#assessing with objectivity

[fishstewarding]

Assessing with objectivity. An FSG One Minute Message.

[treatsformeeko]

This dialogue has always baffled me. It is locked behind a 30 cunning check, which I think may be impossible to reach without cheats at this early stage in the game (?) but its implications are INSANE. Entirely too long tirade below the cut:

How could the darkspawn possibly know the plan? Does it have anything to do with darkspawn showing greater signs of intelligence (re: the Architect, the Messenger)? Awakening was being written before DAO came out — was this meant to tie into that?

Many people online have discussed that it may be a remnant of abandoned plot threads that paint loghain as more of a mustache-twirling villain, working with the darkspawn (either willingly or perhaps under their influence?) to make sure the signal fire doesn’t get lit. David Gaider explained at length that the Ostagar plotline and the Cailan/Loghain conflict were subject to numerous rewrites. And while it is true that there is no further dialogue to suggest that Loghain was working with the darkspawn as this dialogue implies, my next question is what were his men doing in the tunnels underneath the Tower of Ishal?

Even before I had seen this exact line, in my first playthrough I operated under the assumption that Loghain had purposefully sabotaged the Tower in order to place blame on the Grey Wardens (an already easy scapegoat given their very recent return from exile) once he inevitably quit the field. I never once thought that his decision to retreat from Ostagar was made in the heat of the moment — after all, why would Howe already be making moves on Highever if he thought that Cailan would be alive after the battle to punish him for it? And if it were the case that Loghain planned for Cailan to die at Ostagar, why would he allow the signal fire to be lit on time and still quit the field knowing that some of his men would see this as betraying the King, regardless of how good he was at being a leader? Was it just a very happy accident that the darkspawn overwhelming the Tower and delaying made him look less villainous to his own army? Why would he leave this up to chance when so much of his plan before this seems to be so carefully crafted?

Frankly speaking, much of the deeper DAO lore seems to be happy accidents — constant rewrites and abandoned plot threads coming together to create a genuinely interesting story where the truth is not easily identified. And honestly, I think it benefited greatly from this! The truth is messy, especially when there are this many players vying for power in some way or another.

Personally, I’m of the mind that dev-lore comes secondary to what actually makes it into the game, even when the devs had better ideas than what we got. Which is why it is so fascinating that this line still exists in game and yet is nearly impossible to obtain! Why does it still exist? Why is it so hard to obtain? What implications does it have on the greater plot?

I don’t necessarily have an interesting conclusion beyond the fact that I am still in awe at the reactivity of this game that is objectively pretty clunky and ugly by today’s standards. I love Loghain as a villain in part because he is so human, and as much as I enjoy the sequels I really think that he is one of the best antagonists of the entire series. I find it really interesting that his reputation is not entirely shredded to pieces by Inquisition, as some Ostagar vets still sing his praises, which just further drives home the point that he has the capacity for good AND evil! I mean hell, the whole game is about making sacrifices for the greater good. Couldn’t you still argue that that was what Loghain was doing (or at least thought he was doing)?

All of this being an entirely too-long wind up to say: fuck you Quartermaster Threnn. I know what I saw.

[littlelouprophetjohn]

i was sorting through a bag of stamps that i got at an antique store for £2 and you will Not believe who showed up out of the blue

[sophitz]

[astrolotte]

Interesting thing I realized is that the reason Peri still has his fuckass hair swirl in object form is most likely to make it easier to tell him apart from Cosmo (especially for colorblind kids), as he and his dad have the exact same facial features! Which is cool to note, I love character design.

I would also like to put it on record that this could've been fixed if you let him keep the eyelashes he had as a baby. I will forever be an advocate for that LET HIM BE SLAY-

[priceysalt]

every day i log onto tumblr dot com and some new fresh horror awaits me in the patti lupone tag

[pyjamacryptid]

me surrounded by all of my medical paperwork that disability services deems “not enough evidence” to claim support, after applying for the 5th time:

[k423s]

can not emphasize enough that i try to hate as a writer first and a person w subconscious biases second ok.

[cosmichorrorlesbians]

Girl what did Patricia say???? What's the tea

hey Gabriel!!!

uh. so I am currently in crunch time for exams, and I have decided that now, for some godforsaken reason, is the time to get back on my John Polidori bullshit. specifically reading up about the biographical resonances of The Vampyre and Polidori's relationship to Lord Byron. you know me. you know this is exactly my brand of nonsense.

anyway Patricia Skarda was a literary scholar who in 1989 wrote a paper called Vampirism and Plagiarism: Byron's Influence and Polidori's Practice. this has been decently influential, if only because Polidori is a fairly niche area of study. her argument is basically that Polidori wrote The Vampyre, it was not only influenced heavily by Byron's unfinished fragment of a ghost story, August Darvell, but also mimics and mocks other of his works (most notably The Giaour) and moreover Lord Ruthven and Aubrey, the evil, handsome, corrupting vampire and the young male ingenue he takes on a whirlwind trip across Europe, are deliberately and unsubtly modelled on Byron and Polidori respectively.

this is... not necessarily a bad take. I broadly agree; it's part of what makes me so fascinated by the novella and the history around it. my beef is with the tone Skarda takes and the framing of Polidori as completely talentless, a bitter, infatuated hack-- it leads to a reciprocal deification of Byron and his talents that feels much more unquestioning. at times you sit there going, holy fuck, Patricia, what did John Polidori (notably dead for 150 years at the time of this being written) do to you???

the most egregious line is under the cut because it is genuinely such an awful choice of words that it feels necessary. tw rape mention.

THE WHOLE THING IS FULL OF SENTENCES LIKE THIS. PATRICIA WHAT THE FUCK.

[lazzarella]

"It's okay to like art that is badly made" Sure! I have been known to enjoy art that I may also think is kinda crappy (affectionate). But do you know what's also okay? Thinking the thing I like is good, and well made, despite others' opinions

[exteenpopstar]

Btw I apologize if i still sometimes say i "can't make phone calls" when i can a lot of the time now; i could only do it very rarely until like, last year?? and now it's more of a 50/50 skill, and my self-concept is still adjusting. 😬

[fcntasmas]

I’ve noticed authors creating such sanitized characters where like nobody can have any discourse on their flaws. It’s so annoying and while I don’t agree that authors need to cater to an audience I understand feeling like they might need to when any imperfection is so unnecessarily attacked. People throw around words to describe these people and it’s like those words have meaning and when you call any character that’s not cookie cutter nice abusive, it’s like wtf are we doing. Again not about a particular firefighter show but in general but I saw some things said about said firefighter in firefighter show and I was just like … are you guys ok?? But anyway lol

no exactly you get it i feel like so many authors are just. AFRAID of the backlash they might (and probably WOULD) receive nowadays if they write a flawed character, so they tend to over-correct to the point where a story loses all its nuance. and the nuance is what makes a story interesting!! but so many people are dead set on making that a BAD thing and i just. oof. i'm just tired, man.

and also, getting a little more pointed: throwing words that have real, heavy weight behind them around because it serves your narrative or your purpose to make a character seem "problematic" rather than "flawed" and "human" is so wild to me. absolutely wild!!

[thedeadestmeme]

took a while, but finally starting to understand the Toji Fushiguro fans. i’m rewatching Dragon Ball Super and i’m constantly rooting for Vegeta, even with the extensive amount of past (and current) war crimes.

but anyway. the biggest difference between Toji Fushiguro and Vegeta (beside Toji’s gambling addiction) is that only one of them lived long enough to raise their son.

or rather, i should say — only one of them had the chance to redeem themselves as a father figure. only one of them got to survive their deathbed to see that they’ve messed up by neglecting their child. and only one of them had the time/support to overcome their family traumas enough to try.

anyway!! i’m not saying it’s exactly 1:1, but i can see the ideal of the fans that could imagine Toji’s redemption a bit better than i had /lh!!!

[sovonight]

world's saddest chosen

[slythereen]

too many thoughts about the monza vlog to function i fear. but i do have a question for the elder tifosi… have the tifosi truly always been insane about all their drivers? like. i see some people say that they’d be this feral over anyone in red, it’s not just charles etc. etc., i genuinely cannot fathom this level of Crazy for all of them??

[chicago-geniza]

Thinking about Her (the Habsburg peridot parure)