#Lack of Control vs Agency

[httyddragonfox]

Lack of control vs Agency

We always have control vs Chaos, but we also have Control vs Agency. I see this in almost everything. There is also this understanding of a lack of control.

Seeing Dragon Prince Season 5, I can't help but think of a few examples to understand this. Mostly, I think of that scene from Kung Fu Panda:

Oogway: You must lose this illusion of control, my friend. Take for example, this Peach tree. I cannot make the flowers bloom before they are ready neither can I make the tree bear fruit before it's time.

Shifu: Yet, there are things we can control. For instance...I can control when the fruit will fall (Kicks the tree). I also can control, where to plant the seed. (Slices the fruit, strikes the ground to make a hole and throws the seed in) These are not illusions, master.

Oogway: Yes, but no matter what you wish you will get a peach tree. You may want an apple or a pear, but you get a peach.

Shifu: A peach can't defeat Tai Lung!

Oogway: Maybe it can...if you nurture it...and you guide it.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's not the only example, I also think of what Villads said in Season 2 to Rayla.

Villads: Life is like a river; you can't control where the river goes, but there is one thing you can control: Yourself.

The river may push you forward, but you decide where you are going.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sky Arcanum is about understanding that you yourself have the power to shape your own destiny. You can control yourself. The Ocean Arcanum is realizing that outside of yourself, there are elements you cannot control. This is probably why the sky and the ocean reflect each other.

As for me, I'm too aware of my influence on the world from the slightest action. I rather the currents of life move around me, and yet I'm fully aware of what I want to achieve and how to get there. It's a conflicting ideology, not many can have it.

Either you're a villain like Finnegrin and you want complete control, or you're like Aaravos; aware of what effect your agency has on the world, and purposely making ripples. Complete Control vs Chaos.

[cult-of-the-eye]

Jonathan Sims vs Samama Khalid: A Comparison of Horror Protagonists

I want to talk about the differences between these two and for me, the most interesting one was the idea of agency. At first, it seems as though Jon had chosen to work at the Institute, chosen to take the job as the Head Archivist, chosen to record himself speaking the statements. Obviously we later find out that he lacked agency his entire life but we start off believing that he is in complete control of his actions. Sam, on the other hand, is suggested to have been driven by his past experiences, something outside of his control. He's taken this job because he needs it, who would willingly work a night shift with their ex? And most importantly, he's being recording without knowing. What does that mean for the rest of tmagp? It's not a long shot to suggest that tmagp will be an antithesis of tma, i'm guessing it will follow along in a sort of mirror image. Equal and opposite etc etc. So as Jon slowly loses his agency, which is the main focus of the tragedy, Sam could gain agency, gain knowledge, gain power within this universe but inversely, use it for all the wrong reasons. Jon's corruption arc was rife with moral questioning and what he could possibly do to avert his ending but maybe Sam's tragedy will be complete knowledge of what will happen and the inevitability of tragedy, coupled with an innate need to catalyse it.

[gooboogy]

The problem is they both make sense.

John lacks any agency, and as his abilities start "failing" he loses more of what little he has. The only things he can do is perceive the world through Arthur's eyes and talk to him in his head. That's it. He has no material effect on the world around them. He is solely 100% reliant on Arthur for his continued existence and influence on the world. He can't ignore Arthur whatsoever (unlike Arthur who can ignore John easy peasy) he can't Do anything but talk and observe (and also experience the deaths of people Arthur touches but ultimately that does nothing). Of course he is going to be distrustful of other people and possessive over Arthur.

Arthur feels like suddenly he can't rely on this very reliable thing that has been keeping him alive this whole time. It would shake anyone up. Especially with the shit they have to deal with? If he can't rely on directions he will be sliced to ribbons or shot without a chance of fighting back. They may as well be dead already. And for all of John's lack of agency, it's Arthur who has to actually deal with the consequences. He's the one who's getting wounded and torn to bits and has to fight all that. Plus it's HIS body. If someone's existence relies on your body, you have the right to refuse, bodily autonomy is a human right.

The problem is they've gone through this cycle before (cycle of learning and forgetting and learning that they are One Unit and need to work Together vs The Problems and forgetting) but never has it shaken Arthur so much. Even when they've argued before he would still listen to John's directions. But now? Everything is in question (as is probably the intent behind John's "failing" abilities.) They DO need other people to help and they DO need to be careful and include John. They cannot truly trust someone else while keeping John a secret or without his input. Arthur has the most control over the situation and the onus is on him to make the compromises. Yeah it's his body but 1) countless times he promised to John that they were in this together and 2) at this point separating them would be so traumatic that they may as well be One.

All of this is to say, curious that Arthur is so willing to tell Oscar about literally everything EXCEPT John. What happens if he does? What if there's someone else to assert for John in a way Arthur can't ignore so easily? Would that legitimize the shared ownership of Arthur's body? What does it mean for John to gain agency by the loss of Arthur's autonomy?

[waitmyturtles]

1) CHERRY MAGIC (episode 2) IS SO GOOD, I HAVE TO COVER MY MOUTH AND KEEP MY MEEPS FROM BEING TOO LOUD

2) GOD, TAYNEW! New is SMASHING THIS.

3) The wonderful @so-much-yet-to-learn and I had a discussion a couple months ago about the stylistic and rumored decisions to not have Kurosawa and Adachi (Machida Keita and Akaso Eiji) kiss in the Japanese Cherry Magic adaptation. The rumors (only seen online and not at all confirmed with primary sources) were that Machida's and Adachi's agencies were not supportive of the two having an on-screen smooch. We also considered the public vs. private taboos of public displays of affection in Japanese society and art, which differ from those in other Asian countries (like Thailand).

It's not known if the two actors felt differently about not kissing. At least Machida's agency, Gekidan Exile/Exile Tribe, has provided quite the number of actors in other Japanese BLs who have acted out many more deeds on screen, from Candy Color Paradox to Tokyo in April Is..., and more.

But I think part of the campy gloriousness of the Japanese Cherry Magic adaptation was, in fact, the lack of kissing, and the sensual acting around the indication of that kissing, from Kurosawa's eagerness and his constant struggle to control his emotions, to Adachi's discomfort-to-acceptance-and-happiness journey. There was tremendous communication in their body and verbal language that got them to their happy ending in the series, and to not have the actual kiss was, for me, dramatically satisfying for how that decision was supported through the excellent acting and the painstaking details of the show.

So, for so many of us, as we learned that TayNew would take up this mantle in Thailand last year, we were like -- alright, NOW we are going to get the kisses, right?

And at least for now, we haven't, which makes me wonder a bit. We saw Kurosawa's lips touch Adachi's forehead in Japan,

and Karan's lips were hidden by Achi's fluffy bangs in Thailand.

Does New need some texturizing, or was this on purpose? (I'm CACKLING, poor Tay, look at that hair in his FACE, omg.)

If this was a stylistic nod to Japan? Then... well done, because at least I noticed it, and kinda loved it. We know (WE KNOWWWW, heh heh, thank you, Kiss Me Again and Dark Blue Kiss) what TayNew are capable of, and I just loved this little moment of subtlety here in Cherry Magic, because we don't actually know what we're going to get later this series.

Because I am a fucking simp for all things Cherry Magic, I also noted the slight changes in how Karan approached Achi on the rooftop later that night, as compared to Kurodachi. Honestly, I am SO ENJOYING these different approaches, and only note these simply by way of how I'm loving Machida's acting versus that of Tay.

Kurosawa on the rooftop was a ball of NERVES, man.

Whereas it almost seemed like Tay's Karan was silently joyful, with smiles playing at the edges of his lips, to be so close to Achi and having this conversation about the dinner game.

These are NOT the greatest screenshots, but if I could gif, I would try to capture how the corner's of Tay's mouth in that last screenshot just uplifted slightly. This wasn't a moment of shock and nerves; this was a moment of OMG OMG OMG EEEEEE THIS IS MY TIMEEEEE.

(EDITING TO ADD: I’m such a dunce! I should have known the gif makers were already on this — and the gorgeous deity @liyazaki captured Tay’s mouf perfectly. That giddiness in the last gif!)

And in their acting? I love BOTH APPROACHES so much. Because both approaches are well within the emotional range of the moment that we're experiencing with them.

We're departing from the Japanese dorama next week in content, and I cannot wait to see where we go. GMMTV gave us some holiday gifts in Last Twilight and Cherry Magic airing on Fridays and Saturdays, no?

[red-elric]

i hear yall on 'girls can wear pants just bc jane does doesnt mean shes a trans guy' but homestuck is a deeply symbolic webcomic. its different! the skirt in homestuck is used as a signifier that a character is a girl more than it is as a genuine fashion choice in the early days of the comic; with the sprite as the only representation we have to go on, rose in particular with her shorter hair becomes more obviously feminine with the skirt, eyelashes, and lipstick at a glance. the need for the skirt as a visual distinction decreases as the readers become more familiar with the comic and the art style advances, but the original motive still remains! and is turned on its head when we are introduced to the trolls; while aradia, kanaya, and feferi wear skirts, nepeta, kanaya, and vriska decidedly DONT. this choice is intentional; we are told explicitly that in troll society the differences between men and women are arbitrary, with fewer rigid rules and distinctions than in human society. the extent to which that is actually TRUE is a little bit up for debate, but it definitely has some truth to it, and nepeta, terezi, and vriska all have a level of gender fuckery about them that aradia, kanaya, and feferi dont quite have in the same way. (kanaya of course has a DIFFERENT kind of gender fuckery about her, but its a different vibe and not really relevant here.)

then we meet the alpha kids. the skirt as a signifier is irrelevant at this point; we already know which characters are boys vs girls because we have the background of their adult counterparts. you can argue that jane is introduced wearing a skirt to make it clear that it is her and not jake in her first teaser panel, since she also has short hair! and thats about it. janes narrative is all about her own agency and her lack of control in her own life. she is brainwashed, she is locked in her own home for her own protection, she is kept in the dark from her friends' true feelings and secrets because they dont know how shell react. every choice she makes for herself prior to entering the medium is framed as a mistake that ruins things for everyone; her dad, roxy, dirk. and yet, when she does enter the medium, she is alone and free from other influences for the first time. her dad is missing, condy cant (or, more accurately, currently isnt interested in) access her, and she is outside the realm of societal pressure from earth, with her three friends who have never met another person in real life before. and with her newfound freedom, she chooses to wear pants; the first human female character in homestuck to do so. she has a hands free computer headset that gives her a faux moustache. and i think thats relevant!

of course, when she becomes god tier and immediately crockertiered, all her agency and control is lost in a way that doesnt ever return to her, even in post canon content. from that moment on, she is the maid or the heiress only, and cannot express her own desires in the narrative; she has been reduced to a caricature of what condy and aranea believed of her, and in this narrative she is grossly feminized in the worst possible way. just. food for thought.

[hjemne]

look......... it's Knives..... I can't explain you just gotta trust me here

(auto-generated translation into English just doesnt convey anywhere near the correct tone. this is one of those poems where you really need to hear it read and feel the violent apathy spitting from it. but anyway AHH. it's knives)

some analysis under the cut:

It's written in the French alexandrine (12 syllables, usually split into 2 equal hemistiches of 6, with alternating 'masculine' and 'feminine' rhyming couplets). I can't quite explain the masculine Vs feminine rhyme thing to non french speakers, but it's the -ette / -ade / -iennent (t not pronounced) endings which contrast with the -vieux / -pu / -beau etc etc masculine rhymes. It just gives the poem a really gorgeous flow and structure and I'm sad that it's basically impossible to fully replicate in translation - if you want to feel the original, then maybe listen to a recording of it while looking at the English translation

the 'bed which transforms into a tombstone' is just such an incredible line I love it so so much. In the original, 'fleurdelisé' means 'decorated with the fleur-de-lis' (⚜️) which was the symbol for the french royal family. I just love the imagery around royalty and a place of rest being twisted into a grave. None of the riches of the world can save this king who cannot find joy or beauty (or any emotion, really) in the world, not even in bloodshed

ALSO the line 'ce cruel malade' (= this cruel sick [man]) is so so so interesting. In french you can use adjectives as nouns so 'malade' means sick/unwell, but also can mean a sick person. But here it reduces the entire person to their sickness, which is super fascinating because it suggests there's no possible recovery and it's something fundamental to who & what they are. AND THEN there's this 'cruel' added in front of 'malade' - normally in french the adjective goes after the noun, and putting it before (i.e. ce CRUEL malade) really emphasizes the adjective. And ahhh the image of this tyrannical sickness is so cool because we usually see sick ppl as helpless / victim to circumstance, and so someone being defined by their sickness AND cruelty is both unusual and emphasising their agency AND ALSO their lack of agency in their situation. It's SO fitting for knives because he is 'malade' in the sense that his trauma has defined and shaped everything about him, and he didn't really have any control over this 'illness'. BUT he responds to it with this cruelty and apathy that leaves him isolated from the world that he rules over and subjugates.

and also not to overthink things but 'les dames d'atour pour qui tout prince est beau' - there is NO real loyalty towards him from his inner circle. Every prince is beautiful for them, and so every prince is interchangeable. They are with him because he is a prince, and they don't actually value him beyond his royal title. The GHGs work for Knives because he's the most powerful guy, not because they actually are loyal to him or care much for his cause, with the exception of legato doing his grotesque song and dance trying to please Knives but never actually gets the approval and thanks from Knives that he craves

reading Conrad as the wiseman who can create gold (presumably via transmutation i.e. alchemy i.e. impossible) but still cannot cure the rot within Knives (l'élément corrompu)

[that-ari-blogger]

Spiraling Upwards (The Price Of Power)

Repetition is the bread and butter of She-Ra and the Princesses of Power. The series is about cycles of abuse and trauma, and the tragedy inherent in that. It's about breaking out of those rythms, and to do that, it needs to establish what is holding its characters back.

But, showing the same thing over and over again is boring. It's stale, and overplayed, and stale, and overplayed, and stale. See what I mean?

Season three of the series shakes things up. It is a masterclass in twisting a formula to its breaking point, and that starts with The Price Of Power.

Let me explain.

SPOILERS AHEAD: (She Ra and the Princesses of Power)

The title of this episode has so many meanings that it's impressive. The price of power is what it says on the tin, but it could relate to almost any character in this.

Shadow Weaver finally has her villainy catching up to her (side note, the animation of SW's magic side effect, which I will be referring to as "death juice", is stellar), and it is sapping her life. Catra is realising that her security wasn't as solid as she thought. Adora is making a Faustian bargain with her abuser. Even Angella is weighing up decisions about her family and her kingdom.

Angella's compete lack of willingness to let Adora near the source of her trauma sets her up as an actual maternal figure for Adora, rather than the simple source of authority that she has been up until this point. Remember this, it will come up later on in the season.

That reframes the conflict between Angella and Shadow Weaver's conflict, turning it into mother vs mother, and their ideologies come into conflict. Altruism vs selfishness. And, with that in mind, I'd like to do a shot breakdown of that scene.

The principle I will be using here is screen presence. Typically (I am using the word "typically" here because this isn't a rule, its a generalisation. There are exceptions), the person who takes up the most of the screen has the most control in the scene. This stems from a few places, but mostly it's just that humans are hardwired to associate "big" with "powerful", so the person who is the largest in your perspective has the most power.

Stable, wide shot. Nothing is really happening yet, Shadow Weaver is learning her surroundings and how trapped she is. She is small, and crouched, and boxed in by that barrier and forcefield. Simple stuff.

This shot is diagonal, bending backwards so that the audience can look over Shadow Weaver's shoulder at Angella. The two are roughly equal in screen presence, so the angle sells the power dynamic, mostly. It is a bit up in the air at this point, the audience isn't sure which way this interaction will go.

"This is a prison?" "Why does everyone keep...? Of course this is a prison."

Look who's the largest now. Shadow Weaver looks down on Angella, as she finds a crack in her psyche, and the queen reacts predictably. Now Shadow Weaver has a weakness she can exploit, and she takes control.

We are closer to Shadow Weaver than either Angella or Castaspella, reflecting the immediate change in dynamic. Now Angella and her sister-in-law vie with each other for control, disorganised against a monolithic force.

These two are powerless against her. She frames them in the smallest possible space, her very presence confining them and removing their agency.

This should be Castaspella taking control. She accuses Shadow Weaver of something concrete, but Shadow Weaver takes that away. The camera draws in, removing Castaspella from the frame, literally siphoning off her control of the scene.

This scene wasn't the point of this post, but I felt it needed a little more time, as it shows just who Shadow Weaver is. She is a parasite, who feeds on other people's trauma and wounds. She leads with the fact that she has hurt this woman's daughter, then plays on her deceased brother, then turns that same blade into Castaspella.

It is also worth noting that this is Shadow Weaver at her worst. She has been given a chance to try something new, to gain empathy and healing from people who would probably give it to her if she was honest with them. But Shadow Weaver is two things: cruel, and ambitious. She is awful to the people she needs, in order to get to the person she wants.

That person is Adora, of course. This season shakes things up by changing the trajectory of the arcs. Instead of Catra falling further and further, with Adora managing to climb out of her own trauma, it's the reverse. At least until the end.

So, Adora begins in a good place, and Catra begins at rock bottom. Adora has a support network, and feels in control of her own life, but Catra wakes up in a jail cell, reliving her recent punishment at the hands of Hordack.

This is also the season in which ideologies get challenged most overtly. Starting with Glimmer and Bow.

Bow believes that good people do good things and bad people do bad things. Which is a neat sentiment and I kind of agree. The problem, is that he has associated "bad people" with "the horde", and has rationalised Adora as different because of She-Ra. To his credit, when he is confronted about this, he rethinks things. Bow is a simple character, and he needs to be to contrast with the rest of the cast.

Glimmer has that black and pink morality that I mentioned in my post on Rolling With It. She believes in a very distinct idea of good and evil that doesn't really match up with the rest of the series. She skirts the edge of being an anti-hero at times, which is a phenomenal choice for a story about war. Most obviously:

"Listen up, lady. After all your kidnapping and mind-wiping, I am just looking for a reason to serve up a little payback. So, if you do anything to hurt Adora..."

So, at this point, Glimmer thinks Shadow Weaver is working for the Horde, which would make her a prisoner of war. I'll let you decide what this means.

Adora believes in redemption, and this is where things get funky, because Adora has done the same thing as her friends. She has associated morality with allegiance, and this is a false positive, mostly.

I want to stress that the Horde destroys environments, levels settlements, and definitely kills civilians off camera, amongst other things. I am adamantly not trying to both-sides this conflict and I don't want any of that nonsense in the replies to my posts. What I am saying is that switching sides without changing behaviours doesn't immediately make someone a good person.

Shadow Weaver switches sides to the princess allegiance, but then routinely pressures the protagonists to corrupt themselves and actively get themselves killed. Shadow Weaver does not get redeemed, she gets a sea change.

It is also notable off hand that Adora thinks she has switched side, therefore her own redemption is finished and she has fully healed. But Shadow Weaver still moves her like a puppet on a string.

That is core to Adora's arc in this season and the series, the idea of personal agency vs the influence of others. Adora received a similar change in circumstances when she discovered she was She-Ra, so she thinks that Shadow Weaver will change as well.

What Adora is missing is the balance. Yes, her circumstances helped her, but she made a choice to be better. She was given the information about the Horde's evil, and made an informed decision to become a hero. Later on in the series, this will come up again with the Old Ones and their weapon, and again, Adora will make a decision to do what is right, not what her side thinks.

This is, however, more complicated, because the question of redemption is more complicated than a Tumblr post can properly address. I can try, but I recommend literally any philosopher ever to philosophise. So here goes my attempt.

Anyone can be redeemed, but "can" is the operative word there, not "will". Redemption is an informed choice to be better, and in my most humble of opinion, the truly evil people are the ones who refuse it. I think that She-Ra as a whole agrees with this premise.

This episode sets up a ton of thematic ideas in direct opposition to each other, telegraphing to the audience that the season will go into these in detail, but also that the season will be about dissecting preconceptions.

Most notably, the third season of She-Ra will discuss Adora's idea of redemption becoming more nuanced, as Shadow Weaver actively disproves her premise, and she has to rethink things.

Which brings me to Catra, who is on the receiving end of all of these themes in quick succession throughout the season. For the moment, however, she is confronted with two. Connection, and preconception. Catra wakes up from a nightmare, in a cell. She believes that having friends will only cause her irreparable pain, and as a person who craves safety and emotional security, that isn't a risk worth taking.

Then Scorpia and Entrapta actively try to rescue her from death and succeed. It is imperative to understand that this catches Catra by surprise. She is used to that conditional acceptance that was Shadow Weaver's style, and has internalised Adora's departure to match those behaviours. Hordack hasn't helped.

But here she is, at her lowest so far, and Scorpia and Entrapta stick their necks out for her, and it pays off. This is the power of friendship crystalised in its most pure and realistic form.

Season three centres around Catra almost achieving her own healing, and she does it on her own terms, accompanied by Scorpia, the embodiment of unconditional kindness. In essence, her spiral downwards has been reversed.

Redemption is weaved throughout Catra's entire journey, and while it isn't explicit in this episode, it is still an important element to bring up, because Catra is an explicit link to Shadow Weaver here, as well as Adora.

Shadow Weaver is given the chance for redemption, and intentionally refuses it. Catra is being given a similar opportunity to get away from the place that is directly causing her villainy, and improves, mostly.

It doesn't succeed, though, does it? Neither spiral completes. Catra almost heals, but comes crashing down, and Adora nearly succumbs to nihilism, but manages to claw her way out at the last moment. They try to break the mould and fail, but they rupture the neatness of this tragedy in the act, and if it can be torn, it can be broken.

FINAL THOUGHTS

Ok, here we go. Season three is my favourite season of She-Ra, so this is going to be a fun set of posts to make, because I have a lot of things to say.

This season fully eschews simplicity and revolves around having as many moving parts as possible. Everyone gets an arc, everyone gets a different thing that they are dealing with. Some stories don't even collide directly, but have massive impacts on each other.

This season shows that the story can be subverted while characters try and fail to do so. It's possible, but they can't do it without each other.

There's a storm coming, there's nuance in the air, and the winds are starting to change.

Next week, I will be looking at Huntara. The episode, not the person. I mean, kind of the person, but in an analytical sense. That got weird. Stick around for more analysis of this series if that interests you.

Previous - Next

[avelera]

Authority and the Urge: Morality and Redemption in Baldur's Gate 3

Theme 1: Domination vs. Freedom as an Alternative Moral Axis to Evil vs. Good

One thing that makes Baldur's Gate such a pleasure to play is that the writing team had such a clear understanding of their themes. Good and evil are not the clean-cut alignments of the D&D world. Rather, they reimagined good vs. evil along more subtle lines of domination and control vs. personal freedom and healing. For the most part, they are remarkably consistent without being preachy, which is no mean feat. Nor do they say you can't dabble in the morally ambiguous, indeed, all the Companions have dabbled in the morally gray and you are invited to draw your own line as to what behavior you find acceptable for them. Even Wyll and Karlach, the most morally upstanding, have made deals with devils for the greater good, and been press-ganged against their will into fighting for an evil tyrant. You are given the choice to say there is no redemption for even these unwilling moments of moral impurity, if you so choose. You can reject Gale for not telling you about the Orb immediately. You can kill Astarion for being a vampire, which isn't his fault. You can criticize and reject Shadowheart for her Shar worship and thus never learn the full extent of how much it was not her choice to join in the first place. You can also urge companions like Gale, Astarion, and Shadowheart to give in to their worst instincts and become true monsters, which brings me to the next important theme.

Theme 2: What is the Worth of a Single Life?

When speaking of themes in BG3, another major one is the power of one person to sway the path of others in their lives towards good or evil. One hand extended in friendship can draw Astarion back from a painful and self-destructive existence, the pursuit of power to insulate him from pain and harm that ultimately would lead him to perpetuate the cycle of abuse he suffered under. There are clear implications of how much the Companions life is changed by their encounter with the player character, in a really touching dynamic about the importance of one life to another, which also works as a game mechanic, imbuing your interactions as a player character with the satisfying power fantasy of being able to have social impact on your Companions as friends, loved ones, or (in an evil run) victims of your sadism. You can make or break them.

Which brings me, finally, to the Dark Urge. It's clear to my eyes that the Dark Urge was originally planned as The Custom Character path. What I imagine happened next, however, is that they realized that there were hard story beats in the Dark Urge's narrative, certain deaths for example, which would be supremely limiting and unsatisfying for many players, who would chafe against the lack of choice.

The Dark Urge is a fantastic novel character, since characters in a novel don't have to do what the reader would do, but video games with their interactive nature usually require a bit more freedom of choice for players to be satisfying. Obviously there are exceptions to this rule, but in general it's very challenging and rarely attempted in video games to put the player-controlled character into a situation where the player loses agency, where the character dies without player freedom to prevent it, makes choices contrary to what the player character would do in a game that otherwise offers choice, or that simply kills the player character without the option to avoid that fate. It can be done but it's very very tough, some of the biggest complaints leveled at RPGs like BG3 or Dragon Age games is when the narrative takes choice away or makes the character make choices, unavoidably, that players would not make or would fight to avoid if they could. They are often the center of the greatest fandom ire. So that's why I think the OC Tav with the blank backstory was created, for those who chafed at the lovely but restrictive narrative arc of the Dark Urge.

Mirrors of Morality: The Dark Urge's Redemption

I mention that I think the Dark Urge is fundamental to the core design of the game because their narrative path so nicely mirrors the other Companions. A blank-slate Tav is wonderful to work with, and very freeing, but you are left with the slightly hollow feeling of not having nearly the level of trauma or issues to work through that the Companions do. Your character has no past and few opportunities to form a coherent narrative that precedes the events of the tadpoling the way the others do. From a gameplay perspective this is of course nearly impossible to do otherwise, they can't anticipate every RP headcanon a player might run, but they can offer one with the Dark Urge who has the same sort of deep dichotomy and divide in their backstory that the others have.

That said, I completed an Evil Dark Urge run before I completed a good one, despite rolling two attempts at a good Dark Urge before stumbling onto an Evil Dark Urge that worked for me (an older drow matriarch, for those curious).

The reason I struggled was because I couldn't imagine a Good Dark Urge with agency in their prior life. My evil Dark Urge was a willing partner of Gortash and Thorm. One reason I made her older was because I imagined her as mature, worldly, cruel, sadistic, and completely on board with the plot. The amnesia was only a brief interruption to her plans, a distraction. Once she recalled enough of her life and previous goals to piece together her part in the Dead Three plot, she went right back into enacting it and, in the end, won, becoming the unquestioning ruler of a world of thralls in Bhaal's name. If anything, the dialogue options that implied that Bhaal was the one controlling her, or that she had done anything but make her own choices were almost insulting. This woman knew what she was doing, beginning to end, with the amnesia as only a minor interruption.

But this interpretation of the Dark Urge was based on the letter we find in the Dark Urge's point of view, where again, they show no unwillingness to be an agent of the Dead Three plot. Gortash's warm welcome further cemented the view in my mind: the Dark Urge knew what they were doing and was a willing evil participant.

So how, I wondered, can anyone justify a Good Dark Urge? Not saying it can't be done, but how?

The implications I found troubling at first were that anyone who was evil would become good if they were simply removed from their environment. It had a ring of a sort of natural innocence, a sort of "noble savage" worldview that all of us would tilt towards good if our minds were wiped clean. Optimistic in some ways, very dangerous in its implications in others. Then I realized it wasn't a statement. It was a question.

Theme 3: Nature vs. Nurture

I then realized that nature vs. nurture is actually everywhere in BG3 side plots. Another reinforcement of the fact the Dark Urge storyline is baked into the DNA of the story. You have the Githyanki egg plot, Baelen's memory loss making him a good but absentminded person (which can be undone if you give him noblestalk, when he reverts back to the cruel man he was), heck, even the owlbear cub can be given a loving home where he thrives. You are shown, over and over again, stories where you can choose and contribute to and ponder whether or not evil is a product of nature or nurture, in a way that's incredibly relevant to pondering the Dark Urge's path forward under amnesia. Was this Bhaalspawn evil by nature or by choice? It's very juicy stuff.

Furthermore: all of the companions actually offer ways to rationalize the Dark Urge and choose a path forward for them to fall back into evil or move forward into good. This is because the writers of BG3 are actually superb at thematic mirroring. Each Companion can be a mirror for one way to understand the Dark Urge, how they were evil in the past, and how they could choose to change.

Shadowheart: Indoctrinated into the cult of a cruel god from childhood, you grew up in a world where the only moral compass you had was utterly controlled by those around you. You never knew a different world than the cult of Shar/Bhaal. Now with your memory wiped, you have the option to listen to the voice deep down that says the cruelty demanded of you by the little you can remember feels wrong or even follow the good examples of your newfound Companions to see a different way to live. Maybe you always had goodness in you deep down, but the society you knew channeled you towards evil that you're only now free of, albeit with a past full of holes you're trying to fill in again.

Karlach: Maybe you were never a truly willing participant in the Bhaal cult. Incredibly skilled at killing, yes. Perhaps a bit morally flexible to get involved with figures like Gortash. But ultimately, when you were whisked out of the bloody war and world that you were immersed in by circumstance, you saw your chance to get your old life back from before the Bhaal cult and you took it. Baldur's Gate is your home. People like Karlach are the ones hurt by the actions of the Dead Three Plot that you might never have put a face to if you'd never been taken from that world. Now that you see the harm caused, now that you're free, you can finaly become your own person again after being a foot soldier for evil forces.

Lae'zel: You were a true believer in Bhaal's cult. You grew up worshipping your evil god. It's the only life you knew and the only life that gave you meaning. You were a willing participant but before now, you'd never known any other life. However, through exposure to other people, other cultures, other ways of life, you're beginning to see that there are ways to live outside your narrow life of indoctrination in violence. The final blow comes to this worldview when you learn that your beloved god is completely fine with your destruction. They allowed Orin to take your place. Bhaal/Vlaakith would see you destroy and enslave the world for their own glory and be perfectly happy to destroy you at the end of all your hard, devoted work. You did not sin against Bhaal by rebelling against the full horror of his cruelty and negligence towards you, rather, Bhaal has sinned against you.

Gale: You were the beloved Chosen of Bhaal. Coddled, cradled, told you were special and perfect and wonderful. Of course you happily participated in the Dead Three plot, you lived a charmed life as the elevated darling of your deity. But then something went wrong. You were cast out. You've awoken lesser than you were, your body betrays you, you've lost knowledge that once made you walk among mortals as a near-godly figure. And it seems like Bhaal/Mystra doesn't care, as you wander the wilderness. You're hurt. Betrayed. Tadpoled. Orin has taken your place so easily, just as Gale was cast aside so easily. You don't know what you did wrong. You're angry. Resentful. How dare Mystra/Bhaal cast you aside so easily? They offer you a solution to get back into their good graces which require a complete denial, a complete destruction of yourself - becoming Bhaal's chosen once more or blowing yourself up for redemption. Ultimately, the way forward is in choosing yourself and relying on your own cleverness, rather than being seduced back into their circle of influence.

Astarion: Bhaal was a cruel master to you who controlled your every move. That doesn't mean you were a nice person though, or you didn't enjoy murder. But now you are finally free of Bhaal/Cazador's immediate reach. They cannot fulfill their evil plot without you. You can destroy them now, undermine them, or replace them - fulfill the Dead Three plot in your own name. Or you can take this chance once finally outside their grasp to rediscover who you really are, what you want, all the while your hungers drive you towards continuing to take the lives of others. But perhaps the help of new friends can help you deny these urges and steer you towards being a new person. What that new, better person is, what they even look like, is unclear to you, you've never really had positive influences. But maybe you can find it together.

Wyll: You lived your own life before you ended up in Bhaal's plot, as Bhaal's chosen. But that life was stolen. Now, through circumstances beyond your control, you have disappointed your father. Is there a way to escape the reach of Bhaal's control, Bhaal's pact? Will you sacrifice your soul to redeem yourself in the eyes of your father?

Honorable Mention - Minthara: Tadpoled and controlled by the Absolute, you are now set on throwing down all old gods that once thought to control you. Maybe you'll take over the Dead Three plot in your own name. Maybe you'll just take pleasure in tearing it down for your own reasons. Either way, your gods have sinned against you, the cult of the Absolute controlled you, and now you are unleashed to take vengeance.

With the Dark Urge, any one of these paths can provide a map for how to imagine your life under Bhaal's cult. Any one can provide a map for how to make use of your newfound freedom and to justify becoming a better person and saving the world. Or choosing not to.

[valverii]

Hello it is I. The annon who is a sucker for found family dynamics. I’m back on my bullshit again. Buckle the fuckle up (affectionately)

So. Having some more thoughts with your Swap!AU (It is glorious. It has lived in my head rent free for several hours now.) I have some thoughts, mainly with the Guild Arc. Please don’t feel pressured to answer each one of my questions!!

— Beginning of the Arc:

1: How would Chuuya react to Kouyou attacking Atsushi and somewhat playing a part in separating Atsushi and Kyouka?

2: Would Chuuya have still contacted Ango, leading to the car accident, and thus leaving Atsushi alone when Fitzgerald first showed up?

— Atsushi’s Capture:

1: Would Chuuya realize, or perhaps sense that something happened to Atsushi when the tiger was first captured and taken on board the Moby Dick?

2: How would Chuuya react to Atsushi’s capture by the Guild if he was aware of it? Would he storm up there if someone didn’t stop him?

— “Incineration of Yokohama” Plan:

1: How does Chuuya behave during the Guild’s “Incineration of Yokohama” plan? Does he act like his cannon counterpart and try to save the citizens, or would he be doing something else?

2: How is Dogra Magra stopped? Is it still Dazai that finds Atsushi when he lands from the airship?

3: If it is Dazai that finds the tiger rather than Chuuya, would Atsushi still pose the idea of the Agency and Port Mafia teaming up to defeat the Guild, even in the face of a Port Mafia Executive?

4: Again. If it is Dazai that finds Atsushi, and assuming Dazai was alone (likely to keep away from any misunderstandings with subordinates, now that I think about it) Would he take Atsushi back to the ADA building so he could recover from his injuries? (He likely knows No Longer Human would keep Atsushi from healing while the tiger was on his back, but also doesn’t want to deal with Chuuya yelling at him for leaving Atsushi passed out in the street where he could still be shot at)

5: Going off #4. How would Chuuya react to seeing his apprentice (*cough* little brother) being carried in by Dazai while badly hurt?

— Atsushi vs. Akutagawa on the Moby Dick:

1: Would Chuuya now be on the other end of the earpeice, or would it still be Dazai?

2: Would Akutagawa try and fight Atsushi while on board the Moby Dick? Or would he behave differently?

3: Based off #1. If it is Chuuya on the other end of the earpeice, would Atsushi still need to use it to distract Akutagawa? Would Atsushi keep wearing it past that fight if it wasn’t damaged?

4a: (Now going by the assumption the connection is Chuuya and Atsushi) would the link to Atsushi remain active on Chuuya’s end, if we were to assume it was somehow Dazai that was contacting Kyouka?

4b: I don’t exactly know why. But Chuuya being the one to give Kyouka the odd pep-talk(?) seems weird, considering he didn’t necessarily want to leave the PM, but rather he was forced to do so. However, Dazai, the one who had forced Chuuya out could likely reach out to her in some way. I suppose a motive for Dazai saving Kyouka would be Oda. He’d be “saving another from the darkness,” after all. He’d likely know Kyouka needed to pass an exam for Fukuzawa’s ability to take hold and allow her to control Demon Snow too.

6: Based off #5, Assuming Atsushi’s earpiece wasn’t damaged, would Chuuya hear Fitzgerald talking about Atsushi’s past in the Orphanage? How would he react if so? (Considering not only was Chuuya learning about what the orphanage did to Atsushi, he was learning about it from someone other than Atsushi- who simply talked about the abuse like it was nothing, or perhaps wanted to use the past to make Atsushi shut down).

6: Would Akutagawa still react the same way to Fitzgerald speaking about Atsushi’s time at the orphanage? (Assuming their relationship at the time is slightly different than it is in cannon.)

———

Again. A lot of Atsushi. Sorry. 

I blame the lack of cannon interaction between them.

Anyways. I’m gonna start leaving a “signature” just so I can remember I was the one who asked the many questions. I shall return.

~ M.C

mc anon i thank u so much for ur love and dedication to the au—u are about to fuel this acc with content for the next few weeks, ur questions have my brain working at a speed i didn’t know was possible

(i will be answering these gradually and in different posts so look out for them in the coming days :]])

[darkcircles4lyfe]

Hii I’ve stumbled across a few of your posts and haven’t even gleaned the tip of the iceberg that is your blog, but I would love to hear a more fleshed version of your Bakugo with AFO post (if you have more that you wanted to share), because that is such a cool concept???

Like, it’s such a nice way to address the symbiotic nature of the two quirks + Bakugo’s relationship with Midoriya at the same time, and there’s also so much to explore in terms of the repercussions of that (not just the symbolism of it, but also the parts you’ve mentioned like what that would mean for people who’ve had their quirks stolen, how they will deal with all the stockpiled quirks, or even on a wider scale of how the media would react if AFO/OFA is leaked/ revealed to the public).

Just imagine the amount of continued exploration in terms of the nature of quirks v nurture of society, because AFO/OFA has so far been (imo) one of the few evidence that quirks carry personality, which is so awesome because it’s like saying a quirk literally holds a part of you through the vestiges while demolishing this idea through basically the entire plot of the manga loll. (To phrase it slightly better, the manga is sort of reaching the conclusion that a quirk is a part of you and you only, without being all of you, and that it’s exactly what the name says it is: a quirk.)

The thing I don’t really like about this conclusion is the blatant disregard for the quirkless community, which was the initial point of discussion and social commentary in bnha. This is why I think Bakugo being given AFO would be great fuel for the debate of should we be allowed to mess with the quirks we are given.

As in, who gets to decide? Who gets to play god? How will it be regulated? Should it even be regulated? How do you do all that without dehumanising Bakugo the same way society dehumanised pro heroes? (Bonus points for linking this to real life because I’m all for social commentary/ reflections in fictional media)

And then on a personal level, what will it take for Bakugo to be able to control AFO’s personality (hello, eye symbolism + name symbolism) within the quirk? How will All Might handle this info? How does this all relate to the conflict of children in war? The development of the league of villains’ character plots (esp Tomura’s)?

I have a lot of questions with very few answers loll, I would love to hear your thoughts on this!!

this post, for reference

Gosh, I am so sorry for taking forever to answer this. But you ask so many good questions! And I think this is actually a pretty good time, after 419.

I guess where I stand with the idea now is still somewhat ambiguous. All for One as a power is too big and interesting to go away--or at least, if it did go away, it would speak volumes. It feels like an almost elemental, fundamental, and even spiritual power, something beyond the man himself. So I'm still wondering about its future.

While a lot of other characters' narratives, including Katsuki's, are about this "nature of quirks vs. nurture," with the original Japanese name for quirks literally meaning "individuality" ("個性" or "kosei"), All for One (the power) oddly represents a lack of individuality. Like a shapeshifter with no form of its own. With that in mind, might we actually compare it to quirklessness? This is worth considering if we're trying to guess who might be a fitting person to inherit it.

I'm at least certain that Tenko shouldn't keep it, since he was literally groomed for it, to be a vessel. For him it represents a lack of individuality in the absolute worst way: a lack of agency, and an identity determined by/in the image of someone else since before even the moment of conception. Actually, as of 419, it seems like if there is any echo of him left after being possessed again, Tenko needs to get rid of the quirk. If he is able to regain control for even a second, the most logical action he can take to save himself and do something of his own free will for once, is to pass the quirk on to someone else.

What I'm a little less certain about is who should get it. On the one hand, Katsuki has a very strong sense of self, especially now. As I said before, this would make him an interesting candidate because he wouldn't want AFO, and thus wouldn't use it for his own gain, on principle. However...

In between now and when I wrote that little post, the future of One for All has also become ambiguous. Does Tenko have it even though All for One does not? (because of Izuku's intent in passing it on?) I've wondered for a long time what would happen if OFA and AFO combined. Would they become more than the sum of their parts, creating something new? Maybe something that can connect with other people and build them up? Perhaps it would develop some aspect of agency that takes away its capacity to exploit people. I'm just speculating...

And I haven't wanted to talk about it, but I'm ambivalent about Izuku becoming quirkiness again. As in, I think Horikoshi could pull it off either way. So this is just an idea:

Izuku could also be a candidate for AFO because he lacks a sense of self, in his own way, as I've gone into before. At best, this means a lack of an ego, the opposite of AFO's personality. In AFO's words, Izuku is the boy born with nothing, who now has less than nothing. There's also a nice symmetry to this idea: Izuku giving OFA to Tenko, then Tenko giving AFO to Izuku. It would be interesting to see what the power would be like in the hands of its antithesis.

But like I said, if you ignore AFO's own selfish interpretation of the power as a tool for domination and a sign of his natural superiority, its essence is a lot more comparable to quirklessness. Just as one's quirk does not encompass one's entire self even though it is unique to them, so too does the quirk have potential beyond its user's point of view. It is potentially ideal for someone who wouldn't make it a part of who they are or use it to enforce their desires, and this applies to both Izuku and Katsuki.

The final thing to mention from your question is the possibility that whoever received AFO would have to deal with overcoming his possession. Maybe this is too much for one person to handle. Maybe Katsuki plays into this either way.

[trainingdummyrabbit]

What do you think of aroace spectrum angela or like. any variant idk

REAL AND TRUE AND CORRECT. NOT TAKING ARGUMENTS AT THIS TIME <3

like. ok ive definitely spoken abt it offhand sometime before so im just going to use this opportunity to aimlessly ramble ok? ok. hyperfixation trap card.

like yeah theres the whole 'only having rep thats robots and aliens and etc' thing which is very much a fair and appropriate response, but also like. at a point you Do just kinda have to go 'Man Just Look At Her.'

i certainly couldnt say it as well as other folks, but... Man Just Look At Her. theres so many threads that are Literally Right There, its kinda hard Not to. id have to study again n cite my sources or whatever but also this is my house. ok.

like theres the obvious 'i see you as a friend' interaction with her and roland sometime mid-to-late ruina, which is. again. Its Right There. but its also the way she looks in lobcorp, and the instant she gets any agency she immediately veers in a completely different direction. (as a reclamation of self, as another small rebellion, as an exploration of how She would like to present herself and be seen)

its that interaction with xiao, her genuine confusion towards the concept of lovers, what they are, what makes it so different from any other sort of person. (as a jab towards her own isolation, the values she was made to uphold, her unfamiliarity towards cityfolk and the ways they carry themselves-- and that seeming contradiction of that affection vs. the way she was told cityfolk Work.)

angela, to me, feels like the type of character to simply Be. for lack of a better term. its a difficult concept to Describe in a way that makes sense, (despite me being, how do you say, In The Same Boat.) its something i could see her toss around out of curiosity, but honestly just... not really care for. she has things to do.

like... angela is just. a very cut and dry character, to put it in a way. she just kinda states things as they are, sometimes rather bluntly. its hard to elaborate because things simply Are. plain and simple, no need to fuss over it. and thats what this feels like itd be, yknow?

also iam just shrimply. forever an angela+roland qpr truther. tbh. like i dont know what the Hell those two have going on but you literally Cannot separate them. i hesitate to call it 'love,' because. well yes, but also no. but also kind of? but not quite. again, it just Is. they simply Are.

its one of those things that just feels Odd seeing her in any other context, in regards to romance or whatever. which is tied to a whole slew of other problems only tangentially related to the subject (shipping content bias, character simplification, and so on and so on,) but its just... man she would Not fucking say that. she would not Do that, she would not Act that way.

like i certainly believe it Is possible to have romantic interpretations with her, but its gonna be. Specific. with the way she carries herself, how she acts, and how she reacts to things. even with the romantic elements, itd still dip into aro experience territory, if you know what im saying. like whoever it is, this shit isnt going to fit into Roles and Archetypes, like how a lot of folks like to write ship content. for lack of a better descriptor, its gonna be Weird.

and thats honestly whats so frustrating about it! you Can have an interesting through-line and interpretation of that sort of thing, but a lot of the time whenever i (rarely) see it, its just... Typical Beauty Standards, Hot Secretary Lady, Scary Controlling Whatever the hell like... i hate t judge but cmon guys we can do so much better than that. ironically, wheres the Love? the respect for who she is, the curiosity on exploring that sort of thing with who she Is? guys come On...

which. grain of salt, because its not like i search out ship content, yknow. im not gonna speak like an authority for stumbling onto stuff sometimes. the fact that it isnt so popular and in-your-face is genuinely refreshing honestly, but. tangent.

anyway arospec angela agenda never sleeps and iam one of the strongest soldiers. the ace is Non Negotiable come back later with a warrant so i can Not Look At It. (<- this is a bit. (<- but im serious.)) thankyou. bows.

[who-the-fuck-knows-blog]

holy christ. this fandom is fucking exhausting about mental health and mental illness and abuse. i dont want to directly engage with people saying this stuff because i am pretty sure they wont change their minds or really listen to me, but Ed can be mentally ill and abusive/toxic (<-those aren’t necessarily interchangable but I’m going to be using both in this case).

Ed’s actions can be a result of his trauma, he can hate that he does it, it can be within his own justification a result of previous threats or negativity from others, and they can still be not okay or justified.

The majority of people who have been abusive in my life have been struggling with something. Mental illness, addiction, trauma, all of the above. Trauma and trauma reactions can lead to further abusive behavior.

When you have personality disorders or mental health issues that come with extreme cognitive distortions (everyone has cognitive distortions, but mental illnesses and trauma tend to lead to more extreme examples or more cognitive distortions than you would have otherwise), it can lead to you continuing with dangerous/manipulative behavior in a more unaware manner. Many are aware it is manipulative, though. and I suppose that’s where the distinction can be made between whether or not this is a toxic or abusive relationship. One comes with more of an intent to control, the other is more about mutually lashing out/having disproportionate emotional reactions to situations.

This post, to me, isn’t about determining whether Ed was Abusive or Toxic, but moreso about conversations around abusive behavior. The way it has been described, Ed’s behavior towards Izzy in S2 has been deliberately controlling and manipulative, as Ed has been towards the entire crew in that season. Does it matter if he’s doing it because he is spiralling and wants to push everyone to their breaking point to kill himself vs just to be a dick? Yes, to a degree. It means he likely just needs help and is capable of changing. On the other hand, no. The behavior is terrible and not justifiable, and having mental illnesses that caused it doesn’t make it suddenly not his responsibility.

I guess I’m more annoyed at the overjustification and removing Ed from his own autonomy and responsibility for his behavior than anything. There can be reasons behind why someone does something, and those reasons can be very sympathetic and understandable and make a lot of sense, it just gets to a point where people seem to be using that to excuse the behavior and remove Ed’s agency in the harm he himself has caused deliberately (even if the intention wasn’t to make people miserable but to kill himself, the goal and method through which he did it was to cause emotional and physical damage and torture to ensure this would happen, with little to no care for the wellbeing of the others.)

If people are upset about Ed’s behavior and lack of actual personal accountability for what he’s done, that’s fine. The same way that it’s fine for people to be upset about the emotional harm Izzy has done to Ed.

I know a lot of posts are not super nuanced when it comes to Ed and abusive behavior, I’m not gonna say hes iredeemable, and in fact he’s already ahead of other people who display this behavior in that he realizes he needs to change and puts in an effort to do so. He’s still sympathetic to most folks, and I personally still love him.

I also acknowledge I, like everyone else, am not immune to personal biases and lack of insight and emotional reasoning. Many folks have been having trauma reactions based on the events in the show or have had their trauma triggered or have fallen back on (understandably) emotional responses that are due to trauma. Some people have been applying their personal experiences with people that behave similarly to characters on the show to their analysis and impressions of the characters. I’m not gonna say that’s morally good or bad. It just exists and is unavoidable when you have a ton of people with trauma discussing things. But it can skew perceptions, as trauma does. so it’s just something to be aware of, because it doesn’t feel like you’re being skewed it feels either like you’re being attacked or you are more aware of/closer to/have a better understanding of the emotions and responses of the characters you are projecting onto.

I dunno. maybe I’m full of shit! Who knows! I just wanted to ramble more about this stuff bc it’s very upsetting to me (<-could be a trauma response I am not adequately handling or aware of or acknowledging) to see the way ppl have been defensive of Ed via “he’s not doing it because he wants to do it/live like this, he’s traumatized, he’s mentally ill, and Izzy pushed him into it” because those can be explanations of his actions but not justifications of his actions.

[mattydemise]

What's the difference between possessive/protective vs controlling in relationships 😩

Okay, so I believe the difference between being protective and being possessive boils down to respect, trust, and how your partner reacts when you act contrary to their concerns, ideas, or suggestions.

A protective partner never loses sight of the fact that at the end of the day, you're an individual first and foremost, and they're simply wishing to protect you, sometimes from yourself. A protective partner will voice their concerns but will not hinder your actions or movements. I think there's a very clear line that a protective partner simply won't cross when it comes to your agency.

Whereas a possessive partner will seek to stifle that individuality and put their foot down unnecessarily. There's an invariable link between possessive behaviour and codependency. There's a fundamental lack of respect and trust, oftentimes stemming from their own insecurities.

I can distinguish so easily between the two because in past relationships I can recognise some codependent patterns that emerged from minor insecurities I had, where at one point I would've been protective, but later on it was likely more possessive. It's only through acknowledgment and recognition that we're ever able to change and grow. I know that for myself part of the reason I'm protective is because I love very rarely but when I do, it burns with utter intensity, and I seek to shield that flame from the constant downpour that is modernity.

[raayllum]

I have a question that has been very divisive in my friend group of people who enjoy tdp.

What direction do you think they'll take Callum's magic in:

Do you think he'll master his Sky Arcanum, following the footsteps of Ibis, especially with his staff.

Or, connect to and become a master of all 6 primal sources, like Aaravos, but for good and love.

And more importantly, what idea do you enjoy more as a concept?

First off would just like to say your header is incredible.

As for your actual question: Callum is a character who chases magic out of a desire to learn and have agency. It becomes a fundamental part of who he is ("I will learn magic. It's who I am") which eventually manifests in him literally creating magic inside him (an arcanum). This transcending of limitations and what other people thought was possible means that Sky (representation of Freedom) was the perfect arcanum for him... to start. After all, seeing through illusions and crafting your own reality is very Moon arcanum-y, and there's been a decent amount of foreshadowing that he might connect to the Moon arcanum next for a while now ("After all, you really only know the appearance itself" "Now you're starting to sound like Lujanne" from 3x01). By forging a manual connection to one arcanum, it naturally begs the question of why wouldn't he at least try to connect to others in a similar manner?

All of this to say: I'd be surprised if Callum isn't connected to all 6 by the end of the show, for a few reasons.

While Callum being connected to primal magic is extraordinary on its own, and it's certainly an accomplishment... it ultimately means next to nothing if Other Humans don't also follow in his footsteps. A lack of access to magic is what created a lot of issues in the world of Xadia, and evening out that score / removing the need of dark magic is the ultimate way to Break the Cycle, as the wheel has always spun on magic and dark magic. If other humans don't connect, we're right back where we started. And humans being connected to Sky would be great, but there's so much more out there, and Callum will only really be able to be a teacher for all the arcanums if he knows and understands all the arcanums... hence, Archmage. (It'd also be very nicely full circle, given that Callum starts off as part of a lacklustre student-teacher pair in 1x01, and growing to become a wise and understanding teacher.)

Callum's parallels to and eventual rivalry Aaravos are mostly dependent upon Callum gaining more magical prowess. Right now they don't have a ton of parallels, but they are undeniably wrestling for narrative control. Aaravos is also underestimating as being just another dark mage like all the rest, "and destined to play right into my hands" but Callum will be, eventually, so much more than that. And thanks to Aaravos, we know a six primal archmage is possible. Seems only right that Callum would become his literal mirror.

One of the core weaknesses of Xadia is their insistence on isolation. Exile is their most common punishment and they literally split the continent in two. Elven society is generally very segregated according to their primal with only a handful of exceptions in ways we know don't exist in the Human Kingdoms (Duren coming to Katolis for aid; Lissa being from Del Bar and marrying a man from Katolis, etc). We see that the arch dragons are more likely to fight than convene with each other successfully and that since imprisoning Aaravos, they basically all went no contact. Xadian characters are also more likely to want to do things alone (Runaan, Rayla, Zubeia) than to pull on all possible resource areas, and the human villains who hate them (Viren) are also more likely to be isolationist. VS the princes ("We're in this together" in 1x05, "This is a chance to solve our problems together" in 4x03, Opeli and Corvus going to Duren for aid) and the Human Kingdoms. Kasef, however antagonist, believed in and depended on the collective. Karim starts to lose his shit in S4 precisely because New Aurea isn't going to be entirely Sunfire elf in nature; I don't think he would've responded to other elves any better than he did humans, honestly. Okay, great, so what? Well the one Xadian character we have who hardcore rejects that isolationist attitude in regards to a primal source with his very existence... is Aaravos. And that elves, humans, and dragons all presumably worked together to imprison him once before. It would make sense that the kid who is going to be the key (or one of the keys) to his defeat would likewise carry that same Rejection of Isolation, and instead embody literal Magical Solidarity by having access to all magics.

As for which I prefer, it depends. I think canon could do just about anything and make it work, and so long as we see other humans connect to arcanums (with or without Callum's help) I have no other Narrative Requirements, I think, in regards to places I think the story has to go in order to function narratively, in the end. He could master just sky magic, and as long as other humans are able to connect to arcanums, I think that'd be just fine.

If I'm writing fic, and I want Callum to be more limited for plot / angst reasons, I'll probs just write him as a sky mage. Magic is useful but can't (and should not, for story reasons) be able to fix everything, and is still only as useful as your brain can figure out how to use it, anyway. By and large, a magic system is only as good as its limitations, as that is what allows a story to have conflict, and places to show off creative thinking (with or without magic).

But generally (in post-war / late season speculative stuff; in looking at where canon is going, etc) I lean towards Archmage Callum and always have, and dumped all my headcanons about it accordingly into this fic (order of connection, how each of the arcanums feel different, dual wielding, what it brings between him and Aaravos, etc).

I would also love for Callum to get his own staff at one point, simply because it'd be nice to have a weapon 1) of his own and 2) wasn't yet another thing he inherited from a dead man (the cube from Harrow, the mirror from Viren) but if he uses the staff all throughout the show, that's perfectly fine too. Just means I get to write a fic where it gets destroyed for some reason, and then him (and maybe Ethari) get to help design and build his own for Reasons

[sapphic-agent]

Really not sure what could be added here. But ok will try.

I kind hate when people say "Shig is the protagonist" bc...he really isnt. I would argue he is not really a character anymore. But a plot device.

Bk is the real mc in Hori's eyes.

But I want to talk about smth: ofa transfering vs afo tranfering.

(It may be dumb but is not dumber than canon)

Not sure if is true thanks to the pacing of the story, but assuming Shig was in the tank for 10 months to get a quirk he...frankly never needed. (What was the selling point here? "Shig going get more power" as if decay wasnt enough) while Izu trained for 10 months.

Shig was in a tube like a dead fish for 10 months.

Izu exercise himself for 10 months to be able to use the quirk.

How afo was transfer to Shig? Via soul?

Afo was shared by 8 people (before Izu enters) and had no real "parasite" effect. But afo does bc...????

We know nothing about afo the quirk or the person.

We know nothing about ofa the quirk and the person.

When afo wanted to steal Shig's body? Bc look I may be wrong but ...since the movies are canon, many others villains, had a small afo quirk and didnt endure "will steal your body" why Shig?

(Bc otherwise how Izu would saved him)

Not sure if I'm making sense. Its just those 2 quirks are so different and so similar...but at the same time we know nothing about it.

Also the inage I shared has the "completation in 70%" so...is afo being injected into his body? In his veins? FOR 10 MONTHS?

Again what was the selling point here? Yes, it does feel like Shig cheat (well he got his comeuppance here) but sorry nothing of this makes sense.

I guess I just want to vent a little bc those quirks are so central to the plot but at the same time we know nothing about. We know shit about yoichi and afo. It's all made up on the spot.

Thanks for the patience (I do like the contrast, in theory. Izu worked hard to gain his quirk as a good hero. Shig as a villain cheated but its Hori so...is all about bk)

Indeed, this whole thing was all over the place.

My assumption was that Garaki wasn't merely transferring AFO into Shigaraki's body, he was also physically and genetically modifying his body to be able to handle not only AFO (the quirk), but also host AFO (the potato). You're right to question how he's transferring the potato, however, because that really isn't explained. I assume that it's the ability of one of the potato's quirks, maybe a combination of a few, that allow them to do this. Or maybe it's because AFO is so connected and attached to his quirk (he's had it for like 200 years) that him and his quirk are one in the same at this point.

(The dreamscape thing is odd. Izuku only has access to it because it's part of his quirk. The potato having access to it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Unless he counts as a pass holder since it was his stockpiling quirk that was given to Yoichi and helped form OFA, but then whoever he stole it from would have been there too. Maybe this is the only way he can access the quirk since it's so unique? But that shouldn't be possible since OFA can't be stolen. And why was he only able to access it when he was inhabiting Shigaraki?)

I do think that the difference between OFA and AFO is that OFA at its course is the ability to be bestowed and inherited. Both the predecessor and successor are given a choice (presumably, if the user's DNA can't pass it down without their intention, then I reckon it can't be inherited unless the inheritor wants to inherit it). The potato can take any quirk form anyone and force it onto someone else. I think that's why it's more parasitic, a lack of consent.

I completely agree that Shigaraki didn't need AFO. He had just come into his own power and took control of an extremist organization with a ton of powerful quirk users at his disposal. Him wanting AFO when he had just done all that was counterintuitive.

I loved what him (and the entire LOV) were doing in Deika. They made season 5 for me (because the Endeavor Agency arc was shit), but you're right that he's just a plot device now. AFO taking him in and raising him to be independent as his own villain with his own allies was completely undermined by him trying to hijack Shigaraki's body

[murphysmom67]

Cognitive Dissonance: Definition and Examples

What we see/hear vs what we know. Apparently this is the new game in an attempt to not only control the individual but an entire population. Most obviously it consists of laws or actions that people find confusing or upsetting bc they don't fit w society's present norms. These beliefs are gradually being attacked and broken down in an attempt to rewire thinking. The loss of feeling safe bc we no longer feel protected; the erosion of the family unit; the lack of concern for life and in some cases encouragement of death (MAID); loss of a sense of personal power and relevance, all create an environment of anxiety, suspicion and mistrust. People will look to "authorities" ie. government agencies, for clarification. Indeed the very last place they might find it and often the perpetrators. Be aware that confusion is not bc you don't understand, its bc you do and someone is creating doubt. Don't doubt yourself.