knowledge to level out the playing field. A stalemate buys them more time, making it so it won't be as easy for experienced nen users to take advantage of non nen users.

It was a brilliant idea that may be risky, but also offers protection for him, and the queen.

During this conversation with Mizaistom, it's clear that Kurapika has not abandoned all of his morals, he wants to avoid killing the Prince despite having the remaining eyes. He would rather try other methods, and is opposed to killing.

Mizaistom and Kurapikas dynamic is one of my favorites, but that's for another time.

That's all I have to talk about, for now. I wanted to go over my favorite panels, and his relationships in the succession war.

[sequence-trotter]

With Sunday's drip marketing, one reaction I've seen is surprise that he's still on his same path toward the same goal of paradise.

But of course he is! HSR patch 2.2 Penacony is a long string of scenes where Sunday is like "debate me, please debate me, I feel a little bit like I'm going crazy here, how are none of you seeing what I'm seeing, someone please debate me." He sees a cold and uncaring logic to the world and desperately wants to be wrong about his conclusions.

And no one debated him. They overpowered him and broke his illusion via power rangers distress call and "severed [his] Path with their hands," as he put it, but no one really debated him in good faith on the terms he set. Of course he hasn't changed! No one was even faintly capable of articulating an alternate position!

unacceptably long-ass boring post incoming. if you click the read more you have only yourself to blame. i had to put in subheadings for navigability this post is a MESS

(authors note: in an absolutely embarrassing travesty i managed to hit the picture limit per post so this will be a post in multiple parts. this part covers Sunday's goals and Robin's initial response. A follow-up post will cover Firefly and the Astral Express's response, as well as the final confrontation and what this all means)

(double note: due to post length limitations this ended up being three reblogs long. completed version here.)

(A note before we set off: I do not think the HSR writers are very good, or more charitably, I think the constraints under which HSR is made pretty much preclude it having a thematically satisfying narrative. Not the least of these constraints is the obvious fear around having anyone playable be "too bad," which is why Blade was introduced as an implacable force of ancient vengeance for crimes unutterable, and now he's your 35-year-old coworker who jokes about killing himself. Everything I'm saying here is just interpretation, and it will certainly not be the game's take, since the game's moral reasoning doesn't seem to extend very far beyond "the Astral Express is good guys :)". Accordingly, please take this in an appropriate spirit, as someone looking for griminess and nuance in a game with a distinct deficit of either and an extreme unwillingness to treat its most interesting concepts as anything more than set dressing or very loosely-implied subtext.)

So to start you gotta ask, what is Sunday so mad about? Why does he demand that you debate him?

I. Sunday's Goals: "A Paradise Exclusive to Us Human Beings"

In his own words, what Sunday is fighting against is the fact that the world runs on predation and violence. Order is the enemy not of Chaos, but of Nature, and natural selection.

For Sunday, the problem is not merely that bad things happen in the world, or that the weak suffer. The problem is that the world is cruel in its design. The logic of survival is cruel. The extent of the problem is not just the dove dying to predators, though that is a huge part of it. It's the average worker, required to work at drudgery or worse, usually for the benefit of another, and always under possible threat of deprivation and death, because the nature of the world is that you must work or hurt or exploit or kill to survive. It's the man who sold his children into slavery for the chance at a better life, but more importantly it's those children, an afterthought in the end even to their father.

It's not just the suffering alone that he is responding to, either. In suffering and deprivation, Sunday sees a loss of control and choice. that necessarily entails a loss of dignity and meaning. Both the Astral Express and Firefly object that people should have the right to choose, but Sunday simply responds that they have no greater ability to choose under the status quo. To Sunday, a man who lives in a literal dream world, a life lived struggling for better things might be noble, but it is unequivocally not as dignified or happy as one lived in bliss.

This is part of why he's so fixated on the idea of weakness. Sunday perceives a distinct difference between people who believe their struggles give their lives meaning, and people who do not feel themselves to be free in the first place and thus find no greater meaning in their struggles. He clearly sees the second group as weak (a term he uses without judgment), and unable to fully express and experience their human dignity as a consequence of their position.

Sunday sees the history of Penacony as essentially recapitulating this struggle over and over. Hanunue frees the prisoners, but can neither secure Penacony's permanent freedom nor give the former prisoners full and dignified lives. Then Hanunue dies, and Sunday's sort of intriguingly ambivalent in how he portrays the Harmony taking over. It's actually kind of inspiring and humanist! This is a guy who's still deeply invested in Harmony's ideals.

But of course, we don't need a direct critique from Sunday to know how the Harmony has failed Penacony. We've seen it with our own eyes over and over. Do we need Sunday to tell it to us again when we've already spent our time with Chadwick, and Cocona, and Tizocic II? We have already seen over and over and over again in Penacony how systemic constraints and problems drive people who could have lived bright lives down dark paths, even in the Dreamscape.

Most intriguing is the third act, ostensibly the future, in which Ena arises and then is cast down because the people reject THEIR paradise in which THEY control and define all things. This could kind of be a jump to the past...except that Ena's previous "death" was due to absorption by Xipe during THEIR ascension, not because the people cast THEM down. The only event it appears to bear any resemblance to is...well, you beating Sunday in a few missions' time, because you reject his paradise since it's all in his control. Weird!

Back to the main matter, Sunday believes that true human dignity and flourishing requires not just freedom from outside control by otherss, but freedom from suffering and privation. He sees the weak (in his thinking, people spiritually unable to rise above suffering) as people unable to fully express themselves, who deserve the dignity of a life free of suffering or bitter choices. He spells this all out quite plainly in his opening lines to you when you arrive at the grand theater:

So we know what Sunday wants. And we know his answer to it: the Sweetdream Paradise (as I will be calling it here because I think it's funny and also because the sweet/bitter dichotomy is a huge part of Penacony thematically). He will use the power of Xipe's Emanator (Dominicus, the Harmonious Choir), and the remains of Ena (unclear if these are like, conceptual or metaphysical or what) to become something new (context implies possibly a new Aeon of Philosophy) that will enable everyone to sleep forever, entering a Penacony-esque dream in which nothing bad can truly happen, sustained by whatever new thing Sunday becomes. Everyone will be experiencing life through dreams while Sunday is the only thing awake in the real world, but that won't matter anyways because the dream will be basically the only thing that exists, without even Aeons interfering. It would be a truly human paradise. (One interesting little note here is that Sunday seems to quite clearly resent the Aeons for standing above humans and for offering no true solace to the suffering. No Aeons No Masters)

(I know I said above I think Sunday may have been becoming the Aeon of Philosophy and he says here his intent is not to become an Aeon. But the enemy description is pretty clear that Order and Harmony are forming the shell of an egg for a new god and the enemy is called "[Embryo of Philosophy] Sunday" I think it's pretty fitting both for his Icarian plan and the narrative role of Aeons that he was on the brink of accidentally becoming one, and probably having his original goal and his humanity subsumed into the nascent Aeon's Path. To me that seems an equally fitting ending for his hubris.)

What's really interesting to me about the Sweetdream Paradise is that the game goes out of its way, before it begins, to make it seem like a viable alternative path.

Such a dream could never be stable! Well, with a Stellaron and an Aeon (and idk, an Aeon's metaphysical corpse), all things are possible, so jot that down. You just want to set up a totalitarian regime under your dead God! No, LOL, I also hate God! Did you miss the whole dungeon before this about how much people hate God, and how much I in particular resent God for allowing suffering and human weakness? People will have no freedom of choice! People are free to make whatever choices they like in the Sweetdream Paradise, they just won't ever face bitter consequences as a result. Sorry I'm removing their freedom to [checks notes] sell their soul to the literal devil (hi Jade!) for short-term gain and guaranteed long-term suffering. I'd hate to lose that! People won't be real! Okay, well, Penacony seems to count as plenty real, and it's literally the same thing. Hell, Black Swan is literally a memetic entity who exists only in your perception! But she counts as real. So clearly we're just haggling along some kind of continuum of real-fake here, there's no hard line like people want to say there is.

The implicit purpose of all this setup is to force a true philosophical debate about the suffering of the "weak," the way the status quo demands and accepts this, and whether it can be justified or redeemed by freedom or choice. The other, more common approach would be to use practical limitations as a narrative eject button, e.g. "well, we've learned your Sweetdream will inevitably collapse anyways due to Stellaron Reasons, so even though your purpose was noble and our stance on it is still ambiguous, we have to stop you." I thought this was neat on HYV's part, because I think that other approach sucks. Call it the Legend of Korra approach, if you like: a plotline comes too close to criticizing the power fantasy underlying this particular type of genre narrative, so it's time to "fix" it by revealing the villain as comically evil and actually totally insincere.

So here's Sunday's position: suffering is not just bad but inimical to the truest possible human dignity, and if we can abolish it by means of totalitarian magic god ritual we ought to. How do our heroes respond?

II. Robin – "Which Aeon Can Make Our Dreams Come True?"

Well, first up is Robin, who responds so poorly I honestly felt like the writing was unsubtly overcorrecting for Sunday's position's inherent unpopularity (no one really likes totalitarian philosopher kings and gamers hate being controlled, Gamers Rise Up). She's like, "I get that people feel like they achieve some essential happiness or dignity here, but the big problem with Penacony is that it's FAKE and it's TOO TEMPORARY" and Sunday gets to just sit there and be like "yeah hmmm sure would be nice if someone could answer those problems easily by making the Dreamscape the literal only thing in the world and therefore the realest thing there is and also permanent."

Then Robin makes a hard left turn into completely wild arguments and is like "and that man suffering from a terrible illness who lost everything should have to be suffering in the real world because idk maybe they could have fixed his disease? I'm not like a doctor or anything but they say doctors are real good these days."

Completely deranged argument. Though honestly I kind of love this version of Robin and wish they'd go all the way with her. She's a girlboss bootstraps libertarian pop star let her live that truth.

Anyways here's where Sunday and Robin have their direct argument.

Humans deserve a chance to fly, says Robin. Okay, says Sunday, well we live here in the real world where vast billions of people never will. It's all great and cool for the anime protagonists and pop stars of the world to talk about self-determination and the human right to make your own meaning, but the rest of us live every day in a world where the powerful determine the future.

That last line of Robin's is so funny to me. "If that were true, then only the powerful would have the right to determine the future." BINGO, QUEEN! YOU GOT IT! That's the world you live in! Not one where everyone flies!

When you say "Birds belong in the sky, even if they can't fly," what you mean is "I see the death and suffering of others as acceptable and even necessary to give my life meaning." You can't have one without the other. This is what Sunday objects to.

What's interesting about this is both Sunday and Robin are actually slipping in their attachment to the Harmony. Robin credits her failure to sing to her own weakening faith in the Harmony, and Sunday later claims it was actually due to him and his attachment to Order (and also the whole Oak family's like psychic hive mind of evil under Gopher Wood). But here, Robin is like "Well, the Harmony says we should care for the weak." She doesn't exactly claim the statement for herself. And she shares Sunday's fears that the Harmony is incapable of creating the kind of paradise they both dream of.

So here we are right at the start of Sunday introducing his beliefs, and Robin's responses not only have been kind of weirdly un-nuanced in a way that makes her side look bad (I just can't get over her saying that dude who lost everything in war should have chosen expensive and painful rehabilitation as a moral matter. Robin what are you talking about), but she clearly is sympathetic to Sunday's concerns and is openly asking him what his conclusions mean they should do.

Of course, HSR 2.2 ignored Robin for no discernible reason, so we will be denied any further development of this discourse between the siblings. But Robin will return in the final battle, and when she does, she will both reveal that she is not thinking in the Harmony's terms, and that she has only practical objections to Sunday's course of action, rather than what he really wants: a different and more compelling logic to replace his own.

[lavandulawrites]

(Not sure if this was asked before, hope u dont mind) im a bit tired of the 'always weak Reader'. Like, why is the reader always so weak? The other characters always more strong- its not fair at all. So i wanted to ask, would u love the tought of the Reader finally being more stronger then characters? (Yandere's, of course.) for once, Reader is hard to catch, better at everything whether attacking running and etc, maybe even playfull like bratty but not rotten and actually kind to others- chaotic personality i guess.. Maybe it can be somehow inspiration to you. I hope u have a good day :3 (and please dont mind my bad english)

This is a very good question, anon.

I do get why many authors make the ‘reader’ weak. There may be serval reasons as to why such as: it may make writing ‘reader’ easier as they don’t have to have a strong personality (after all docile characters don’t necessarily need too much thoughts to them to make it work), if we are talking about a yandere context it may make the yandere seem more intimidating, it may be a preference by the author. After all we all have our own preferences. It would be extremely boring if everyone agreed on anything. I personally don’t mind weak ‘readers’ at all.

I personally hate the overly bratty/ bitchy/ rude ‘readers’ and I find them annoying (I’m thinking of the stereotypes, like Wattpad and etc.). I think it’s extremely frustrating how a female character almost always has to be physically strong and a ‘badass’ in order to be considered a ‘strong/ powerful woman’. I think that a female character is 100% able to be considered strong without being a warrior with non-feminine qualities. Being a strong female lead is not about how many men she can kill or how much she bench presses, it’s about being true to herself and being kind without letting others step over her (not saying that women can’t be physically strong obviously). She needs to stand her ground and not let anyone ruin her dreams hand her belief in her self.

I think the new Snow White movie is a good example. They made her be a strong leader who doesn’t need a romantic relationship. Which is in itself nothing wrong (I love a strong leader), but it’s too contradicting to the original story. Yes, Snow White was no fighter, but she was kind and helped everyone around her. She didn’t let the dwarfs boss her around, but instead lived in harmony with them. Is she the best example for a strong female lead, no, but that doesn’t mean she isn’t a strong female character.

My point is that I’m so incredibly sick and tired of seeing these ‘strong female leads’ that are only considered strong if they act ‘manly’ or is a fighter. Katniss on the other hand is a strong woman, but it’s not purely for her fighting abilities. It’s her morality and mental strength that makes her powerful. (I really do love Katniss and I think she is definitely one of the best female leads).

Little Women is also another great example. The sisters are all so different, but at the same time extremely strong in their own aspects.

And remember a weak character doesn’t mean she can’t be strong. That is a misconception that irritates me. Take Yui from Diabolik Lovers. Many people call her weak, but I disagree. In the games her personality really shines through and it’s impossible to say that she isn’t a strong female lead.

So will I make ‘reader’ or [Name] a strong female lead? The answer is yes, but not necessarily the way you might think. There are many ways to make a character strong that isn’t just purely physical strength and that’s extremely important to remember. Robin is a strong female character and it isn’t because of her physical strength.

Will [Name] be a feminist? Absolutely. I would never make a female character that isn’t a feminist.

Anyways, I hope I answered your questions anon and I hope you have a great day as well!❤️

If anyone has any other questions about Astralis Desires, please let me know! I will be happy to answer them❤️

[masha-nikita]

I finally, finally did something I wasn't capable of before-- nail down RH's eyes (sort of?). I wrote in here how I lack understanding about this white snake demon, hence I've been lacking ability in depicting his eyes.

I want to sieze this opportunity to expand upon that post, to iterate the perceived problem of reichblr artists; but first, plz take a look at this sculpture of Lucifer. In the 1840s, The Catholic Church commissioned sculptor Guillaume Geefs to make Lucifer. When the piece was completed, the Church became furious towards the artist-- Lucifer is too beautiful. Church took it down St. Paul's Cathedral, for the clergy found it very unacceptable.

The Geefs brothers were ordered to make the sculpture again. They reflected on the subject matter a long time, and tried very hard, then made a second rendition. Still too beautiful for the Church's liking.

This is the behavior of true artists. They didn't necessarily defy their employer just for the sake of being artists, they tried to understand what this subject matter is at its heart- the origin of Lucifer's pride, his greatest evil, in order to convey the concept in sculpture with artistic honesty and integrity: namely, the ultimate beauty, then the pride therein, then its natural temptation, and finally, the deepest theological foundation of the Church-- the Original sin.

This is the mythical dillemma how what was once closest to God could possibly be the most evil. Lucifer is supposed to be beautiful, and this beauty is supposed to be uncomfortable and unsettling, as if something very dark is about to burst through. I couldn't really draw RH, but there's a lot of meaning in drawing RH with white snakes, mythical, unsettling, supernaturally evil snakes.

By repudiating the artist- LUCIFER IS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE BEAUTIFUL!! YOU ARE WASTING YOUR TALENT!! YOU ARE LITERALLY MAKING LUCIFER FANART!! The Catholic Church revealed its moral weakness and intellectual dishonesty. You don't need to look far from this religion to find brain-dead parents who want governments to ban video games.

Some of you have noticed, I like to draw Werhmacht generals with flowers, and it is for a reason-- I never bothered to explain those reasons, because I draw stuff for my own self. I don't really have a purpose drawing, political or otherwise (I couldn't care less), nor ideologies that I want to spread.

I drew Paulus with Lilly in the Valley, for a friend historian explained to me why it is fitting- Lilly in the Valley traditionally symbolizes purity in a toxic environment, but its flowers are very poisonous themselves. Paulus denounced Nazism on the Nuremburg trials, and helped convicted his former murderous colleagues, but it was very hard to tell where his true moral resided; was it in exchange for Soviet leniency, or to cut all ties from his former roots the quiet and brutal way, because he was betrayed in Stalingrad?

Walter Model always appears with red Poppy. In my eyes, he was intoxicated with the Nazi ideology. Unlike the political ass-kissers who grabbed the Nazi power but did not want to bleed the blood, he wasn't out for his own benefits-- he plunged himself into the worst battlefields. Once Model became "sober from the opioids", he got so horridly disillusioned that he killed himself.

Black lilly Erich von Manstein criticized Hitler whenever and wherever he wanted, but did absolutely nothing to undermine Hitler's power. Lilly flower only in name, but blatantly impure, Manstein was intelligent in his total inaction. He managed to get a lighter punishment in Nuremburg by positing "Wehrmacht did nothing right, but did nothing wrong, technically speaking". Perhaps not so paradoxically, von Manstein helped created NATO that protects Europe to this day.

If I really want to look at myself to see something wrong, I think the issue is that I am a bad artist. I used a lot of words above to "explain" the symbolic and metaphorical aspects of my own work, as if they are Dante's Inferno or Hiëronymus Bosch's panels. Come on, they are NOT THAT GOOD, it is so absurd, I am just an idiot on the internet. I think I will go back to my hole, be comfortable, and draw stuff. I'll draw brainrots. I love brainrots.

Maybe we should go simpler- nobody accused Dante of depicting the 14 century Florentine scoundrels with masterful Renaissance verses "because Dante Aghilieri of the Divine Comedy is glorifying bad people (somehow)". Or maybe even simpler, to quote Ecku indirectly from an internet friend- "I draw Rommel, he's a soldier, a tragic soldier happened to be embroiled in a complicated era, nothing but a soldier yet that is exactly everything. For me, it is very strange of internet people to dote on mass murderers in video games, that actually require you to suspend fictional disbelief in order to enjoy killing, but have very little sensitivity for a simple German soldier, whose only Original Sin is that he is German and that is WWII."

Do bear in mind, the history books were written not by Truth, but by the victors of wars, who got to pick and choose the definition of all sorts of value judgment in the latter half of 20th century in order to justify the current societal institutions (for example, representational democracy, solipsistic corporatism replacing feudalism)-- much the same way the Lucifer problem was a big deal for the Church in the 1800s, the arbitor of religious morals and patriarchal orders. Retconning historical facts into narratives to fit mainstream world view the victors constructed is simply common practice.

Indeed, Lucifer is inherently evil, and bad things are objectively bad, still, it is an excercize in futility to pick out the absolutely immaculately virtuous side in the history just to occupy a moral high ground, and in such futility, a new Utopian totalitarianism of self-censorship would be upon us, wherein neither good people nor bad ones harbour any self-awareness— everything, including art, is hijacked by hyper-moralization, self-flagellatory empathy, and vain competition in victimhood.

Just let reichblr artists do their thing, they won’t be the culprit of wwiii, don’t you worry. As to if and how I condemn the neo N@zis, the distinction, practical criteria, and potential actions, please refer back to this post.

epilogue-

I spent all these times writing this for people whom I respect-- namely, people who hate reichblr with vengeance, with sincerity. If what drives you to our opposition is not hatred, but laziness and greed, because hating reichblr is literally the easiest way to score some "look I'm such a good person" points, I am very disappointed in you, and you're not worth the electricity for my computer.

[temporary-joyride]

I don't know I just think Chuuya and Atsushi would be so cute!!! I've said it before but I'm under the belief/headcanon that Chuuya is actually a really chill guy that simply happens to work in the mafia, he's my favorite PM character because he just seems so reasonable. Obviously a number of the other members have fleshed out backgrounds and personalities, but I personally feel like a lot of them still boil down to them being bad guys. Yes Akutagawa has his reasons and tragic backstory, yes Mori has a background not necessarily rooted in evil, but at the end of the day they're both antagonists and I don't feel like that's a crazy take to have. But Chuuya has never felt like a villain to me LMAO I'm probably interpreting his character so wrong but to me he always seemed like a cool guy that works in the mafia. He's not evil it's just where he works. Like you don't have to be a golfer to work at TopGolf it's just the situation you have been placed in. Chuuya "don't kill kids" Nakahara. He knows when things go too far, he still recognizes and respects the border between work violence and senseless violence. Has a strong moral compass that points at perfectly valid ideals I feel.

Anyway this was literally supposed to be a Chuuatsu post what. In turn, Atsushi is one of the most normal people at the agency, at least in some aspects. Call it sheltered innocence even. But I think he can easily see past Chuuya's port mafia executive status, I feel like I can see whatever the hell I think I'm seeing in him. And Atsushi really likes that about him. That he can bump into Chuuya outside of work and he's simply. a pretty chill guy. Has a bit of a temper, but whatever buttons cause it to flare, Atsushi hasn't managed to hit one yet.

And Chuuya's all "When they put that 7 billion yen bounty for a man-eating tiger, I thought it'd be some intimidating feral creature, but I just watched you cross the street and look both ways the entire walk across. You're just a nice kid."

They like find a reprieve in one another. Everyone around them seems crazy but they can step aside and know that at least there's SOMEONE in this city not out of their damn mind.

[ouaw-facts-i-just-made-up]

I have some thoughts on Remy Garou and Kremy as someone who has only see clips out of context from Prime (and also an obvious lover of OUAW). Major spoilers for probably both but definitely Prime. Also brief discussions of SA (mostly me just bringing up what others have characterized Garou as and why I think that it's not *wrong* to do but not really interesting, to me.)

Often, Garou's the sort of antagonist in coalecroux fics, like specifically a wedge in their relationship where usually he was the previous """"partner"""" of Kremy. Sometimes that's because Kremy *did* have a crush on him but ended up feeling less and less happy and more fearful, a lot of times it's just Garou abusing his power to get his rocks off like a fucking creep.

Now is this an incorrect interpretation? Not necessarily, we don't have much context surrounding their relationships. But, as much as i enjoy some of the fics that have this as a plot point, I don't actually like it that much as a concept.

What do I think their relationship was like? Well I think it comes down to two possibilities, judging by what I know of him;

1) Garou had him as a sort of protege, perhaps finding some sort of kinship with him as, while Kremy isn't a dragonborn, dragons are commonly associated with reptiles in a lot of cultures, and especially dnd. And even beyond that, he may have found his sly, conniving personality to be a good fit for his hoard.

Personally I find this compelling, I imagine he may have had many proteges, but helping Kremy become a warlock makes it seem like perhaps he could have been a favourite, or at least was good at his job.

Having little pawns do your dirty work so that you can overlook and sieze more control of your hoard it probably what drew him to the position he's in now anyway.

2) Remy Garou could not actually give less of a shit about Kremy.

This seems most likely to me. The debt was petty, yes, but most likely less personal than you'd think. A piece of his so precisely controlled possessions slipped away, like a button popping off your jacket. Of course he wants to sew it back on, make sure it never yearns to leave again, lest it ruin your immaculate appearance.

He'd do it to anyone else, if anybody else had escaped and lived to tell the tale. But it's just Kremy. Just business.

Now, for either of these possibilities, I can see an extra factor at play; Kremy having a crush on him. With the way he describes him, whether it's the power or just the fact that he has an obvious type, I *do* believe he may have had some sort of desire to be with him, an easily manipulated trait.

And, well, let's be real here, Kremy isn't subtle. If he did have a crush, Garou most certainly sniffed it out.

For the 1st option, he could have easily strung him along, not exactly acting romantic, but using the fact that he wanted to be with him against him. Garou had no interest at all, and if he didn't like actually have a child I'd say he was actively repulsed by the thought. But oh isn't it nice when a few compliments and nice smiles gets such an efficient worker to do almost anything?

And in the 2nd option, the above could have been true as well, but I also wanted to say that my brain immediately conjured an imagine of Kremy being head over heels and Garou being like "can you lock the fuck in right now please".

Now, overall, I think I'd characterize Garou as being just like Kremy, but with confidence based in actual immense power. Not only that, but where Kremy has *some* morals (mostly relating to his friends or being opposed to sending innocent people to their deaths for no reason), Garou has a code, but not morals. Awgé is his. The people in it are his. As long as they act nice and play along, well he's just a humble fisherman. If one were to disrupt his peace, by, say; running away, attempting to swindle him, attempting to kill him or attack his things, etc....well he's not obligated to stand there and take it now is he?

He is, essentially, what Kremy would be like if he truly got what he wanted, but even that is not the whole truth. Kremy could never be Garou because of his past, which he attempts to run away from, and his shaky but still present morals, which is also attempts to distance himself from. Garou is what Kremy wants to be and never can be, and that's a good thing.

Garou would not have befriended any of the Krew, unless for the purposes of improving Agwé. Garou wouldn't have started a fucking carnival of all things. He is an all powerful dragon warlock, who has a city under his thumb, and consistently lies about himself without fear of losing some sense of identity or loathing himself or hearing the call of the void because who fucking cares. I'm a dragon go fuck yourself.

And Kremy is just a little lizard nipping at his heels. And when pets are presenting undesirable traits, you train it out of them.

[billcyphersballsack]

Actually no joke I need to see more slay the monster (or whatever the reverse au is called) content.

I need to see the princesses perspectives translated into voices I need to hear how they think how they process. So much of (some of) the perspectives power comes from their control over their situations and I wanna know what they’d do with that partially taken away

I need to see the voices translated into perspectives I need to see how their forms are twisted and shaped by the princesses interactions with them.

I NEED to see how the narrator would respond to the shift. The entire reason the voice of the hero initially puts doubt in the player and hints that the narrators word might not be law is by pointing out the obvious tonal dissonance of a hero SLAYING a princess rather than SAVING her. But that doesn’t exist with slay the monster. The narrator wouldn’t need to work as hard to convince the player that they’re doing “the right thing” cuz it’s a monster! It’s chained up and dangerous and going to hurt a lot of people if you don’t kill it! The voice of the princess (my decided title for the VOT Hero in this au cuz obviously the actual Princess would be called the shifting mound the same way we’re the long quiet) would then have to take an angle of “we’re supposed to protect our subjects and our people. Monster or not, isn’t that what this creature is?” Which is still an appeal to the common trope as well as your morality. The narrator would play into your role as a princess like crazy going on about your duty to protect the world you rule over and to save innocent people who’s lives are in your hands, basically what he does to the long quiet but more

Mostly though I just think an inverse of their situations in the cabin would be fun. The chapter one princess is such an interesting character because she’s not the perfect victim. Her honey sweet voice and her doe eyes and her innocent scared demeanour aren’t necessarily fabricated just overplayed. She is genuinely scared, that’s the part that’s true, everything else is a desperate appeal to your humanity that you’ll let her go. It becomes somewhat real in the damsel rout when you free her and warn her and fight tooth and nail to save her, but for the most part it’s for show. If you come down there with a knife or decide mid convo you’re actually gonna kill her for real she drops it. She’s harsh and cold and keeps you at arms length, she acts bored and above it all when she speaks to you picking at her nails and glaring at you. GRANTED THAT COULD ALL BE WRONG! Maybe the harsh and cold personality is the fictitious one, a front built up to protect herself from danger, and really the frightened and desperate personality is the real one. MAYBE THEY’RE BOTH REAL! OR MAYBE THEY’RE BOTH MADE UP. It’s probably that last one but for the sake of my bit we’re going with the first one.

The point is the princess tries to appear put together and composed in both these versions of her personality, but deep down she’s like a caged wild animal and isn’t afraid to act like a caged wild animal if she has to

Now imagine the inverse of that, for The Monster

Outwardly a beast who smarls and claws at every surface trying to break free from its prison. If you bring the blade it slinks into the far corner of the room and hisses and spits while you trying and communicate with it but if you go unarmed it will lunge at you held back by its chains just barely. It’s frightening it’s threatening there is no attempt to appeal to any morality or present a domineering front to strong arm you into doing what it wants, it’s just pure violence and fear, a creature who wears its emotions on its sleeve. Depending on what you do it’s iterations become more or less beastly (I’d imagine guys like Stubborn or Broken or Hunted or Cold would get even more violent or reactive but guys like Paranoid or Opportunist or Cheated or Contrarian would have a more pensive and thoughtful approach, you can decide for the rest) but as you play and as you try and speak with it you discover actually there’s a lot more complex thought behind its eyes, and once the fear subsides there’s a person with throught and feelings hiding under all those feathers and teeth. Also not the perfect victim, they also bite the hand that feeds, but like a little to the left you know

Can you tell? Can you tell it’s like a worm digging into my frontal lobe and eating away at my brain? Huh? Can you tell???

[rookflower]

"everyone in mapleshade's vengeance (minus the kits and whatever other exceptions whatever person making this point opts to include) is a bad person" is a take that does indeed work to establish that yes, this is a story piloted by every party with any agency acting out of cruelty and hurting others, and is also an attempt at gesturing towards nuance (or at least, thinking outside of black and white morality. it is in itself a kinda inherently un-nuanced take) within the idea of good vs evil in the story. however where i believe the issue with the phrase lies is in the assertion that the reason why these characters are enacting violence on each other is because of some unique inherent nastiness they were born with or that were predisposed into their character writing rather than addressing that their flaws (while still horrible) are specifically systemically driven.

before she kills ravenwing, mapleshade commits no crime that is worth the persecution she faces, and her mistakes are in fear of facing what she inevitably does. she does not obfuscate information about her childrens' parentage or take them into that river out of malice or uncaring, she does it because she lives in a society that will exile her children in a storm once it finds out that they are illegitimate, and see that she leaves. the birchface thing likely exacerbated her punishment, sure, but she still had no safety net. if it could happen under that circumstance it could happen under any, and that is the tragedy of it. (the bridge-she-couldve-crossed thing is clearly not something the authors remembered or considered so is kind of textually irrelevant)

likewise, frecklewish does not display some unique inherent xenophobia to herself that we don't also see across the timeline from dotc to present, that even characters the writers intend as sympathetic like crowfeather and gray wing will display. this doesn't whatsoever absolve her of culpability, cruelty is cruelty regardless of the source, but it isn't her that is the source of her own hatred, it is the clan system, and her own grief that is amplifying it. "frecklewish wasn't sent to the dark forest for the river thing, it was because she yelled at the kids" is a funny take because yeah to us the readers her violent outburst is clearly her "wrong", but in-universe i really don't think starclan would care LMAO.

now, as with a lot of things in warrior cats that are deeper than the text on page i''m not sure the erins are necessarily consciously Trying to write the clan system as an inherently cruel, violent, and bigoted system- they might very well be throwing in antagonistic characters with the intent that their prejudices and toxic patriotism just form naturally and randomly like mutuations- but as i've said before i do find an interesting parallel between the series' necessity to maintain its status quo and flow of conflict for sake of marketability and series continuation, and the fact that the world in-universe has a code with xenophobia baked into its laws and consistently writes conflicts about the cruelty of the warrior code without ever being able to take steps to major to address and remedy the flaws that lead to this conflict lest it Paint The Clans As The Bad Guys or force them to step too far away from their tried and true formula, so the cycle continues. i think that's the tragedy of mapleshade's vengeance to me- it's a story that occurs because of some pointless interclan war about rocks or whatever else and everything that occurs to mapleshade is done to her by cogs and/or perpatrators of this machine that values compliance and order and clan isolationism. she's a minorly selfish and oblivious person, she isn't born evil. the people that hurt her aren't conniving supervillains, they're just people with the capacity for cruelty given the motivation and the chance. and that's worse, in a way, because they come out on the right side of history and like a dozen generations later squirrelflight and leafpool are going to get put on a trial to go to hell for the same crime that got her exiled, because the system is fucked and the system hasn't changed.

[nateconnolly]

What Does the Lion Turtle Chant Mean?

A podcast episode about the spirituality of Avatar: The Last Airbender.

Transcript Preview:

Many people have told me they struggle to take Sozin’s Comet seriously because they would have killed the Fire Lord without hesitation. And, look, as far as I’m concerned — if you’re willing to kill a genocidal colonizer, good for you! Many blessings upon your journey! And the show isn’t trying to dissuade you. 

Aang is not the only voice of wisdom in Avatar. He’s not a puppet through which the text articulates its meaning. Avatar is about cultural exchange. When one character says what they think is true, that isn’t necessarily the moral of a story. That’s one voice, and the story is a conversation. So, I don’t think that Sozin’s Comet is using Aang to say “Hey, you, you, looking at the TV, you personally should never support violent revolution!” Water Tribe culture doesn’t seem to have any problem with killing on the battlefield. 

When Sokka lops off the Melon Lord’s head, there’s some very clear indications that we’re supposed to be troubled. The musical cue, Momo eating the melon, he lingering focus on Aang’s reaction … But I don’t think this scene is meant to communicate that Sokka is a bad guy. Or that soldiers are inherently bad people. I assume that Hakoda, Bato, and Tyro killed people. These figures are portrayed as admirable, and even as mentors. 

The scene in which Sokka kills the Melon Lord is there to illustrate the difference between Southern Water Tribe culture and Air Nomad culture. Sokka’s journey is about embracing and reclaiming all the parts of his culture that the Fire Nation tried to destroy. He wasn’t able to go ice dodging or to train as a wolf warrior, but he has found a way to become a strong, protective man anyways. And that does mean that he’s willing to kill or die for a cause he believes in. This scene doesn’t communicate that Sokka is a bad person. It communicates that Sokka is walking his own path, and that Aang is walking a different path. But the show doesn’t try to tell you one of them is wrong and the other is right. 

At the same time, I think we need to remember that Aang is saying something he believes. It’s not just an emotional problem for him. 

Aang gives multiple related, but different reasons not to kill the Fire Lord.

“I didn’t feel like myself.” 

The Fire Lord “is still a human being.”

Killing goes against “everything the monks taught me.”

“All life is sacred.”

In Southern Raiders, he also makes a more general claim that “violence is never the answer,” but I think that the writers had to use the word “violence” as a euphemism. In our normal usage of the word, punching somebody would be a “violent” act. Aang clearly has no problem whacking people over the head or shooting wind at them. I think this is a way of making the show more kid friendly, and that what Aang actually means is 

“[Killing] is never the answer.”

Some of these claims are about Aang as an individual. He’s saying he doesn’t feel like he, specifically, can kill someone. That it goes against the values of his culture. And some of these are universal claims. He’s saying no one should kill, not ever. 

But he also believes in a separate ethical mandate. As the Avatar, he has to protect the world. In this lifetime, that means preventing the Fire Lord from burning the Earth Kingdom. 

This is a story about moral standards, and they seem impossible to live up to. There’s no easy answer. If you believe that murder is wrong, and you believe in the duties of the Avatar, then you have a conflict of values, not just emotions. In order to understand the Buddhist themes of Sozin’s Comet, we have to understand Buddhist ideas of morality. 

This podcast episode

Bluesky

⁠Substack

⁠Twitter

⁠Patreon

Nate's short story about Buddhism

Transcript with Citations

[siggiedraws]

i come to you about new official content once more... new changes to the character bios on sonic channel, i wanted to hear any thoughts you had on it

https://x.com/Sephys00/status/1904938734480404664

the most outstanding one to me is "shadow doesn't care about good or evil" which feels like is directly contradicted by his actions throughout the games, even in shadow gens. i feel like calling his methods unorthodox or sometimes antagonistic, but still caring about doing what he thinks is right would be a better way to describe this?? lmk if im wrong though

Oh, interesting! I feel a little out of my element here because I actually don't see anything wrong with this, so the animosity towards it on Twitter is a little shocking to me. I hope I can try to explain well why I don't see anything wrong with the sentiment of Shadow not being interested in good or evil. Shadow is a character who's very focused around character development and I'm aware he's not the same as he used to be so I'll avoid using evidence from games like SA2 and Shadow.

So, the way I'm interpreting this is that Shadow isn't interested in morality and what is seen as good or evil. When he acts, he doesn't care about whether it is considered a good or evil action. Shadow's bio brings up how Shadow is hard-headed and willing to do anything to achieve his goals, which plays into the "good and evil" bit. He will defy what is seen as moral or the right thing to do, with no boundaries on what isn't okay to do, and Forces actually has a good showcase of this in action. Shadow, with the goal of destroying Eggman's facility, kills the Jackal squad because they were hired by Eggman to defend the facility. Then, Shadow even makes a taunting remark after killing them. He doesn't feel any remorse for it. So, I think Shadow not caring about what is morally right makes sense. He's so determined in his goals that he will not compromise or pull any punches. They were in his way, so he killed them. Simple.

Shadow is amoral, yet he is also considered a hero because he does the right thing most of the time. Since we've established Shadow does what he wants to achieve his goals no matter the consequences, the reason why Shadow often does things seen as heroic is because his goals align mostly with the interests of those around him. As implied in his Wallpaper Cover Story and by Iizuka in this Anime Expo interview, Shadow's main goal is to protect the planet Maria loves. To elaborate on this, Shadow doesn't necessarily care about what happens to people. He doesn't care about helping others. He cares about the planet. When the planet is in danger, he will save it, which happens to also save people's lives. This may be what causes confusion about his morals, because he's often shown doing heroic actions that save other people, and the vagueness makes his morality hard to pin down.

(you can certainly make a case about how the word "justice" is unfitting for Sonic but the main point I want to focus on here is Shadow)

In Rivals 2, Shadow works with Eggman, which is an example of Shadow still aligning with evil after SA2/Shadow. Shadow explicitly teams up with Eggman because he is told that the world will be destroyed if he doesn't. If we established that Shadow's goal is to protect the planet, he will do anything to achieve his goal, and he is unconcerned with good and evil, then logic reasonably follows that he will align with someone seen as evil if he believes it will achieve his goal of protecting the planet.

In '06, Shadow doesn't care about the world seeing him as evil and persecuting him in the future. He will fight like he always has.

I can see where you're coming from with Shadow Gens and the narrative's focus on the dichotomy between light and dark, with Shadow being tempted by darkness (Black Doom) and ultimately turning to the light (Maria) at the end. Shadow's heroic actions and association with light can be seen as him caring about morality when I think that isn't necessarily the case with Shadow. Near the end of the game, Shadow reemphasizes that he is fighting for Maria's wish for everyone to have a chance to be happy, which fits in with his goal of protecting the planet, which is ultimately an action aligned with heroism and light. It is important to remember that Shadow does it not out of any moral sense of good or evil, more so that his goals happen to align with moral goodness. Maria's virtues have influenced the path Shadow has chosen to take in life, but Shadow isn't Maria. He will fight for Maria's wish via whatever means necessary.

I don't have as much confidence with talking about Shadow's character, but this is how I understand him to be. It's fascinating to consider his mind and way of thinking, and how that informs his actions! I also hope this explanation makes a little bit of sense. I'm more concerned with the "pure intensity" part of his character bio being removed, because I think that's a really good way to describe how Shadow acts and behaves. He's so uncompromising to the point of being dangerous, and I find it really interesting that it's described as "purity." Perhaps that includes being pure of any moral reservations.

Thanks for your ask!

[eggbedthewriter]

My ✨️official✨️ rant on Kipperlilly Copperkettle in relation to the bad kids and rat grinders:

WILDLY unpopular opinion, the bad kids/intrepid heroes were correct in leaving her dead, both narratively and morally.

OKAY hear me out PLEASE! I LOVE Kipperlilly's character. Imo, she's VERY well written and crafted. I also don't necessarily believe she's evil, or unfixable, or anything like that. I won't say she's a good person, because she isn't, but she's also not definitively a bad one. I actually got attatched to her too. So... why on earth would I think she should be left for dead? Well... there's a few reasons.

1. She is not trustworthy.

2. She isn't a good person, just a good character

3. It wouldn't make any sense story-telling-wise.

Let me elaborate:

1: Kipperlilly was SHOWN to be untrustworthy. She didn't have a rage star in her chest like the others. She chose to have the rune in her chest without the alternative literally being death. Every other rat grinder had a horrible, horrible choice to make; save your soul or your life. Lucy chose to save her soul, her essence, her innocence. In the words of (I think Ruben?) Lucy "stuck to her guns". The others chose to save their lives. To go back to loved ones, each other. I don't think either choice was wrong, really. These are kids who had never faced the possibility of death, and may have been the only ones in their grade to never do so. When confronted with it for the first time, it was a lose-lose. They didn't know what would happen when they came back, didn't know the extent of the rage stars or what they'd be made to do. Kipperlilly never had this choice to make. Don't worry, I'll address the fact that she was being manipulated by an adult. Kipperlilly was angry from the start. I'm almost positive that, with what the bad kids learned after stealing her file, she didn't always have that rune in her chest. She got it later in her time at Aguefort, evidenced by the fact that Brennan says there's a notable switch in what she's saying about the bad kids- "it's not fair" to "I hate them". Anger issues and jealousy OBVIOUSLY don't condemn someone to death, but that isn't all. She either murdered Lucy or let her get murdered. Lucy, her BEST FRIEND. Think about what could make you kill your best friend, because I'm willing to bet it's next to nothing. Even though she was being manipulated and groomed, she did kill Lucy/let her die for power.

TLDR P1: There's no evidence that Kipperlilly would be different had they resurrected her. With all that the bad kids have seen, they just can't risk that.

2: This is a BIG problem in I think every fandom: Kipperlilly is not a GOOD person, she's a COMPELLING one. She is not a morally good character, she's a deeply interesting one. I don't hate her, please don't get me wrong. And like I said, I don't think she's a bad person necessarily. But I do worry that a lot of the reason there's so much defense for her is that people like her and so they want to convince themselves she's perfect. No character is perfect, that would make them SO boring. Kipperlilly isn't perfect by ANY means. I don't want to make it sound like shes remorse-less either, because we don't know that. I'm sure she felt IMMENSE guilt for Lucy, but an apology or feeling awful about something like that doesn't change that you did it.

TLDR P2: A lot of things defending her may come from the fact that she's a compelling character, rather than a good person.

3: Okay, final part! Pretty much the reason I'm even making this post is to defend the bad kids/intrepid heroes, because some people think that they were cruel for not bringing her back. Here's the thing, narratively, it would've made zero sense for them to revive her. They seemed a bit loathe to even bring the others back, considering all they went through. Kipperlilly was not only more concious for what she was doing, but she also pretty much voluntarily did it. Heres the thing- she WAS technically manipulated and practically groomed by Porter, which is why I don't want to say she herself was evil. I agree that she was a kid being used. That doesn't mean everything she did is excuseable, though. Kipperlilly wasn't loyal to the one person (we know of) who cared about her. Not to mention she was literally jealous of the bad kids TRAUMA. She was a traumatized kid, sure, but... so were the bad kids. BY shit she did. My final point (promise 😭) is that it's cruel to blame the bad kids for not reviving her. She was trying to kill them, and just like in every other battle, they had to protect themselves and the world. What evidence did they have that she wasn't going to be evil when she was brought back? That she wouldn't do it all again? Buddy clearly is working with Kalina, do we REALLY think that Kipperlilly wouldn't too? Narratively, it wouldn't have been a satisfying ending. They brought the other rat grinders back because the rage stars would be gone. It was akward, sure, but they had reason to trust them. Could you imagine how it would've gone with Kipperlilly if they'd saved her? "Hey, I know you chose to work for evil... but you probably won't do it again!". Okay, I'm being so dramatic but you get my point 😭. I adore fan work (whether fanfic/fanart) where Kipperlilly IS good, where things are different and she's redeemable. This is NOT a post meant to hate on those works, because I love them and they're amazing!!! I just don't like when people call the bad kids evil for not bringing back someone who was responsible for a LOT of evil, and could likely cause a lot more. Imo, Kipperlilly being brought back just wouldn't have been a satisfying ending within the story we were given.

TLDR P3: Keep making fan works where Kipperlilly is good/saved!!! I love reading/viewing them, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with making them! I just think that in the story we're presented with, letting her remain dead was the kindest and most sensible ending.

I REALLY hope this doesn't come across as mean or passive aggressive, because I fucking adore this fandom (and honestly adore Kipperlilly too!). I'm so so sorry this ended up being so long ��. If anyone actually read the whole thing tysm! I'm really sorry if the conclusion I reached wasn't satisfying to you, and I'm always up for a (civil 😭) discussion about her!

[proxissima]

I originally didn't want to talk about the Mark/Cecil conflict in the new season, but going into the Cecil tag incited me enough to put in my own two cents.

First things first, I don't think Cecil was necessarily wrong for having a backup plan or using any resource available just to be able to have some sort of defence against an insurmountable alien power.

My issue is a different one.

I personally think the entire conflict felt extremely contrived as it had been presented in the story.

You're telling me that the man who has a backup plan to a backup plan, has seen through Omni-Man's lies in their first meeting (though the reveal of Nolan turning out to having been such an incompetent liar is another complaint I have with this season), has been manipulating/deceiving Debbie, Mark, basically all of the guardians for years, would be dumb enough to outright attack Mark in front of EVERYONE - which also was completely out of the blue from the guardians' POV - and expect them to remain on his side??

Cecil's more than proven himself to be a capable strategist in the past and you seriously want to tell me that he couldn't have thought to appease Mark's doubts and just de-escalate the whole situation instead of springing all that "you're scaring me, so by the way, here are all the methods I've concocted behind your back to hurt/kill you" on Mark?

This was the same guy who went to face Omni-Man directly just to buy time and he was a hairs-breadth away from getting turned into paste, but now he lost his nerves immediately and thought that was the ideal moment to demonstrate to Mark just how little he trusts him?

Mark had simply been upset at the revelation that two ex-criminals were working for Cecil and wanted to confront him about it, but that was just a hero's outrage over grey morals. I'd still argue that that was nothing that couldn't have been smoothed over ultimately (not that there wouldn't be any negative consequences for the relationship between them in the long run), but this Cecil saw an insect and decided that nuking the entire town was a perfectly proportional response.

You can't tell me he had no clue about Mark's character because 1) he was witness to how Mark reacted to his father's rampage, 2) he'd continuously kept tabs on his entire family, friends & love interests via observation AND via the nanny. From all those terabytes of data, any basic AI would've told Cecil that Mark wouldn't suddenly go rogue and murder Cecil on the spot because he was a little angry in that moment.

It would've made somewhat more sense if Cecil had attacked Mark because he genuinely wanted to be rid of the potential threat Mark as a Viltrumite posed (which would, overall, still be incredibly fucking stupid in the given circumstances) and then actually go through with it from start to finish, no half measures garbage.

But instead, this Cecil - while he was sicking the Reanimen on Mark and ADDITIONALLY dropping the bomb on him that he'd had a self-destruct button implanted into Mark's brain against the latter's will or knowledge - for some ungodly reason was STILL acting like Mark was being the drama queen here and expected Mark to be open to dialogue at that point. And after all of this, Cecil was somehow surprised when Mark refused to listen and was defending himself because he was fearing for his life.

Not to mention that Cecil provoked Mark to flee to the guardians, where Cecil, entirely unprompted, continued to escalate, all in front of the gathered team, who had had no clue about the nature of the Reanimen and had previously clearly been willing to give Cecil the benefit of the doubt OVER Mark. The team had also been completely uninvolved in the conflict between them, which meant that Cecil, had he not attacked Mark first, still possibly could've spun the story like Mark was actually the one in the wrong, when they did get involved. (I'm gonna say that it undoubtedly would've been difficult since Cecil had already told Mark about the bomb prior, so atp the split up might've still happened in the end, albeit without the actual fight)

I'd argue legit none of this would've happened, however, had Cecil only turned his brain on, played his cards right and, most importantly, KEPT HIS MOUTH SHUT ABOUT THE COUNTERMEASURES. At the worst, Mark might've left the group, but Cecil could've just told the guardians about Sinclair and Darkwing, and they most likely would've seen reason, shrugged, and continued working for Cecil. They only split up, after all, when the question of Cecil only viewing them as weapons to be used and discarded at will came up, which, again, would never have happened had Cecil just not told Mark shit about plans B & C.

Tl;dr so yeah, my issue isn't about Mark or Cecil being right or wrong, it's about Cecil being a fucking dumbass who revealed all his trump cards in a mustache-twirling villain fashion for no reason at all. This felt like a weak-point to the story itself, because Cecil's decisions were just mind-bogglingly stupid and uncharacteristically reckless (OOC).

[sunshine-jesse]

Ashley Literally Did Nothing Wrong, Fuck You, Fight Me

Alt title: Ashley Graves: The most convenient scapegoat in the world

I'm going to espouse a take here that will no doubt be controversial, as you can tell by the title. This is a take I've created from my hollistic understanding of the events of the game, and isn't dependent on any one single point I make in this essay. Because of that, I want you to read it with an open mind; if you hyperfocus on one or two smaller details I might've gotten wrong or are fallaciously interpretated, and either use that to discount the whole essay or go into the comment section and immediately try to debunk my interpretation of that event, that'll make it obvious to me that you're not trying to seriously engage with the core of what I'm trying to say. Because unless quite literally everything I've said here is wrong, I feel confident in saying this:

Ashley Graves did nothing wrong.

Moreover, I think Ashley is on the level of people like Rossiu, Shinji Ikari, and Skylar White as far as people who are mistreated by their fandoms goes.

At first this was going to be an essay about how I don't think the demons are evil, using textual and thematic evidence to show that they're just part of a system that deals mostly fairly with humans and doesn't have any nefarious plans, or at least nefarious plans that stand to fuck anyone over. But then I realized that, goodness gracious, that is boring as shit to write! But I looked at what I had written already and realized that I could write something else with it: something better. I could sum up a lot of the points made in my prior essays and elaborate upon them in much more detail, showing why I think certain themes are obviously present within this game. And here, I intend on doing that.

I've spoken a lot before about how Ashley is a scapegoat for all of Andrew's worst habits; and to a lesser extent, her mother's. The game makes it seemingly obvious that she's the bad one, and generally just a Very Not Good person. It shows her and her brother committing many different acts that are, under most moral systems, wrong, and implicitly implies that she's the reason that Andrew ever did those things. It implies that she's corrupting him, that he could be better and refuses- or is unable to- due to her poking and prodding. But… is that the truth? Is that how their relationship actually works, in practice? I don't believe so. I think I've made it obvious by now that I believe the exact opposite!

I'm going to start off by tackling the morality behind their actions, especially relative to the world they're in. Specifically, I'm going to tackle how the game presents the morality of their actions from a thematic point of view, and any statements it may or may not make.

First of all, TCOAL plays with a lot of different taboos- demon summoning, cannibalism, incest, murder- but the game goes through great lengths to muddy the moral weight of the siblings' actions. Every single action they commit is portrayed in the most neutral possible light- killings were done in self defense (with one notable exception), or done to people who greatly wronged them, cannibalism was a necessity to survive (also with one notable exception), incest is shown to come from a marked improvement in their relationship- leading me to believe that this game is taking a hard morally nihilistic stance. Else, they'd be shown to suffer for their actions, when in reality, the literal exact opposite is happening; they are being rewarded for it. This isn't necessarily glorifying the actions, but instead showing that even the worst of actions can potentially be excused, but whether or not you do is up to the reader. Hence, nihilism, or at the very least, skepticism (as noted by Lisafication). There's an existentialist reading of this too, but I think much of that is contingent on the events of chapter 3 so I won't get into that here.

It contrasts this mostly nihilistic perspective on interpersonal taboos with the deep societal ills that drive people to commit such actions. Evil exists at every level of analysis here, but curiously, the only thing that are shown to do direct harm to others without having a justification of some kind- be it self-defense or retaliation- are those societal ills. There is no (morally) good reason to quarantine people, starve them, and harvest their organs. There's no good reason to burn all evidence and then put a hit on the ones who did escape. There's no good reason to extort sexual favors from someone in exchange for food. These are deep structural problems that force people to either retaliate/lash out or enable people's most exploitative or abusive habits lest they just let themselves die.

And thus, the obvious evils become much less obvious. The game makes a point of subverting the obvious or the well-known when it comes to morals, and I think it does so when it comes to everything else, too. Outside of those societal ills (so far, ch3 might have something else to say), every situation where someone could obviously be shown as the bad person in a situation is immensely more complex than it first appears. So much so that I'd argue that displaying said complexity and subverting simplicity to force/encourage people to analyze things deeper is one of the central themes of the game.

So why, exactly, does he blame so much on her? It's because Ashley is the world's most convenient scapegoat, and the game is well-aware of this and displays it in ways both obvious and not.

First off: the title screen has Ashley wielding the cleaver, establishing that she’s the violent one. It's covered in blood, too, implying that she's the one more driven to kill. The reality of this is the opposite; Andrew is the one with less hesitation to inflict violence on others, the cleaver is his weapon, and most of the kills in the story are done by him (and fully justified). Ashley might push him to do these violent acts, but… does she?

Her reaction to the death of the first warden is one of utter shock.

And her expression afterwards?

This is not the look of someone who enjoyed the fact that someone killed for her sake. This is not the look of someone who finds joy to be had in violence. It's not even the look of someone who is apathetic towards violence. It almost seems to express shame or guilt, but at the very least, she's timid over it. At the very least, it's an "oh shit, he actually had to do that for my sake" face. Not a "haha, I am making him worse!" face.

Not to mention, not only does Andrew kill the first Warden without a care in the world, he proactively kills the 302 lady to eliminate all witnesses, and because he believes Ashley would want him to. But Ashley actually grills him for it; she didn't want the 302 lady to die, although she hardly had good-person-reasons for it. But that's not my point. The point is that she is not the violent one between the two of them.

The door doesn't open in response to violence, remember?

The game intentionally misleads us.

And what happens when Ashley tries to make him take responsibility for all this violence? To point out that she didn't force him to do anything and that he chose to do all of it, including lock Nina in the box? She lashes out, hits him a few times… and then he goes to strangle her, and doesn't let go until she acknowledges that he has no reason for her to be around. He literally doesn't cease his threat to her life until she acknowledges she's useless to him.

I acknowledge that this isn't the most charitable framing for Andrew, and maybe too charitable for Ashley. After all, she wasn't indignant. She was mocking him. She found it hilarious. But I have reasons for that charitability that I'll go over towards the end. But even with that charitability in mind, I don't think my reading is too off base. Defaulting to laughter or mocking in stressful situations is just what Ashley does. She's not indignant about it; she just finds it hilarious that people keep pretending to be better than her, when they're not.

Andrew killed the 302 lady and used Ashley as a scapegoat to justify it; this is indisputable, stated in the text during the dream. This alone validates Ashley's point of view. There is no interpretation of this event that doesn't paint Andrew as every bit as unscrupulous as Ashley, and thinking she corrupted him into this- when it was both one of the first actions he did on his own in the story and something he explicitly uses Ashley as a scapegoat for- is just ridiculous. It's frankly unreasonable. She has every right to be sick of being used as a scapegoat. And at the very least, whether or not you accept the idea that Andrew only let Ashley go once she acknowledged that she's useless to him, he's still so taken aback by his misinterpretation of Ashley's desires that HE goes to strangle HER.

This is NOT Andrew triumphantly standing up to his abuser. This is both of their masks slipping; Andrew revealing how violent and insistent on keeping up his internal narrative that he is, and Ashley revealing that she's getting tired of being blamed for everything.

And then, when he finally lets her go… she hugs him, and acknowledges that she's happy that Nina is gone, which makes little sense at the face of it. Why would that be her first response to being let go, when it was ostensibly what made Andrew so upset to begin with?

I think, to her, it's a conciliatory gesture. As chapter 2 showed us, she's more than willing to take responsibility for violence to relieve Andrew of stress over it, as evidenced by her finishing off their parents. This is an earlier instance of that; by acknowledging she was happy that Nina was dead, she took responsibility for it. She willingly framed herself as a bad person here, so Andrew wouldn't have to be.

She let herself be the scapegoat, because it's all she ever knew. She put the mask back on.

This alone is enough to challenge the idea that Ashley 'corrupts' Andrew in any meaningful way. How, exactly, can you define it as corrupt when society itself is twisted enough to force these actions to survive? In a more sane world, a lot of their actions would've been bad, sure, but they're also actions that the siblings probably wouldn't have done in a more sane world. Ashley's actions aren't making Andrew worse, they're helping to ensure their survival. You could say that this is still corruptive in its own way, but at that point it seems like your reasoning is motivated by having already had that narrative rather than making a good-faith reading of their dynamic.

At no point did she actually make him worse; he was already like that and just used her as an excuse.

Next up is the Nina situation. This one is obviously cut and dry- Ashley manipulates Andrew into killing Nina because she wants no competition between the two of them. It's not Andrew's fault and Ashley was an evil abuser from the jump. Obvious, right?

No. It's really not.

It's pretty strongly implied that Ashley was mistreated by people her whole life. The Lemon Cupcake scene shows this in more detail, about how people always neglect or ignore her birthdays, but she also says that nobody likes her because she's weird and loud in the Nina flashback too. But unless something big happened in between the two flashbacks, none of this behavior indicates particularly maladaptive or even strange tendencies on Ashley's part. She's a needy, bratty child, and the closest thing to a friend she has- Nina- wants to take away the one thing from her that's a source of comfort and emotional validation.

It's not entirely rational, sure! But it also -makes perfect sense-. NOBODY treated her well throughout her entire life; it's strongly implied that Nina never did either, given Nina's reaction to Ashley being there and the lower left-hand painting past the Questionable door showing her being distant from the two of them. We can also see a star bouncing off of her head, and stars represent closeness in this game, so it shows there was an attempt made somewhere along the line, it's just not clear as to who made the attempt.

At the very least, Nina's reaction of disappointment fed into Ashley's preconceived notions of how people treat her, and how she deserves to be treated. Although, from what has been directly stated, rather than implied, Nina was nothing more than an innocent victim in this scenario; I don't mean to take that away from her.

"But she didn't care when Nina died?"

So? If Nina treated her like trash for most of her life, why should she care? She didn't expect Nina to die. It was just an acceptable consequence. You can say "That's not how normal kids act!" all you want, but there's a level of spite and apathy that comes with intense bullying and emotional neglect that I don't think you really understand unless you've been there to the extent someone like Ashley has implied to be.

Andrew, meanwhile, was the one who told Ashley that they had to lock Nina in the box to keep them in there. He's the one who looked for and found the stick to keep them locked in. You could say he was coerced by an abusive person into hurting someone, sure, but you'd be wrong. Cataclysmically wrong, even. Like, if you actually think that a seven year old girl (nobody wears overalls past the age of seven) can have anything approximating an abusive dynamic with her as the perpetrator with someone both older and stronger than her, you frankly have some issues with women you need to work out. That's simply not how abuse dynamics work at that age.

Andrew wasn't entirely responsible for it either, mind- he was just a kid who should never have been saddled with this kind of responsibility. But that's not my point; the point is that it enables other people, Andrew included, to use her as a scapegoat to avoid his own responsibility. All this scene does is retroactively justify any preconceptions you might've had about them from seeing their adult selves first. But the moment you start digging, it becomes much less obvious who's really culpable here. Andrew was, as evidenced by the blood oath scene, fully aware that he held the advantage over her in strength, and managed to give up nothing when making the oath while he made Ashley swear to silence. He was fully aware that he could've chosen to do better, but he refused, and instead opted to reinforce Ashley's insecurities for the sake of exerting control over her.

I've said before that the 302 lady was murdered without any input from Ashley, but this is also relevant on a meta-level because it's done without any input from the player, either. Both of the murders in chapter 1 were like that, whereas all that we, the player can choose to do in that chapter is either solve puzzles, or hilariously, die. The only person with control here is Andrew, the character, and this is reinforced by the fact that we have no control over him for much of the Nina flashback, too. He locks her in the box regardless of our input, even though Ashley spends a lot of time trying to convince him. The main difference between the Nina flashback and the scenes in the apartment is that Ashley had absolutely no idea that any of that was going to happen in the present, whereas it's something she wanted with Nina- which isn't that big of a difference when discussing how much agency she really has.

As much as the game frames Ashley as a manipulator- and much of the fanbase uncritically accepts- she is given shockingly little in-game control over many of the actions committed. Even in the case of the Hitman- as a good friend of mine pointed out- the only choice the player is given is whether or not to check the closet and be killed; an impulsive decision leading to a swift and unceremonious end. In the end, Andrew is the one given the choice to kill the hitman, and we can consciously choose whether or not his reaction is panicked or measured. No such choice is given to Ashley, as most of her reactions are impulsive and spontaneous rather than planned. This is not the makings of a standard "manipulative evil bitch" trope. She's pretty consistently portrayed as someone with poor impulse and emotional control who loudly and aggressively states her intent in every single scenario she's in.

And you can still call what she says and does manipulative despite that, sure, but at what point are you just pathologizing relatively normal (if extreme and highly emotional) social interactions for the sake of fitting into a narrative you already held?

We see Ashley's status as a scapegoat for people to use to pretend to be normal reach its most blatant with the parents. This time it's pretty cut and dry to anyone that doesn't already have it in their mind that Ashley is evil and unforgivable. Mrs. Graves explicitly brings up the possibility of a normal life without Ashley to Andrew in the basement, and claims that Ashley was at fault for shutting her out. She would've been a normal parent otherwise, right? Well, no; the game wastes no time in showing that this wasn't the case in the Burial ending.

From when Ashley was a baby, Mrs. Graves was already tired of her shit, and too emotionally exhausted to be a parent. Despite her attempts at blaming Ashley, she would've never been a normal parent unless Ashley was a golden child in the same way that Andrew was. And yet Ashley didn't even deny shutting her mom out. She didn't deny the chance to be used as a scapegoat; it was all she ever knew. The fact that Mrs. Graves had the audacity to claim that she was a saint when she was never prepared to be a parent for a child who didn't make it easy, and when she was willing to sell out her children and let them die for a life insurance payment is absolutely astounding.

This alone should've been enough to recontextualize everything we supposedly know about how responsible Ashley really is in all of this, but bad parents have a knack for being great at manipulating both family members and everyone viewing from the outside, including the people playing the game.

And almost including Andrew.

Andrew almost accepting the mom's offer is the single most tragic moment in the game, by far.

Dandy said it best in his video essay: By Ashley leaving Andrew alone with their parents, she showed that she is capable of changing. That she is capable of getting better. She showed that she loves and respects Andrew enough to be able to put aside her usual role as the scapegoat and allow him to make the decision that was for the best for both of them. And make no mistake, it was for the best; if the mom really DID sell out the siblings, and given the two of them were already on the run for supposedly being dead, there was no hope of any of this ever working out. They saw through the conspiracy and knew the truth of how the quarantine operations really worked. They were an active threat to one of the most powerful entities seen in the setting so far, to the point where they had a hitman sent after them.

Mrs. Graves had every reason to sell them out again, for their presence in a public setting was more than enough to put everyone in their family in danger. Mrs. Graves had every reason to believe that the normalcy she wanted was nothing that could ever be grasped again so long as her children were alive, and as such, it was clear that she had nothing to offer either Andrew or Ashley. Ashley trusted Andrew to see through their obvious manipulations and lies, and understand that the parents had nothing left to give them. She trusted him to love her more than the false promises their parents could give.

…And yet. In spite of it all.

In spite of her love, in spite of clearly displaying that she can grow up and become a person that causes him less stress, and in spite of Ashley showing that all she wants now is their safety and security…

Andrew can still choose to consider Ashley the problem. He can still choose to use her as the scapegoat he always has.

He can still choose to see her as the one thing that caused him to be this way, that stands in between him and normalcy, when she, not once, forced him to do anything.

Were he to accept Mrs. Graves' offer, this would've been the single most tragic moment in the game. It almost was, and still stands to be, because he ignores every indication that things could be better for the sake of his own narrative, and a narrative echoed by much of the fandom.

But no matter what ending was picked, things could be better. They could've been better all along. Compared to chapter 1, their dynamic in chapter 2 is already much healthier. Their banter is less venomous, and while they still poke and prod each other in ways that aren't exactly great, they don't get into the same violent fights we saw in the 302 room. By all accounts, what happened in that room was an outlier. Even when they find themselves in their parents' house, where they stand to do the One Thing That Means They Would Never Be Normal Again, Ever (ignoring the fact that this is already a lost cause by then), Ashley doesn't get into any fights with Andrew in the same way she did back in the apartment. All she wants is affirmation and security. She doesn't even lay into her mom like she lays into Julia over the phone, even in their private conversations.

We’re led to believe that she’s still getting worse because the actions she’s taking are more extreme, but her attitudes and behaviors are much, much different. The actual actions they're taking are so obviously the right thing to do (both morally and practically) that I don't think it's until they eat their parents that you should make a double take and go "Wow, maybe these goblins actually are kinda fucked up," because until then, well… everything is justified! Perfectly so! Even then, eating their parents serves a purpose, even if not a mentally healthy one.

Maybe she’s calmer because she’s in control over the situation, but if the calls she made to Julia are any indication (independent of the theory that she didn’t actually say those things), were she unchanged as a person, she still would’ve lashed out at their mother over how much more useful she is to Andrew than their parents were, or something of that nature. Something about how nothing their mom offers could compete with what Ashley gives. But she makes no such claims. She feels no need to prove anything to her parents, or to reaffirm her place in Andrew’s life even in the face of her mother challenging it (or at least implying such a challenge). Regardless of her insecurities, she’s changed. It’s hard to see, but she has.

And then Andrew can ignore that and consider betraying her because he refuses to believe that she's willing to make their dynamic work, when she shows many different indications of being willing to concede as long as Andrew stops giving her mixed signals.

A friend of mine put it best, and I'm pretty much quoting her word for word here, because of how strongly I agree with it. When I look at Ashley, I find very few actual "flaws." I see familiar wounds.

The Burial ending, despite being triumphant and not nearly as "dark" as some people think, is still very, very sad. A lot of abusive dynamics are characterized by someone having to fight every step of the way to get what they need from the other person, usually some kind of emotional validation or relief. This is what happens between Andrew and Ashley for most of the game: Ashley wants Andrew to treat their relationship as special, to acknowledge there's something to it beyond just him going through the motions. And yet for most of the game, he refuses to, especially in chapter 1. And then, in Burial, when he does…

She's confused.

A lot of people view this as her being afraid of losing control over Andrew, since her "Andy," who she can push around, is gone. Andrew has changed, and the same tricks wouldn't work. But that's not what that is; it's not about control, it's about her finally getting what she wants from him without having to fight. She still thinks about using sex as leverage to keep him around, but that's because she's never understood what it's like to have someone actually want to be around her. And I speak from experience; when you no longer have to fight for every little bit of emotional validation or relief, when you no longer have to keep checking your messages to keep an argument going so you can finally be proven right, when you no longer have to force yourself to let go, to stop engaging, the reaction isn't happiness. It's not relief.

It's confusion. It's discontent.

Because something you've tied so much of yourself up in to is no longer there, despite it being more peaceful, it still feels wrong. The dynamic still has to be this way in your mind, because you've never known anything else. You latch on to whatever you can in order to justify that, and your actions are still heavily biased in favor of maintaining your place in that nonexistent dynamic. This isn't manipulation; it's trauma. And the fact that Ashley almost immediately understands that Andrew is changing is nothing short of a miracle. By consolidating past and present Andrew into a single person rather than splitting them into two, she showing that she can actually heal from that trauma. And all Andrew had to do to enable this is to acknowledge that she CAN change, that things CAN be better, and that everyone who claims to be better than her is full of shit.

I've analyzed the events of the story in a way that may seem needlessly antagonistic to some characters, and overly charitable to others. But I have to ask you, that if you disagree with anything I've said:

Where does that disagreement come from? What about my narrative clashes with your own? -Why- does it clash? Is it because the game presents your interpretation as obvious, whereas mine is not? Is it because you've experienced someone like Ashley before in your life, and you know it when you see it? Maybe you strongly identify with Andrew, and view his status as a doormat with no agency to be obvious? Or did you just accept the narrative that much of the fanbase has taken at face value, without further analysis other than building on top of it?

I don't believe these things to be contrarian; I've held most of these opinions since my first or second playthrough. I don't believe what I do because you don't, I believe what I do because I understand what Ashley has been through. I've experienced a lot of the specific traumas she had, such as deep feelings of isolation and being deprived of the emotional validation I need from the people who need to give it. I know what it's like to be misunderstood, to have who and what I am taken for granted, and to be terrified of being abandoned by the people I need the most. I see what I do because I understand.

And I want to give her that understanding that nobody gave me.

Maybe you should think about it. Why do you take it for granted that Andrew is a doormat who is strung along by Ashley? Why do you find it so odd when the trope of a woman corrupting a good man through leveraging sex is drawn into question? Why is Ashley seen as crazy, when all of her actions are so straightforward and rational? How is she corrupting him, when the single most needlessly violent act in the whole story- outside of the Nina flashback- is done without her influence? Why is Ashley seen as the abusive one when Andrew both threatens and resorts to physical violence and witholds emotional validation?

Weirdly personal tangent aside, Ashley and Andrew are two of the most well-written characters I have ever seen. They're not written like archetypes who interact with each other through a series of tropes; they're written like real people who's words and actions have astoundingly human motivations. They come from places that we can understand and relate to.

And just like people, they deserve respect. In spite of all they've done, they deserve love.

But make no mistake, Ashley is not the one stopping that love from happening. She just has the audacity to still want it in spite of everything telling her that she doesn't deserve it. We're led to believe she wants too much, but all she ever wanted was the bare minimum that she was never given.

And she has every right to be mad about it.