#Coding Challenges | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

jesuistrestriste · 1 year ago

Text

*NSFW drabble/thirst*

cw (18+): sub!art donaldson, sub!patrick zweig, gn dom!reader, dry humping (basically frottage), begging, orgasm denial/orgasm control, praise, desperation*, patrick is yearning, bossing the boys around + talking them through it <3

i can’t stop thinking about gently easing art donaldson and patrick zweig into submissive headspaces and then, as soon as they’re anticipating (needing) your touch, you tell them that the only way that they’re gonna be allowed to get relief is if they grind against each other <3

and the last thing they want to do is disappoint you, so they do it. and they love it.

art is whining and letting out pathetic moans as he bucks his hips up against patrick on top of him, wanting so desperately to get him as close as he is.

and patrick is moaning and trembling with pinched-up brows as he rocks down against art’s body and tries to chase a high that’s so close but just out of reach (the fabric of both of their boxers between them is too much to be able to feel everything properly!)

so you just look down at them and smile sweetly.

“Art, you seem like you’re closer than Patrick is.. is this true?” you whisper lowly.

“P-Probably.. oh god.. i’m so—i’m really close,” he squirms, “please, i’m so close…!”

You move your gaze to Patrick.

“you think Art is closer than you are right now?” you say to the brunette.

“yeah,” he pants, “y-yeah, he’s closer.. but i’m nearly there too.. just a little more..”

You shift your gaze back to Art’s and run a hand through his mess of blonde curls.

“Art, why don’t you go ahead and get Patrick there first, ok?” you speak firmly but gently.

“okay, i will,” he moans, “ill get him there first—“

He aggressively starts to smush his pelvis rhythmically up against patrick’s, his body writhing on the bedsheets below as he secretly begs for patrick to be ready to cum soon so he can stop feeling the hot ache that’s spreading all over..

“good boy. don’t cum until Patrick is cumming too.”

art nods.

patrick keens.

you chuckle and move to slide your hand from art’s hair to gently caress the length of patrick's back. art's back arches up from the mattress, and you shift your gaze back and forth between the two young men as patrick furiously meets art’s movements with his own.

“feel how desperate Art is to get you as close as he is? how desperate he is to finish with you?” you whisper.

patrick swallows thickly and nods, his eyes squeezed shut as the pleasurable warmth of his oncoming release starts to prickle in..

“i can feel it.. god, i wanna cum so badly,” he whispers shakily.

“Are you there right now?”

patrick’s eyes open briefly so he can nod at you before they flutter shut again and his hips jolt down over art’s stuttering form.

“i’m so close.. i need more from Art..”

“tell him.”

“Push harder against me… Harder… I need more pressure… I need you more against me…” patrick babbles and breathes out desperately into the neck of his counterpart.

the obedient blonde nods frantically and instantly shifts to push even more of himself up against his best friend’s body.

“good boy for using your words, patrick.. and art, you’re doing so well too.. just a bit longer.. patrick is nearly there,” you say softly to the two in front of you

after a few short moments of this depraved, needy humping, patrick lets out a loud moan and bites down on his bottom lip.

“God, Art, please,” he whispers, so close to the edge now that he can barely keep himself held up on his forearms. his hands are absolutely shaking.

“did you hear Patrick?” you coo with a slight smirk.

art can do nothing but gasp for air as he nods for a moment or two.

“i’m pushing as hard as i can..” he gulps and whines, tears pricking at his eyes as he assumes that patrick is asking for more pressure and ferocity from him.

“i know, baby.. just ask Patrick if he’s ready to cum,” you guide him.

art murmurs out a whimpery “mhm” before he squeezes patrick’s biceps in his hands and looks up into his eyes.

“Hngh.. Are you ready to cum?” he asks quickly and eagerly, his voice tinged with lewd desperation.

“God, yes! Please! Ahh-!” patrick shouts.

the two tremble and sweat, their bare chests rubbing against one another's as they grind their bodies as hard and as fast as they possibly can. art is desperately pawing at patrick's back now, and patrick has both of his hands gripping the small of art's back as they both release a string of loud, needy moans. even though there are thin layers of fabric preventing the two men from feeling each other skin-to-skin, both of them are equally hyperaware of the sensation of their clothed erections sliding and slotting up against each other's. It's heaven. it’s better than heaven. and it's been a long time coming.

you lean back, just enough to make sure that you can get a good view, and then you give in and say the magic words that they’ve both been waiting to hear all night:

“go on, boys.. you can finish.”

art's eyes snap open, while patrick's squeeze shut, and you watch closely as art's baby blues roll all the way to the back of his head. his jaw slacks and his hips arch up and shudder harshly against his friend's.

"I'm cumm--! AH! ANGHH-!" the blonde cries out, cutting his own warning off with the sound of his pleasure as he spills a warm, heavy load into his boxer briefs, "cumming so hard--!"

patrick's abdomen involuntarily curls in over itself as he humps art's bucking body with the shaky anguish of a man in a desert who's just found his first source of water in two days. in other words, he needs this. he needs him.

"Fuck! Fu-uuck! I'm cumming -- AH-! Hah, haah--!" patrick sobs, his fingers digging into arts soft, toned flesh as the heat of his sticky release floods his boxer shorts, "Art!"

The involuntary calling-out of his best friend's name surprises not only both you and the best friend in question, but also patrick. he didn't mean to, but when he felt the warmth of art's release seep out and stick to his thighs, he couldn't hold it anymore.

you're completely entranced by the obedience and sheer obscenity of the two trembling bodies in front of you, so you're unsure if they've been cumming for two minutes or two hours, but it doesn't really matter. they're gorgeously good listeners, and even better submissives. you'd definitely play with them again, as long as they were up for it. and you knew they would be.

you watch as patrick collapses on top of art in a flushed, limp heap, holding him close as both of their bodies tremble and jerk softly every so often with the aftershocks of their orgasms.

they're both pleasantly surprised when they each feel one of your hands carding your fingers through their heads of hair. their eyes are closed, and they can hardly breathe as they pant, but they are aware of this act of kindness from you. they'll take anything you give them. both of them practically start to purr.

"Breathe, boys, breathe.." you whisper lowly, stroking a soft hand over each head of messy locks.

they do as they're told, trying their best to take deep, slow breaths in and out as the fuzziness in their brains starts to dissipate as the seconds go by.

"Felt good?"

art nods slowly but insistently, while patrick mumbles out a slurred confirmation.

"it felt amazing."

"God, it was really.. that was really good..." art sucks his bottom lip in between his teeth, his arms still limply draped over patrick's shoulders.

you nod, removing your touch from them to press a kiss to the nape of patrick's neck and then a kiss to art's forehead.

"I'm gonna take care of you guys now, ok?"

they nod and grunt softly, but make no attempt to sit up or pry themselves off of each other. this was going to be a long night.

notes; heyyy hehe. just wanted to write up a quick little drabble while i'm working on the two longer fics, and i NEEDED to get sub!art + sub!patrick out of my head. they were rotting in there. ps. srry this probs isn’t my best work, i started writing it at like 4 am last night lmao.

also i love writing orgasm denial and then making the reader just be like

dividers from: @benkeibear

1K notes · View notes

syrupjammies · 1 month ago

Text

[day 1: entertainment] they're watching rupaul's drag race. i genuinely believe rob would get a KICK out of drag race shows.

#agent stone #dr ivo robotnik #eggs and rocks #stobotnik #stobotnik week 2025 #my FAAAAVORITE hc i could possibly have for ivo is that he loves drag race shows.#in season 5 of rupaul's drag race #there was a telenovela challenge.... YEAHHHH that's insanely robotnik coded #stone doesnt understand the hype at all

377 notes · View notes

quartzslab · 27 days ago

Text

TROY DOESN'T LIKE HIS BIRTH NAME YALL KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS

#/joke #...unless???#charlie try not to play a trans coded character challenge IMPOSSIBLE #jrwi wonderlust #troy lougferd

191 notes · View notes

glitter-stained · 3 months ago

Text

Damasio, The Trolley Problem and Batman: Under the Hood

Okay so @bestangelofall asked me to elaborate on what I meant by "Damasio's theories on emotions in moral decision-making add another level of depth to the analysis of UTH as a moral dilemma" and I thought this deserved its own post so let's talk about this.

So, idk where everyone is at here (philosophy was mandatory in highschool in my country but apparently that's not the case everywhere so i genuinely have no clue what's common knowledge here, i don't want to like state the obvious but also we should recap some stuff. Also if I'm mentioning a philosopher's or scientist's name without detailing, that means it's just a passing thought/recommendation if you want to read more on the topic.)

First thing first is I've seen said, about jason and the no killing rule, that "killing is always bad that's not up for debate". And I would like to say, that's factually untrue. Like, no matter which side of the debate you are on, there is very much a debate. Historically a big thing even. So if that's not something you're open to hear about, if you're convinced your position is the only correct one and even considering other options is wrong and/or a waste of time... I recommend stopping here, because this only going to make you upset, and you have better stuff to do with your life than getting upset over an essay. In any case please stay civil and remember that this post is not about me debating ethics with the whole bat-tumblr, it's me describing a debate other people have been voicing for a long time, explaining the position Damasio's neuropsychology and philosophy holds in this debate, and analyzing the ethics discussed in Batman: Under the Red Hood in that light. So while I might talk about my personal position in here (because I have an opinion in this debate), this isn't a philosophy post; this is a literature analysis that just so happens to exist within the context of a neuropsychological position on a philosophical debate. Do not try to convince me that my philosophy of ethics is wrong, because that's not the point, that's not what the post is about, I find it very frustrating and you will be blocked. I don't have the energy to defend my personal opinions against everybody who disagrees with me.

Now, let's start with Bruce. Bruce, in Under The Hood and wrt the no kill rule (not necessarily all of his ethics, i'm talking specifically about the no kill rule), is defending a deontological position. Deontology is a philosophy of ethics coined by christian🧷 18th century German philosopher Immanuel Kant. The philosophy of ethics asks this question: what does it mean to do a good action? And deontology answers "it means to do things following a set of principles". Basically Kant describes what are "absolute imperatives" which are rules that hold inherent moral values: some things are fundamentally wrong and others are bad. Batman's no-kill rule is thus a categorical imperative: "Though Shall not Kill"🧷, it is always wrong to kill. (Note that I am not saying Bruce is kantian just because he has a deontology: Kant explained the concept of deontological ethics, and then went up to theorize his own very specific and odd brand of deontology, which banned anything that if generalized would cause the collapse of society as well as, inexplicably, masturbation. Bruce is not Kantian, he's just, regarding the no kill rule, deontological. Batman is still allowed to wank, don't worry.)

In this debate, deontological ethics are often pit up against teleological ethics, the most famous group of which being consequentialism, the most famous of consequentialisms being utilitarism. As the name indicates, consequentialist theories posit that the intended consequences of your actions determine if those actions were good or not. Utilitarism claims that to do good, your actions should aim to maximise happiness for the most people possible. So Jason, when he says "one should kill the Joker to prevent the thousands of victims he is going to harm if one does not kill him", is holding a utilitarian position.

The debate between deontology and utilitarism has held many forms, some fantastical and some with more realistic approaches to real life like "say you're hiding from soldiers and you're holding a baby that's gonna start crying, alerting the soldiers and getting everyone in your hideout massacred. Do you muffle the baby, knowing it will suffocate and kill it?" or "say there's a plague going on and people are dying and the hospital does not have enough ventilators, do you take the one off of the comatose patient with under 0.01% chance of ever waking up to give it to another patient? What about 1%?", etc, etc. The most famous derivative of this dilemma, of course, being the infamous trolley problem.

This is what is meant when we say "the UTH confrontation is a trolley problem." The final confrontation at the warehouse is a variation, a derivative of the utilitarian dilemma that goes as follows: "if someone was trying to kill someone in front of you, and that murder would prevent the murder of thousands, should you try to stop that murder or let it happen?"

Now, here's a question: why are there so many derivatives of the trolley problem? Why do philosophers spend time pondering different versions of the same question instead of solving it?

My opinion (and the one of much, much smarter people whose name i forgot oops) is that both systems fail at giving us a satisfying, clean-cut reply. Now, most people have a clean-cut answer to the trolley problem as presented here: me personally, I lean more towards utilitarianism, and I found it logical to pull the lever. But altering the exact situation makes me change my answer, and there is very often a point where people, no matter their deontological or utilitarian velleities, change their answer. And that's interesting to examine.

So let's talk about deontology. Now my first gripe with deontology it's that it posits a set of rules as absolute and I find that often quite arbitrary. 🧷 Like, it feels a little like mathematical axioms, you know? We build a whole worldview on the assumption that these rules are inherently correct and the best configuration because it feels like it makes sense, and accidentally close our mind to the world of non-euclidian ethics. In practice, here are some situations in which a deontologist might change their mind: self-defense killing, for example, is often cited as "an exception to the rule", making that rule de facto non-universal; and disqualifying it as an absolute imperative. Strangely enough, people will often try to solve the trolley problem by deciding to kill themselves by jumping on the tracks 🧷 which is actually a utilitarian solution: whether you're pulling the lever or you're jumping on the tracks, you are choosing to kill one person to stop the people from being run over. Why does it matter if it's you or someone else you're killing? You're still killing someone. Another situation where people may change their answer would be, like "what if you needed to save your children but to do so you had to kill the ceo of united healthcare?" Note that these are only examples for killing, but the biggest issue is that deontology preaches actions are always either good or wrong, and the issue with that lack of nuance is best illustrated with the kantian problem regarding the morality of lying: let's say it's the holocaust and a family of jews is hiding in your house. Let's say a nazi knocks on your door and asks if there are people hiding in your house. You know if you tell the truth, the jews in your house will be deported. In that situation, is it morally correct to lie? Now, Kant lived before the Holocaust, but in his time there was a similar version of this problem that had been verbalised (this formulation is the best-known derivative of this problem btw, I didn't invent it) and Kant's answer, I kid you not, was still "no it is not morally acceptable to lie in that situation".

And of course, there are variations of that problem that play with the definition of killing- what defines the act of killing and can the other circumstances (like if there's a person you need to save) alter that definition? => Conclusion: there is a lot more nuance to moral actions than what a purely deontological frame claims, and pushing deontology to its limits leads to situations that would feel absurd to us.

Now let's take utilitarianism to its own limits. Say you live in a world where healthcare has never been better. Now say this system is so because there is a whole small caste of people who have been cloned and genetically optimized and conditioned since birth so that their organs could be harvested at any given moment to heal someone. Let's say this system is so performant it has optimised this world's humanity's general well-being and health, leading to an undeniable, unparalleled positive net-worth for humanity. Here's the question: is this world a utopia or a dystopia? Aka, is raising a caste of people as organ cattle morally acceptable in that situation? (Note: Because people's limits on utilitarianism vary greatly from one person to another, I chose the most extreme example I could remember, but of course there are far more nuanced ones. Again, I wasn't the one to come up with this example. If you're looking for examples of this in fiction, i think the limits of utilitarianism are explored pretty interestingly in the videogame The Last of Us).

=> Conclusion: there is a lot more nuance to moral actions than what a purely utilitarian frame claims, and pushing utilitarism to its limits leads to situations that would feel absurd to us.

This leads us back to Under the Hood. Now because UTH includes a scathing criticism of Batman's no kill rule deontology, but Jason is also presented as a villain in this one, my analysis of the whole comic is based on the confrontation between both of these philosophies and their failures, culminating in a trolley dilemma type situation. So this is why it makes sense to have Bruce get mad at Jason for killing Captain Nazi in self-defense: rejecting self-defense, even against nazis, is the logical absurd conclusion of deontology. Winick is simply taking Bruce's no-kill rule to the limit.

And that's part of what gets me about Jason killing goons (aside from the willis todd thing that should definitely have been addressed in such a plot point.) It's that it feels to me like Jason's philosophy is presented as wrong because it leads to unacceptable decisions, but killing goons is not the logical absurd conclusion of utilitarianism. It's a. a side-effect of Jason's plot against Bruce and/or, depending on how charitable you are to either Jason's intelligence or his morals, b. a miscalculation. Assuming Jason's actions in killing goons are a reflection of his moral code (which is already a great assumption, because people not following their own morals is actually the norm, we are not paragons of virtue), then this means that 1) he has calculated that those goons dying would induce an increase in general global human happiness and thus 2) based on this premise, he follows the utilitarian framework and thus believes it's moral to kill the goons. It's the association of (1) and (2) that leads to an absurd and blatantly immoral consequence, but since the premise (1) is a clear miscalculation, the fact that (1) & (2) leads to something wrong does not count as a valid criticism of (2): to put it differently, since the premise is wrong, the conclusion being wrong does not give me any additional info on the value of the reasoning. This is a little like saying "Since 1+ 3= 5 and 2+2=4, then 1+3+2+2 = 9". The conclusion is wrong, but because the first part (1+3=5) is false, the conclusion being wrong does not mean that the second part (2+2 =4) is wrong. So that's what frustrates me so much when people bring up Jason killing goons as a gotcha for criticizing his utilitarian philosophy, because it is not!! It looks like it from afar but it isn't, which is so frustrating because, as stated previously, there are indeed real limits to utilitarianism that could have been explored instead to truly level the moral playing field between Jason and Bruce.

Now that all of this is said and done, let's talk about what in utilitarianism and deontology makes them flawed and, you guessed it, talk some about neuropsychology (and how that leads to what's imo maybe the most interesting thing about the philosophy in Under the Hood.)

In Green Arrow (2001), in an arc also written by Judd Winick, Mia Dearden meets a tortured man who begs her to kill him to save Star City (which is being massacred), and she kills him, then starts to cry and begs Ollie for confirmation that this was the right thing to do. Does this make Mia a utilitarian? If so, then why did she doubt and cry? Is she instead a deontologist, who made a mistake?

In any case, the reason why Mia's decision was so difficult for her to make and live with, and the reason why all of these trolley-adjacent dilemmas are so hard, is pretty clear. Mia's actions were driven by fear and empathy. It's harder to tolerate sacrificing our own child to avoid killing, it's harder to decide to sacrifice a child than an adult, a world where people are raised to harvest their organs feels horrible because these are real humans we can have empathy towards and putting ourselves in their shoes is terrifying... So we have two "perfectly logical" rational systems toppled by our emotions. But which is wrong: should we try to shut down our empathy and emotions so as to always be righteous? Are they a parasite stopping us from being true moral beings?

Classically, we (at least in my culture in western civilization) have historically separated emotions from cognition (cognition being the domain of thought, reasoning, intelligence, etc.) Descartes, for example, was a philosopher who highlighted a dualist separation of emotion and rationality. For a long time this was the position in psychology, with even nowadays some people who think normal psychologists are for helping with emotions and neuropsychologists are for helping with cognition.(I will fight these people with a stick.) Anyway, that position was the predominant one in psychology up until Damasio (not the famous writer, the neuropsychologist) wrote a book named Descartes' Error. (A fundamental of neuropsychology and a classic that conjugates neurology, psychology and philosophy: what more could you ask for?)

Damasio's book's title speaks for itself: you cannot separate emotion from intelligence. For centuries we have considered emotions to be parasitic towards reasoning, (which even had implications on social themes and constructs through the centuries 📌): you're being emotional, you're letting emotions cloud your judgement, you're emotionally compromised, you're not thinking clearly... (Which is pretty pertinent to consider from the angle of A Death in the Family, because this is literally the reproach Bruce makes to Jason). Damasio based the book on the Damasio couple's (him and his wife) study of Phineas Gage, a very, very famous case of frontal syndrome (damage to the part of the brain just behind the forehead associated with executive functions issues, behavioural issues and emotional regulation). The couple's research on Gage lead Damasio, in his book, to this conclusion: emotions are as much of a part of reasoning and moral decision-making as "cold cognition" (non emotional functioning). Think of it differently: emotional intelligence is a skill. Emotions are tools. On an evolutionary level, it is good that we as people have this skill to try and figure out what others might think and do. That's useful. Of course, that doesn't mean that struggling with empathy makes you immoral, but we people who struggle with empathy have stories of moments where that issue has made us hurt someone's feelings on accident, and it made us sad, because we didn't want to hurt their feelings. On an evolutionary level (and this is where social Darwinism fundamentally fails) humanity has been able to evolve in group and in a transgenerational group (passing knowledge from our ancestors long after their death, belonging to a community spread over a time longer than our lifetime) thanks to social cognition (see Tomasello's position on the evolution of language for more detail on that), and emotions, and "emotional intelligence" is a fundamental part of how that great system works across the ages.

And that's what makes Batman: Under the Hood brilliant on that regard. If I have to make a hypothesis on the state of Winick's knowledge on that stuff, I would say I'm pretty sure he knew about the utilitarism vs deontology issue; much harder to say about the Damasio part, but whether he's well-read in neuropsychology classics or just followed a similar line of reasoning, this is a phenomenally fun framework to consider UTH under.

Because UTH, and Jason's character for the matter, refuse to disregard emotions. Bruce says "we mustn't let ourselves get clouded by our emotions" and Jason, says "maybe you should." I don't necessarily think he has an ethical philosophy framework for that, I still do believe he's a utilitarian, but he's very emotion-driven and struggling to understand a mindframe that doesn't give the same space to emotions in decision-making. And as such, Jason says "it should matter. If the emotion was there, if you loved me so much, then it should matter in your decision of whether or not to let the Joker die, that it wasn't just a random person that he killed, but that he killed your son."

And Bruce is very much doubling down on this mindset of "I must be stronger than my feelings". He is an emotionally repressed character. He says "You don't understand. I don't think you've ever understood", and it's true, Jason can't seem to understand Bruce's position, there's something very "if that person doesn't show love in my perspective and understanding of what love is then they do not love me" about his character that I really appreciate. But Bruce certainly doesn't understand either, because while Jason is constantly asking Bruce for an explanation, for a "why do you not see things the way I do" that could never satisfy him, Bruce doesn't necessarily try to see things the way Jason does. And that's logical, since Jason is a 16 years old having a mental breakdown, and Bruce is a grown man carrying on the mission he has devoted himself to for years, the foundation he has built his life over. He can't allow himself to doubt, and why would he? He's the adult, he's the hero, he is, honestly, a pretty stubborn and set-in-his-ways character. So, instead of rising to the demand of emotional decision-making, Bruce doubles down on trying to ignore his feelings. And Jason, and the story doesn't let him. Bludheaven explodes. This induces extremely intense feelings in Bruce (his son just got exploded), which Jason didn't allow him to deal with, to handle with action or do anything about; Jason says no you stay right there, with me, with those emotions you're living right now, and you're making a decision. And there's the fact Bruce had a mini-heart attack just before thinking Jason was dead again. And there's the fact he mourned Jason for so long, and Stephanie just died, and Tim, Cass and Oracle all left, and the Joker is right there, and Jason puts a gun in his hands (like the gun that killed his parents)... All of that makes it impossible for Bruce to disregard his emotions. The same way Jason, who was spilling utilitarian rhetoric the whole time, is suddenly not talking about the Joker's mass murder victims but about he himself. The same way Jason acts against his own morals in Lost Days by sparing the Joker so they can have this confrontation later. That's part of why it's so important to me that Jason is crying in that confrontation.

Bruce's action at the end of the story can be understood two ways:

-he decides to maim/kill Jason to stop the insupportable influx of emotions, and him turning around is his refusal to look at his decision (looking away as a symbol of shame): Bruce has lost, in so that he cannot escape the dilemma, he succumbs to his emotions and acts against his morals.

-the batarang slicing Jason's throat is an accident: he is trying to find a way out of the dilemma, a solution that lets him save his principles, but his emotions cloud his judgement (maybe his hand trembles? Maybe his vision is blurry?). In any case, he kills his son, and it being an accident doesn't absolve him: his emotions hold more weight than his decision and he ends up acting against his morals anyway.

It's a very old story: a deontologist and a utilitarian try to solve the trolley problem, and everyone still loses. And who's laughing? The nihilist, of course. To him, nothing has sense, and so nothing matters. He's wrong though, always has been. That's the lesson I'm taking from Damasio's work. That's the prism through which I'm comparing empathy to ethics in Levinas' work and agape in Compté-Sponsville's intro to philosophy through.

It should matter. It's so essential that it matters. Love, emotions, empathy: those are fundamental in moral evaluation and decision making. They are a feature, not a bug. And the tragedy is when we try to force ourselves to make them not matter.

Anyway so that was my analysis of why Damasio's position on ethics is so fun to take in account when analysing UTH, hope you found this fun!

#dc #jason todd #dc comics #red hood #under the red hood #anti batman #anti bruce wayne #(< for filtering)#jason todd meta #neuropsychology meta #now with the philosophy extension!!#once again having very intense thoughts about Under The Hood #me talking about the “killing goons” part: this comic is so infuriating #me talking about the final confrontation: this is the greatest comic ever 😭😭#winick stop toying with my emotions challenge #anyway I put a couple of pins on some of the ideas in there don't worry about it #also i was told that color coding helped with clarity so hopefully that's still the case!

213 notes · View notes

scurvyboy · 8 months ago

Text

chat is this anything?

1K notes · View notes

bonefall · 2 months ago

Note

Yo, need some help with the BB au's warrior code (working on the wiki). Cus 1-4 are confirmed from the history post, but what order are the rest of them in??

Oh this is actually something I've been meaning to get to. I swung over to the wiki page and I see you're working with a bundle of unconnected posts, and the REALLY old first draft-- it's waaay overdue that I make an update that also contains an official addressing of some of the biggest changes that have happened since then.

I'm gonna try to fix that for you now. Here's a rough draft of BB!Warrior Code 2.0, including snappier names and new thoughts for the associated stories.

I'm also trying to make each commandment more... sociological. In contrast to canon's code, I want these to be more open to interpretation, but also gesture at deeper social values that Clan cats have.

After all, it's the Warrior Code. I've always felt like it should have a similar vibe to chivalry or bushido, y'know? Not just a list of laws, but a "guide" to living as an honorable warrior.

(and, like chivalry and bushido, it's much less "inherently" noble than it seems, easily twisted into something destructive and only protecting other people in your caste.)

The plan here is that I'm going to post this in a rough state so you can get it on the Wiki, AND everyone can toss up input on this. When I feel satisfied, I'm gonna hit up Trout to make official Clanmew translations, and then I'm going to work with one/some of the artists in my spreadsheet to make this its own post.

So, the next time you see this will likely be a lot cleaner and have revisions.

IN SHORT:

Law of the Border "A Clan is the exclusive ruler of its domain; a Star is the exclusive ruler of its Clan. Borders are set to mark this land. To trespass is to offend the stars."

Law of Honor "An honorable warrior does not need to kill to win their battles, except when the foe is dishonorable or it is necessary for self-defense."

Law of the Deputy "The Star is to choose a responsible Deputy to rule alongside them who shall carry the starlight after their death. A Clan must never go past moonhigh without a Deputy appointed."

Law of Loyalty "Defend your Clan, even with your life. No love for an outsider shall outweigh your loyalty to your Clan."

Law of Priority / Prey Priority Privilege "An honorable warrior would starve before letting those they protect go hungry."

Law of Grace "StarClan is to be thanked for what it provides. To waste their blessings or blaspheme their light is treason against the Stars."

Law of Seasons "A kitten must see two seasons before it can become an apprentice. An apprentice must train for two seasons before it can become a warrior. A warrior should handle all four seasons alone before becoming a mentor."

Law of the Challenge / Right to Challenge "All warriors who bare a blessed name from StarClan are entitled to defend their honor. The right to challenge, or to accept a challenge in turn, shall not be infringed upon without reason."

Law of the Wild "A warrior rejects the soft life of a kittypet."

Law of the Cleric's Vow "A cleric who takes a mate or has kittens has violated their sacred vow, and must have their privilege of being StarClan's herald revoked."

Law of the Gathering / Full Moon Truce "Under the light of the full moon, all Clans shall send representatives to the Gathering to hear the news of the leaders. There will be a truce that lasts from sundown to sunrise, and attendance is a privilege."

Law of the First Tasks "Before an apprentice can receive their holy name by the power vested in their Star, first they must complete three sacred tasks; a warrior's assessment, a complete vigil, and a pilgrimage."

Law of the Leader's Right / Dalestar's Law / The Leader's Rights "By the power of the Star they carry, the word of a leader shall be recognized as the warrior code."

Law of the Three Kittens / Darkstar's Law / The Queen's Rights "No action, inaction, or accusation may ever allow a kit to be put in danger, no matter what Clan their parents were from. All queens shall have the right to not reveal the origin of their litter, even under suspicion of codebreaking."

Law of the Lake "Every Clan has the right to fight for its honor and independence, but the Clans of the lake shall never allow another to suffer or collapse. In dire times, all the cats of the lake understand their ancestral command; unite or die."

Law of Love / Bristlefrost's Law "If a cat wishes to walk alongside the warrior of another Clan, their beloved may ask their Star to issue a challenge to prove their new loyalty. If this challenge is overcome, their love shall be known as StarClan's will."

Law of Kickum Buttocks / Leader-B-Gone "girl help im still figuring out how I'm going to rewrite the new law about kicking out leaders. It is too long and too hyperspecific. There's absolutely no way for it to get legitimately used in canon, let alone be a relevant plot point."

If a previous post contradicts this one, assume this one overrules it. You can feel free to ask about it though! There's probably a reason I changed it, and I'll hear you out if you think an older version was stronger.

The Borbior Bode. I mean the BB!Warrior Code.

(Under the cut)

COMMANDMENT 1: Law of the Border "A Clan is the exclusive ruler of its domain; a Star is the exclusive ruler of its Clan. Borders are set to mark this land. To trespass is to offend the stars."

The legend goes that after the carnage of the First Battle, StarClan granted a fragment of a star to the leaders of the five Clans. This piece of a star is what legitimizes their right to the land they rule, so the leader is technically the owner of the Clan's domain and has authority over it.

In practice, this means that Clan leaders have the right to claim and control everything that is "part of their land," their domain. This usually refers to prey, but also includes herbs, goods, and even warriors with a holy, StarClan-ordained name that swear fealty to them.

Most often, this is the law that is cited to justify territory expansions, by changing borders. It also tends to come up in "economic" circumstances. When Onestar launched an embargo against ShadowClan during the Yellowcough Epidemic preventing mullein from being brought to them, he cited this law, because that herb only grows in WindClan moorland.

The intent behind this commandment is VERY different from its modern use. There were originally just two "commandments," this one and the Law of Honor, and it was essentially serving the purpose that later laws (namely 6, 8, 10 and 13) would more explicitly outline. Its purpose wasn't to put absolute power over territory into the paws of a leader, but to command the Clans to respect each other's autonomy.

In fact, the wording is weird to reflect that.

In Clanmew, the verb here for "trespass" is meant in the sense of "to disrespect," and which "stars" are being offended is unclear. It was originally meant religiously-- the angry ancestors who halted the First Battle would be offended if the Clans treated each other poorly. Over time, "the stars" came to be interpreted as offending the leader of the Clan, as in "issuing a challenge to them."

But its modern interpretation is all that matters, now. And it's widely accepted to mean "Leader owns everything in its Clan's borders, fight them if you don't like that."

COMMANDMENT 2: Law of Honor "An honorable warrior does not need to kill to win their battles, except when the foe is dishonorable or it is necessary for self-defense."

I'm considering rewording this one in a small but significant way because I have plans to play with the "dishonorable foe" clause. The ideologies of Fire Alone and Thistle Law clash over the philosophical idea of the Code's protection applying to outsiders at all, so I realized that I don't need to have "unless they are outside of the code" written into any specific commandment.

So, instead, this version would mention dishonorability. To invoke this commandment to kill is always an accusation, and to accept that it was used against your loved one means admitting they were "dishonorable." To be outside of the code, to be unable to contribute, or to be HalfClan could mean you're inherently dishonorable... if someone like Tigerstar wants an excuse to hurt you.

Unsure, though. I do like the wording of the canon commandment, "unless they are outside of the warrior code or it is necessary for self-defense." I do like the way that it says, right away, that they don't see outsider cats as being protected by this law. I like how weaselly it is.

COMMANDMENT 3: Law of the Deputy "The Star is to choose a responsible Deputy to rule alongside them who shall carry the starlight after their death. A Clan must never go past moonhigh without a Deputy appointed."

Developed as a result of the events of Riverstar's Heir. When King Riverstar passed away with the inheritance of the River Kingdom unclear, his oldest living biological son stepped forward to claim his "birthright." The son decided to throw a celebration before going to claim his lives, not knowing that there was a saboteur prepared to slip poison into his prey.

The cat who would have been considered Riverstar's "deputy" by modern standards, Flowers Come First, desperately tried to keep the Kingdom together as other cats tried to carve out claims to the leaderless land. After dozens were killed and injured in a civil conflict (sometimes called The Second Battle), the ShadowClan Cleric, Redscar, was called in as a mediator to determine the rightful leader.

But, before he determined that Flowerstar would lead next, it was ensured that all of the Clans would come together to accept this as a new law. To prevent this kind of succession crisis from ever occurring again.

(BB!ASC LOOMS IN THE DISTANCE)

This commandment was technically the first "addition" to the law, but at the time, it was considered the "birth" of the Warrior Code. Before this, it was more of a pair of principles from StarClan.

As a note; in the Clanmew, "Responsible" Deputy implies a warrior who has trained an apprentice or has raised children. I'm unsure if linguistic drift now means that HAS to be an apprentice or not, but there are probably historic cases where a Mi with a ton of grown kittens took power.

COMMANDMENT 4: Law of Loyalty "Defend your Clan, even with your life. No love for an outsider shall outweigh your loyalty to your Clan."

This law was famously introduced after Ryewhisker gave his life to defend his mate, Cloudberry, in a battle between their Clans. It's usually considered the first proper "addition" to the Warrior Code, but a real debate about if 3 or 4 is the first "amendment" would probably be considered a sort of pedantic argument by most.

(side funfact; In Clanmew there's a term for that. It's called a "Shineless Fight," or a "matte match." Basically a silly battle that doesn't invite attention from StarClan.)

Its ratification came even in spite of Cloudberry's heated opposition to it. The ancient practice of Kitten Stealing was born from this commandment, justified by ancient actions taken by Skystar during the Dawn Era. Cloudberry watched her kittens grow, inheriting a world far worse than the one she'd loved Ryewhisker in.

When she was reunited with her mate in death, they refused to be part of a StarClan cruel enough to support and approve of a law written to condemn their love. Without a moment's hesitation, the lovers fled into the Place of No Stars together, vowing that they would not rest in peace until the evil commandment was overturned.

They do even more than just that, too.

When cross-Clan mates need protection from discovery, the lovers will hide them from watchful eyes under the cover of yew branches. If the stars burn brightly to document the sins of forbidden friends, Cloudberry will cool them with rain while Ryewhisker bends the grass to guide them to safety. They are demons acting as guardian angels, for those who God has abandoned.

...Also, author's note, I've done rewording to this law. I'm trying to make sure all types of love (platonic, romantic, familial, plus the clan culture concepts for these) are equally important narratively. It's both something I care about as an artist, and also something I think makes the story better.

DIVERSITY WIN! Your queerplatonic cross-clan relationship is equally treasonous!

On that note, I also cut the "reassurance" from the law entirely. The canon law says "you may have friendships, but be careful because you might meet them in battle," to imply it's fine to just be friendly, but I feel like it fits BB better to just not explicitly spell that out. I generally think it's a better idea to stress how individuals interpret the law.

COMMANDMENT 5: Law of Priority "An honorable warrior would starve before letting those they protect go hungry."

In Clanmew, the wording will be closer to this; "The true warrior Wants before those they protect would Need," which means that the warrior's desires go unfulfilled if their "charges" have unmet needs. It applies very broadly to almost anything-- food, medicine, rest, tools, etc. It's not just about hunger, but it's been translated in a way to communicate its spirit to an English-speaking audience.

This does typically mean that kittens, elders, and the Cleric eat first, but it's also one of the laws that particularly noble warriors would repeat to themselves as a mantra. It stresses self-sacrifice in service of the weak. On the flip side, a more authoritarian cat can easily twist this code to accuse someone else of being dishonorable, if they're "taking" too much.

Full disclosure, this one's still pretty big WIP material. I haven't made a lot of progress on the origin story of this one, or what its sociological impacts were.

In fact, laws 5, 6, and 7 are WIP territory. They might get shuffled in order or reworded in the future, though their "spirit" is going to stay the same.

What I DO know about the Law of Priority's backstory is that it's probably not going to be born from a battle on Sunningrocks. Most of the canon equivalent law from COTC is actually going to get repurposed into BB!Darkstar's Commandment, and Commandment 11 by proxy. It's more likely I'll take a bunch of the spare ancient warriors and come up with some original big disaster that spurred it on.

COMMANDMENT 6: Law of Grace "StarClan is to be thanked for what it provides. To waste their blessings or blaspheme their light is treason against the Stars."

Also known as Dovestar's Law. Possibly one of the most prone to being interpreted in different lights between leaders. It's not a law explicitly requiring belief, but it does command religious performance from all Clan cats.

...which, functionally, does mean that cats like Cloudtail and Mothwing have always been pressured into taking part in rituals they don't want to be part of.

For example, when prey is killed, Cloudtail gets offended looks when he doesn't send a prayer to StarClan. If it wasn't for Ferncloud and Elderberry being so close to him, he might have been denied getting Ashpaw as an apprentice due to a refusal to swear a religious oath. Worse, if Bluestar hadn't been leader at the time, not pressing his nose to the Moonstone might have prevented him from becoming a warrior at all.

(as a personal note, as an atheist, ive always found the way that canon dances around acknowledging the destructive aspects of organized religion EXTREMELY frustrating. Especially in COTC, where it's mentioned that Dovestar wanted to codify a religious commandment but failed, and Leafpool smugly chuckles at the leader for being so surprised. It felt like such a "writer's mouthpiece" moment. girl it's a cult in the woods. you wrote scourge as an evil atheist. your cats have catholic guilt, just own it)

The second most important legal use of this law is to punish contact with the spirits of demons-- residents of the Place of No Stars. There are several forbidden techniques for utilizing the power of these spirits, namely "Channeling," the direct summoning of a spirit (as opposed to "Invoking," which is when StarClan as an entity is used as an "operator" to get in touch with an angel in its ranks).

Casually this is referred to as "witchcraft" or "forbidden magic."

But, in addition to being a religious law, it is also a law against overhunting and waste. Especially of "blessed" animals, such as bats and songbirds, which are considered downright sinful to kill. If you knowingly destroy beautiful things without a good reason, "wasting" a blessing, it's not JUST a sin, but a crime.

It's possibly one of the most relevant laws in the day-to-day lives of warriors. ShadowClan cats in particular take this VERY literally, believing that they should also try to salvage a use from ALL things they kill. Including badgers.

COMMANDMENT 7: Law of Seasons "A kitten must see two seasons before it can become an apprentice. An apprentice must train for two seasons before it can become a warrior. A warrior should handle all four seasons alone before becoming a mentor."

This commandment was worded and introduced by Daisytail, rallying all the parents of the Clans, to protect young cats from two battle hungry leaders who were foisting fights and responsibilities on those who physically could not be ready.

This story won't change much from its COTC equivalent, besides maybe adding an extra detail that young apprentices were being given to young warriors, less than two years old. A very young warrior might had never handled the season they're now training an apprentice in, leading to things like;

Being unable to identify thin ice

Not knowing how cold temperatures change how scent works

Unfamiliarity with hunting in snowy conditions

Lack of education on wintertime animal behavior

Ultimately though, the point of this law is simply to codify "minimums" of the age brackets. Most cats train longer than that, and they are strictly grouped socially.

In fact, because of the fact these cats age so rapidly during their first year and then "slow down" afterwards, "rank" is a LOT more important socially than chronological age.

As an example, Reedwhisker has a nightmarish, two-year-long apprenticeship due to mentor abuse. He was considered an apprentice in age that entire time. Having an extended mentorship is literally like being forced to stay a teenager. This is as hellish as it sounds.

Overall though, for BB, this commandment is going to be a lot more relevant for the mentor/apprentice aspects instead of "early apprentice" infractions. Even the most evil, short-sighted leader can realize that getting kids killed before they turn into adult soldiers is self-defeating.

One of the more notorious changes of BB is the fact Brokenstar isn't going to be using child soldiers. What he DOES do is approve of Runningnose's plan to murder a blind kitten so that they can frame Shroompelt for it, exiling her as Yellowfang and FINALLY getting her out of the way so they can commit a massacre against WindClan.

(still evil just a different kind of evil <3)

I've been really wishy-washy on what happened with Badgerfang specifically, because I didn't want to eliminate the tragic story beat of a young life being wasted. But I've finally decided what I'm going to do. Badgerfang was just a fresh apprentice, nothing special, nothing "illegal," just like all of the other adolescents who took part in that battle.

I don't think he should have to be legally too young for it to be absolutely horrific that a kid was killed during the invasion of someone else's home. He was the equivalent of a 13-year-old and he was gored by someone who was confused and terrified in the middle of the night, bleeding to death in his uncle's paws.

For Flintfang, in that moment, it has nothing to do with recommitting himself to the "warrior code," but realizing that the only way this madness stops is if someone puts an end to it.

COMMANDMENT 8: Law of the Challenge "All warriors who bare a blessed name from StarClan are entitled to defend their honor. The right to challenge, or to accept a challenge in turn, shall not be infringed upon without reason."

Attempting to stop a war from breaking out between ThunderClan and WindClan, the ancient leader Morningstar prevented his warriors from fighting back against Rabbitstar's border transgressions. Furious and offended that they could not prove themselves in battle, his cats came to resent him. After skirmish and sickness lead to the "honorless" death of several cats including his deputy, the Cleric, Pearnose, lead a revolt against him.

Morningstar was branded a coward by StarClan, deemed unworthy of joining their ranks and sent to the Place of No Stars to wallow in his misery. Afterwards, Pearstar gained her nine lives, beloved by ThunderClan and blessed by StarClan, and her decree was made into code.

This law is being invoked when a warrior mentions their "right to challenge." As a quirk of the wording, it's also widely accepted that an official challenge involves saying your opponent's full name, to get the attention of StarClan.

"without reason" is another one of those little clauses that gives a leader wiggle room when they need it. Legitimate "reason" to cancel a challenge includes the full moon truce, promise to allow the battle at a more appropriate date, or the fight being shineless or dishonorable to begin with. Still, leaders are rarely eager to get compared to Morningstar, so there's a lot of social pressure to not infringe the right.

The Clans culturally value the idea that "might makes right," and this commandment is both a result of, and a contributor to it. A LOT of small-scale quibbles over aspects of the Warrior Code end up being resolved by an invocation of the Right to Challenge, because trying to argue with a warrior that they're wrong about how they interpreted the code is easily interpreted as an attack on their honor.

COMMANDMENT 9: Law of the Wild "A warrior rejects the soft life of a kittypet."

During the destruction of SkyClan's historic territory in the White Hart Woods, Flystar witnessed many of his warriors turning to humans and the town to live double lives. In response, he started very strictly enforcing the warrior code, believing that if his Clan lived more piously, this would stop the destruction.

it did not work. Old Man Flystar died and left Cloudstar as a young leader, desperately keeping SkyClan together in its exile. Even death did not stop him from honoring his vow.

...But the Forest Four did not care. The amendment that Flystar suggested for the warrior code was born from his need to discourage his warriors from leaving, but it was approved because of shared cultural hatred for human beings. The destruction of SkyClan's territory just made an existing problem much, much worse.

During the Crusade Era, this law was invoked to justify violent invasions into Chelford. During other eras, it makes cats hesitate to take food from humans, or even interact with kittypets at all.

It's also a very weird translation; in Clanmew, this is the "Law of the Unbunched Scruff." It could also be translated as "Law of the Uncollared Neck" or "Law of a Free Nape." It's referring to the back of the neck being unburdened by a collar, but it's also REALLY common for little kits to learn about this law and immediately start using it to protest their Mi carrying them back to the nest for bedtime.

This was also the last law to be introduced before SkyClan's exile! Modern SkyClan has complicated feelings on if this one should be respected as part of their "version" of the code.

ALSO;

I've so far kept it as short and simple as canon, but I'm thinking of making it longer to match the others. I can't find the right words for it, though-- something about "A warrior rejects the soft life of a kittypet, and resists the deceitful temptation of humans" or "and remains vigilant for the tricks of man"

I want to capture the vibe of Flystar trying to convince his warriors that humans are liars, and any gifts they give you will actually make you weak. Part of me is trying to avoid wording the commandment in a way that could result in people thinking Firepaw himself is a "trick of man," but maybe I should just lean into it instead.

COMMANDMENT 10: Law of the Cleric's Vow "A cleric who takes a mate or has kittens has violated their sacred vow, and must have their privilege of being StarClan's herald revoked."

Moth Flight did not create the vow to be ratified as code. It was a desperate, painful oath she made her four kittens make before they were taken away from her to become the first Clerics of the other Clans.

She made them promise her that they would not have children of their own who would be ripped away from them. It was a mother's plea, to spare them from the pain she was experiencing, to encourage them to value medicine over connections to a Clan that stole them, and to punish the Clans for treating their bloodline like something that would produce prophets like livestock.

Their gifts would die with them, and all future Clerics would be trained, not born. The Cleric's Vow was a non-binding tradition for generations, until the exile of SkyClan.

Larkstripe, Cleric of WindClan, rallied the other Clerics into going on strike until the leaders reversed their terrible decision. Swiftstar stubbornly refused to give into this demand, even when sickness landed him on his deathbed. She remained firm, informing him that he was free to gamble with his life if he wanted to face StarClan's judgement.

His successor, Dalestar, sought a way to brutally crush the strike. So he hit Larkstripe at her one weakness-- her son, Ripplekit.

With the ringleader's reputation destroyed and her son ripped away from her and sent to ShadowClan, the other Clerics quickly folded. Dalestar got his way, and was celebrated for it.

This commandment doesn't have too many unique interpretations, though there are occasionally interesting cases where Clerics have kittens before taking their vow. While it's a "gray zone," kittens who are the child of a parent-turned-Cleric are sometimes considered cursed or unlucky.

(contrast to SkyClan where it is actually considered a plus for a Cleric to have kittens.)

COMMANDMENT 11: Law of the Full Moon "Under the light of the full moon, all Clans shall send representatives to the Gathering to hear the news of the leaders. There will be a truce that lasts from sundown to sunrise, and attendance is a privilege."

Taken from Larkstripe and raised at the belly of Birdflight, mate of the exiled Cloudstar, Ripplekit grew into Ripplemoon and became Ripplestar of ShadowClan. Spurred into action by a blight that was spreading up the now-dead fifth tree of Fourtrees, he declared war on the other Clans. "If you will not make room to fetch SkyClan home, then I will carve it out."

Before this time, the Gathering was simply a tradition, not code, but Ripplestar's deadly total war tactics recognized it as an excellent target. Attempting to bring a swift end to his bloody campaign, he planned an attack that would surely have many innocent casualties.

However, he was betrayed by his adopted brother; Gorseclaw. The other Clans were prepared for his attack, bringing nothing but warriors to the Gathering. In fury at Ripplestar's audacity, having lost the SkyClan ancestors who would have supported these actions, StarClan struck the base of the blighted tree with lightning. The falling trunk crushed Ripplestar against the Highrock and snapped the oak in two distinct places; at the base, and in the middle.

The Z-shaped cracks would be seen again many years later, as Brokenstar's tail. The guardian spirit of SkyClan, incarnated in the flesh through a birth from a Cleric, furious and manifest.

But, before that time, there was an immediate "Clan Pride Tide" that washed over the culture of those who won. The Law of the Full Moon was the first of three additional Commandments born from Dalestar and his peers during this time.

There are three significant "rules" to Gatherings that were established by this law;

The leader may arbitrarily exclude any cat they don't want to bring. Before this commandment, you could just go. Now, the most freedom you have is your ability to linger longer for the Aftergathering.

It is mandatory to completely listen to the "opening speeches" of Gatherings before you're allowed to mingle. Even if grandma mistystar is going off on a tangent again

The truce is now enforceable. It was previously just a taboo-- scuffles would break out now and then, and there was the occasional playfighting match. Now, you can't even get heated at another cat without people getting uncomfortable.

COMMANDMENT 12: Law of the First Tasks "Before an apprentice can receive their holy name by the power vested in their Star, first they must complete three sacred tasks; a warrior's assessment, a complete vigil, and a pilgrimage."

The second law to come from the post-Ripplestar tide was more codification of traditions, to "instill a sense of pride and honor into young warriors," but these were also a sneaky way to weed out dissidents.

Apprentices would typically do these tasks naturally as part of their rite of passage, but now, if ANY of the cats involved in this process did not like you or your mentor, they could hurt you by delaying them. A leader could choose not to bring you with them to the Moonstone. They could force you to re-do the vigil for making a noise. A vindictive mentor could keep flunking your assessment for stupid reasons because she hates you.

Bad mentors "poorly preparing" an apprentice they have a duty to guide into adulthood is good grounds for punishment. It's a massive dishonor to have an apprentice taken from you. Of course, this all depends on the Clan "taking the side" of the tormentor.

So, this is rarely used for political reasons in more recent eras, because of that potential collateral reputation hit. Making an apprentice's right of passage difficult for no reason tends to make you unpopular with that apprentice's friends, family, mentor, and peers-- but it served its purpose, back then.

Nowadays it's just celebrated as a part of Clan traditions. The First Tasks are much older than the Commandment, but most cats don't think so hard about history that they notice it's strange they got codified during this era.

(Plus, this commandment is popular. Apprentices and their families feel cheated if these first tasks are glossed over.)

COMMANDMENT 13: Law of the Leader's Right "By the power of the Star they carry, the word of a leader shall be recognized as the warrior code."

The big, bad one. Also called Dalestar's Commandment.

With this decree, the Clan leaders announced an exile of all the cats who had been revealed to support Ripplestar. ShadowClan's next leader, Marshstar, was made to deal with an immediate refugee crisis on top of overseeing the injuries of all the cats who fought at that Gathering.

It's the sort of law that would be considered a massive mistake within a few generations, but by that time, it was too entrenched to remove. The leaders had seized power over anything that could legally challenge them-- the Code, their Clerics, and their warriors in turn.

Only the rule of the Impostor would cause this part of the code to be altered, but not before the Clans nearly collapsed under his tyranny.

Future generations would look back at the fallout of Ripplestar's rebellion, and the following tide of Clan pride, and generally reach a consensus; this was the birth of the ideas which would become known as Thistle Law. Maybe it wasn't their origin, and contributing thoughts had existed for a long time beforehand, but this was the watershed moment for what would develop into modern Clan politics.

COMMANDMENT 14: Law of the Three Kittens "No action, inaction, or accusation may ever allow a kit to be put in danger, no matter what Clan their parents were from. All queens shall have the right to not reveal the origin of their litter, even under suspicion of codebreaking."

Famously referred to as Darkstar's Commandment, and cited as the Queen's Rights. Put a decisive end to the barbaric practice of Kitten Stealing. Drafted, fought for, and codified in honor of Mapleshade's three children who drowned in the swollen river.

StarClan was so furious at the sheer amount of senseless death in one season that they blasted Darkstar with lightning to drag her into StarClan to witness the Trials of those who had died. They made her watch as Ravenwing, Frecklewish, Appledusk, AND Mapleshade were all damned to the Dark Forest, and bellowed that her and Oakstar would fix it or suffer the same fate.

She listened and proposed this law. Oakstar did not, and fought against its implementation. He tried to make up for this by beginning the Crusades, but this wasn't enough to "atone" for his disobedience.

Darkstar ruled that the birth of innocent kits shall could never be used as evidence of guilt, because of the fact it would inevitably put those same kittens in danger.

It was StarClan's privilege alone to judge if the behavior that lead to the conception of those kittens was codebreaking or not. Flawed mortals, such as Mapleshade who lied to keep her kittens safe and only endangered them through panic, and Oakstar who exiled children into the rain because of personal offense leading to bias, could not be trusted to be objective about this.

That said-- the Queen's Rights are a very complicated and particular topic. They exist to protect the kitten's birth from being used as evidence; they do NOT protect the family from any consequence of their actions. There are lots of ways for the Queen's Rights to be voided.

If the kids find out their parentage and reveal it, it's void. If a cat who recently gave birth shows the kits are theirs, it's void. If you let it slip that you acquired the kitten from your sister who wants you to raise it as a Clan cat, it's void.

And, no, you can't even safely talk to your Cleric. They are within their full rights to reveal it, too. There is no Cat HIPAA. Whoever you trust with this information had BETTER BE someone you trust with your life, because they might be!

Cats who lean towards Fire Alone think that the Queen's Rights don't go far enough. Cats who lean towards Thistle Law are obsessed with the contradictions.

COMMANDMENT 15: Law of the Lake "Every Clan has the right to defend its independence and to fight for its honor, but the Clans of the lake shall never allow another to suffer or collapse. In dire times, all the cats of the lake understand their ancestral command; unite or die."

First proposed in response to the disastrous lack of response that allowed the rise of the Kin, a deadly Yellowcough outbreak, and the eventual collapse of ShadowClan, this commandment was approved without contest when SkyClan found its way to the Lake.

It's both a promise to SkyClan that what happened to them will never happen again, AND a somber acknowledgement that what happened to ShadowClan was avoidable if they'd only intervened sooner. Heartstar takes this commandment VERY seriously.

Too seriously, many add. Perhaps more out of ambition than compassion. But she doesn't care-- they weren't the ones suffocating in their own lungs watching their family die, as Onestar sat on a hill of medicine across the lake, glowering. Perhaps they should take it more seriously.

COMMANDMENT 16: Law of the Lovers / Bristlefrost's Law "If a cat wishes to walk alongside the warrior of another Clan, their beloved may ask their Star to issue a challenge to prove their new loyalty. If this challenge is overcome, their love shall be known as StarClan's will."

AKA Bristlefrost's Law, created in her honor after sacrificing her Afterlife to barrel Ashfur out of the sky, burning up in orbit.

In life, Bristlefrost was innocently meeting with Rootspring. Two warriors with a small crush, breaking the code discreetly during a time of increasing tension. When Bramblestar's impostor caught them, he decided to make an example of the couple. Brought Bristlefrost to the Gathering, and demanded that SkyClan strongly punish Rootspring to comply with the code.

Waspstar of SkyClan, successor of Leafstar after her poisoning at Juniperclaw's tricks, refused. So the impostor lifted his claw, and sliced Bristlefrost's neck. Her body plunged from the tree, dead in an instant.

With her ghost, Rootspring joined the resistance to depose him immediately. After her sacrifice, he demanded reforms for the code and a new commandment in her honor. It was not as sweeping of a change as he wanted it to be, but with the Law of the Lovers, there was finally a mechanism to bring another cat into your own Clan.

It could have saved her, he argues. He could have taken her out of that dangerous Clan, gotten her away from the Impostor, convinced her to run.

(...the truth is, Bristlefrost would never have run from ThunderClan. Not until the bitter end. She wouldn't just die twice for her family, but even more than nine if she had the chance. but this was the leverage that Rootspring was able to use.)

AUTHOR'S NOTE: I keep going back and forth on the "love" wording of this one. On one hand, I like the idea a lot that Clan cats will have to perform friendship or love even if it isn't there to "legally" change Clans as a story device. I enjoy the idea of exploring that, and how it would be particularly messed up in an asylum scenario.

On the other hand... I'm not really using "love" in the romantic sense here, and "sponsor" is both closer to what I'm intending, AND the Clanmew version. By "beloved" I mean it equally in the sense of both an aunt and their "beloved" niece, and a lover and their traditional "beloved." But I'm not sure if that's coming across.

Is there a better word for "Sponsor" but like, in a warm and affectionate sense? Legal Buddy? Guy Who Will Vouch For Me? Sweet Cheese? Not to mention there just not being platonic words equal to "lover." The amatonormativity of the English language has harmed me once again

Law of Kickem Buttocks / Leader-B-Gone "girl help im still figuring out how I'm going to rewrite the new law about kicking out leaders. It is too long and too hyperspecific. There's absolutely no way for it to get legitimately used in canon, let alone be a relevant plot point."

I know FOR SURE that the first time this law is going to be used in BB, it is against Bramblestar in ASC. He's declining, manipulating Nightheart to use in a petty squabble against Squirrelflight, and suffered two massive blows to his reputation in both Squirrelflight's Horror and BB!TBC.

But the canon law is so specific that it's useless. Like, it may as well not even exist.

A non-deputy needs to call the vote

BOTH medcats have to agree

AANNDD you need a 75% supermajority in the Clan.

FINALLY, the other leaders, of Clans that are completely irrelevant, are asked if it's ok and ALL of them have to agree.

only THEN can all of the medcats of ALL the Clans go to StarClan, and ask if the lives can be taken away.

If the sky is cloudy then screw you. you have to wait even longer. Even if your Clanmates are getting murdered or tortured or whatever.

This frustrates me because, this is a MASSIVE change to the Warrior Code, something the audience has been desperate for. Drama in this series has practically dried up, and barely anything happens for books and books.

To make such a long-awaited addition be something this useless feels like an insult. Like they just begrudgingly did the bare minimum so they could ignore it. Even the "drama" of Reedclaw trying to oust Leafstar in CC was pointless, because if the writers were just less boring with their characters, she could have called for that vote all on her own.

"Ah but the code--" characters are capable of arguing that laws are ineffective and drastic measures need to be taken. Other characters can agree with them. it's that simple. Law is a social construct, not a wizard's magic barrier

Like. It could be that easy. Reedclaw doesn't want to physically harm Leafstar so she calls for a vote of no confidence. Cats quibble about if it's "legal" or not, Hawkwing proposes that it be 75% supermajority because then it would be extremely clear this is the will of SkyClan, etc. This would also be more interesting because then it's not established, it's new ground.

BUT. For BB I do want it to be law. Just a law that actually gets used.

So right now I'm leaning towards something like;

"If a leader is no longer able to rule with honor by their Clan's three-quarter decree, the Star shall undergo a ritual to return their blessings. This ritual must be both invoked by a cleric and a warrior, and then carried out by them if successful."

I still feel like three-quarters is a tall order, but I think I can work with it. At the very least, I can remove the requirement for ALL the Clerics to be in agreement.

I'm particularly fond of the idea of the idea that the two accusers have to carry out the WHOLE thing. The Cleric performs the parts of the ritual that would "wash" the lives away from the Leader, and the Warrior performs the parts of the ritual that would allow the Deputy to take them early. Overall, I think it would be generally better if the "difficulty" of enacting this commandment came from the fact the Cleric and the Warrior have to be EXTREMELY dedicated to it.

Like, instead of dealing with a lot of waiting and asking, if you want them gone, you have to do something very tedious with no reward.

As for what that ritual looks like, I want to reference BB!Rowanstar's sacrifice. The leader will probably have to bathe or be rinsed by the water of the Moonpool, and the deputy gets dunked in that.

bramblegirl bathwater

#better bones au #BB!Warrior Code #Clan Culture #Thistle Law #Im straight up gonna tag a bunch of the laws so search has a chance of catching it #Queen's Rights #Right to Challenge #Leader's Rights #BB!Darkstar #BB!Dalestar #BB!Ripplestar #Law of Loyalty #Law of Honor #Law of the Three Kits #Law of the Border #Law of the Lake #BB!Bristlefrost's Law #BB!History Lesson #I may also split the finalized code's posts into eras #So I can really dive into them. Like bundle up all the Clan Pride Tide commandments into 1 post for example #And put the Law of the Wild all on its own along with how it's the last one SkyClan shared with the Forest Four #Before their exile i mean. They also have the Law of the Lake.#ALSO if you are one of the 3 ppl ive been chatting with in dms im not ignoring you im just trying to get this out LMAOOO #There are cow talks in those messages lads. And artist messages also #Bonefall's BB!AU

223 notes · View notes