#discourse-on-a-better-world

[thepersonalwords]

If the idea of loving those whom you have been taught to recognize as your enemies is too overwhelming, consider more deeply the observation that we are all much more alike than we are unalike.

Aberjhani, Splendid Literarium: A Treasury of Stories, Aphorisms, Poems, and Essays

[taradactyls]

So I could be totally wrong but, I believe it was sort of expected that men/gentlemen lose their virginity before marriage in regency times. But I also there’s some fandom ‘debate’ about whether or not Mr Darcy would’ve had sex before getting married. So I was just curious about what your canon for Mr Darcy in T3W is. Is he a virgin or not?

I knew someone would ask me this eventually, haha. I've actually had really long conversations with my beta reader about this trying to figure it out. It sounds like this might all be stuff that you’ve already seen discussed in the fandom, but I’ve never thought about it deeply before and so these are new thoughts to me.

I keep going over the historical real-world likelihood, the authorial intent, and the text itself but I’m still not 100%. I’ll explain my thinking and what I find most likely, but here’s your warning that it’s not a clear cut yes/no.

Because on one hand, at that time period it was most common for men in his position to have seen sex workers or have casual encounters/mistresses with women from their estates. Though I do absolutely believe not all men did that, no matter how much wealth and power they had. To go back some centuries, William the Conqueror seemed to be famously celibate (no hints of male lovers either according to the biography I read) until his marriage, and there's no evidence of affairs after it either. The best guesses as to why are that it was due to his religious devotion and the problems that had arisen from himself being a bastard and not wanting to recreate that situation. Concerns over religion and illegitimate children would certainly still have been applicable in the regency to men who thought that way. And in modern times I've seen sex workers say that when an 18/21yo is booked in by his family/friends to 'become a man' often they end up just talking and agree to lie about the encounter. After all, it’s not like every man wants casual sex, even if they aren’t demisexual or something in that vein. But, statistically speaking, the precedent of regency gentlemen would make Darcy not a virgin.

On the other hand, just how aware was Jane Austen, the very religious daughter of a country rector, of the commonness of this? There’s a huge difference between knowing affairs and sex workers existed (and no one who had seen a Georgian newspaper could be blind to this) and realising that the majority of wealthy men saw sex workers at some point even if they condemned the more public and profligate affairs. The literature for young ladies at the time paints extramarital sex - including the lust of men outside of marriage - as pretty universally bad and dangerous. This message is seen from 'Pamela' and other gothic fiction to non-fiction conduct books which Jane Austen would have encountered. Here's something I found in 'Letters to a Young Lady' by the reverend John Bennett which I found particularly interesting as it's in direct conversation with other opinions of the era:

"A reformed rake makes the best husband." Does he? It would be very extraordinary, if he should. Besides, are you very certain, that you have power to reform him? It is a matter, that requires some deliberation. This reformation, if it is to be accomplished, must take place before marriage. Then if ever, is the period of your power. But how will you be assured that he is reformed? If he appears so, is he not insidiously concealing his vices, to gain your affections? And when he knows, they are secured, may he not, gradually, throw off the mask, and be dissipated, as before? Profligacy of this kind is seldom eradicated. It resembles some cutaneous disorders, which appear to be healed, and yet are, continually, making themselves visible by fresh eruptions. A man, who has carried on a criminal intercourse with immoral women is not to be trusted, His opinion of all females is an insult to their delicacy. His attachment is to sex alone, under particular modifications.

The definition of a rake is more than a man who has seen a sex worker once, it's about appearance and general conduct too, but again, would that distinction be made to young ladies? Because they seem to simply be continuously taught 'lust when unmarried is bad and beware men who you know engage in extramarital sex.' As a side note, Jane Austen certainly knew at least something about the mechanics of sex: her letters and literature she read alludes to it, and she grew up around farm animals in the countryside which is an education in itself.

We can also see from this exert that the school of thought seems to be 'reformed rake' vs 'never a rake' in contention for the title of best husband, there's no debate over whether a current rake is unsuitable for a young lady. And, from Willoughby to Wickham to Crawford, I think we have a very clear idea of Jane Austen's ideas of how likely it is notably promiscuous men can reform. This does not preclude the possibility that her disparaging commentary around their lust is based more on over-indulgence or the class of women they seduce, but it's undoubtedly a condemnation of such men directly in line with the first part of what John Bennett says so it's no stretch to believe she saw merit in the follow-on conclusions of the second part as well. Whether she would view it with enough merit to consider celibacy the only respectable option for unmarried men is a bit unclearer.

I did consider that perhaps Jane Austen consciously treated this as a grey area where she couldn’t possibly know what young men did (the same reasoning is why we never see the men in the dining room after the ladies retire, etc) and so didn't hold an opinion on men's extramarital encounters with sex workers/lower-class women at all, but I think there actually are enough hints in her works that this isn’t the case. Though, unsurprisingly, given the delicacy of the subject, there’s no direct mention of sex workers or gentlemen having casual lovers from among the lower-classes in her texts.

That also prevents us from definitively knowing whether she thought extramarital sex was so common, and as unremarkable, as most gentlemen treated it. But we do see from her commentary around the consequences of Maria Bertram and Henry Crawford's elopement that she had criticism of the double standards men and women were held to when violating sexual virtue. Another indication that she perhaps expected good men to be capable of waiting until marriage in the way that she very clearly believed women should. At the very least, a man who often indulges in extramarital sex does not seem to be one who would be considered highly by Jane Austen.

She makes a point of saying, in regards to not liking his wife, that Mr Bennet “was not of a disposition to seek comfort for the disappointment which his own imprudence had brought on, in any of those pleasures which too often console the unfortunate for their folly or their vice.” This must include affairs, though cheating on a wife cannot be a 1:1 equivalent of single young men sleeping around before marriage. However, the latter is generally critically accepted to be one of the flaws that Darcy lays at Wickham’s door along with gambling when talking about their youth and his “vicious propensities" and "want of principle." Though this could be argued that it’s more the extent or publicity of it (but remembering that it couldn't be anything uncommon enough that it couldn't be hidden from Darcy Sr. or explained away) rather than the act itself, or maybe seductions instead of paying women offering those services. I also believe Persuasion mentioning Sunday travelling as proof of thoughtless/immoral activity supports the idea that Jane Austen might have been religious enough that she would never create a hero who had extramarital sex.

So, taken all together this would make Darcy potentially a virgin, or, since I couldn't find absolute evidence of her opinions, leave enough room that he isn’t but extramarital sex isn’t a regular (or perhaps recent) thing and he would never have had anything so established as a mistress.

I’ve also been wondering, if Darcy isn’t a virgin, who would he have slept with? I’ve been musing on arguments for and against each option for weeks at this point. No romantasy has ever made me think about a fictional man's sexual habits so much as the question of Darcy's sexual history. What is my life.

Sex workers are an obvious answer, and the visits wouldn’t have raised any eyebrows. Discretion was part of their job, it was a clean transaction with no further responsibilities towards them, and effective (and reusable, ew) condoms existed at this time so there was little risk of children and no ability to exactly determine the paternity even if there was an accident. It was a fairly ‘responsible’ choice if one wanted no strings attached. In opposition to this, syphilis was rampant at the time, and had been known to spread sexually for centuries. Sex workers were at greater risk of it than anyone else and so the more sensible and risk-averse someone is (and I think Mr Darcy would be careful) the less likely they would be to visit sex workers. Contracting something that was known as potentially deadly and capable of making a future wife infertile if it spread to her could make any intelligent and cautious man think twice.

Servants and tenants of the estate are another simple and common answer. Less risk of stds, it can be based on actual attraction more than money (though money might still change hands), and is a bit more intimate. But Wickham’s called wicked for something very similar, when he dallies (whether he only got to serious flirting, kissing, or sleeping with them I don’t think we can conclusively say) with the common women of Meryton: “his intrigues, all honoured with the title of seduction, had been extended into every tradesman's family.” And it isn't as though Wickham had any personal duty towards those people beyond the claims of basic dignity. Darcy, who is shown to have such respect and understanding for his responsibilities towards the people of his estate and duties of a landlord, would keenly feel if any of his actions were leading his servants/tenants astray and down immoral paths. Servants, especially, were considered directly under the protection of the family whose house they worked in. I think it's undoubtable that Mrs Reynolds (whose was responsible for the wellbeing - both physically and spiritually - of the female servants) would not think so well of Mr Darcy if he had experimented with maids in his youth. It would reflect badly on her if a family entrusted their daughter to her care and she 'lost her virtue' under her watch. Daughters/widows of others living on the estate not under the roof of Pemberley House are a little more likely, but still, if he did have an affair with any of them I can only think it possible when he was much younger and did not feel his duties quite so strongly. Of course lots of real men didn't care about any of this, but Darcy is so far from being depicted as careless about his duties that the narrative makes a point of how exceptional his quality of care was. Frankly, it's undeniable that none of Jane Austen's heroes were flippant about their responsibilities towards those under their protection. I cannot serious entertain an interpretation that makes Darcy not, at his current age, at least, cognizant of the contemporary problems inherent in sleeping with servants or others on his estate.

A servant in a friend’s house would remove some of that personal responsibility, but transfer it to instead be leading his friend’s servants astray and in a manner which he is less able to know about if a child did result. That latter remains a problem even if we move the setting to his college, so not particularly likely for his character as we know it… though it wouldn’t be unusual for someone to be more unthinking and reckless in their teenage years than they are at twenty-eight so I don’t think having sex then can be ruled out. Kissing I can much more easily believe, especially when at Oxford or Cambridge, but every scenario of sleeping with a lower-class woman has some compelling arguments against it especially the closer we get to the time of the novel.

Men did of course also have affairs with women of ranks similar to their own, though given Jane Austen’s well-known feelings towards men who ‘ruined’ the virtue of young ladies we can safely say that Darcy never slept with an unwed middle- or upper-class woman. Any decent man would have married them out of duty if it got so far; but if he was the sort to let it get so far, I think it impossible Jane Austen would consider him respectable. Widows are a possibility, but again, the respectable thing to do would be to marry them. Perhaps a poorer merchant’s widow would be low enough that marriage is off the table but high enough that the ‘leading astray’ aspect loses its master-servant responsibilities (though the male-female ‘protect the gentler sex’ aspect remains) but his social circle didn’t facilitate meeting many ladies like that. Plus, an affair with a woman in society would remove many layers of privacy and anonymity that sex-workers and lower-class lovers provided by simply being unremarkable to the world at large. It carries a far greater risk of scandal and a heavier sense of immorality in the terms of respecting a woman’s purity which classism prevented from applying so heavily to lower-class women.

I think it’s important to note here that something that removes the need to think about duties of landlords towards the lower-classes or gentlemen towards gentlewomen is having affairs with other men of a similar rank. But, aside from the risk of scandal and what could be called the irresponsibility of engaging in illegal acts, it’s almost certain that Jane Austen would never have supported this. For a devout author in this era the way I’m calculating likelihoods makes it not even a possibility. But if you want to write a different fanfiction (and perhaps something like a break-up could explain why Darcy doesn’t seem to have any closer friend than someone whom he must have only met two or so years ago despite being in society for years before that) it does have that advantage over affairs with women of equal- and lower-classes. I support alternate interpretations entirely – it just isn’t how I’m deciding things in this instance.

I keep coming back to the conclusion that, at the very least, Darcy hasn’t had sex recently and it was never a common occurrence. It wouldn’t surprise me if Jane Austen felt he hadn’t done it ever. Kissing, as we can see from all the parlour games at the time, wasn’t viewed as harshly, so I think he’s likely made out with someone before. But in almost every situation it does seem that the responsible and religious thing to do (which Jane Austen values so highly) is for it to never have progressed to sex. I also don’t think it conflicts with his canon characterisation to say that he wouldn’t regard sexual experience as a crucial element of his life thus far, and his personality isn’t driven to pursue pleasure for himself, so it’s entirely possible that he would never go out of his way to seek it. So, I’m inclined to think that the authorial and textual evidence is in favour of Darcy being a virgin even if the real-world contemporary standard is the opposite. (Though both leave enough room for exceptions that I’m not going to argue with anyone who feels differently; and even if you agree with all my points, you might simply weight authorial intent/textual evidence/contemporary likelihoods differently than I do and come to a different conclusion).

Remember that even if Darcy is a virgin this wouldn’t necessarily equate to lack of knowledge, only experience. There were plenty of books and artwork focused on sex, and Darcy, studious man that he is, would no doubt pay attention to what knowledge his friends/male relatives shared. Though some of it (Looking especially at you, 'Fanny Hill, Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure') should NEVER be an example of appropriate practice for taking a woman's virginity. Darcy would almost certainly have been taught directly or learnt through exposure to other men talking to make sex good for a woman – it was a commonly held misconception (since Elizabethan England, I believe) that women had to orgasm to conceive. It would be in his interests as an empathetic husband, and head of a family, to know how to please his wife.

Basically, I’m convinced Darcy isn’t very experienced, if at all, and will be learning with Elizabeth. But he does have a lot of theoretical knowledge which he’s paid careful attention to and is eager to apply.

[fannedandflawless]

From Student to Staff: The Adults Who Watched Him Break, Then Welcomed Him Back

Severus Snape didn’t just return to Hogwarts as a professor. He returned to a castle full of ghosts—not the ones who drifted through walls, but the ones who once looked through him. The ones who had titles, robes, and responsibilities. And Merlin, the way they smiled when he came back.

These weren’t strangers. These were his former teachers. The ones who watched him unravel—slowly, painfully, obviously. They saw the weight—emotional bruises no child his age should have been burdened with. They noticed the robes that hung too loose, the way his voice softened into nothing, the eyes that dulled year by year. And then, as if memory had been Obliviated, they greeted him with polite nods and teacups.

Let’s name them. Let’s drag the velvet curtain back. Let’s ask what they refused to.

🧙‍♂️ Albus Dumbledore — The Grand Strategist of Silence

He saw everything. The twinkle in his eye? That was calculation. Dumbledore knew Severus’ pain. Knew his background. Knew the Marauders were brutal, and knew exactly how Hogwarts worked for boys who didn’t shine the right way.

And what did he do? Nothing.

Not until the prophecy.

Not until Severus—broken and desperate—came crawling with regret.

Only then did Dumbledore offer protection. And even then, it wasn’t mercy. It was strategy. It was cost-benefit arithmetic.

He kept Severus close, yes—but not out of trust. Out of necessity. And in that same chessboard logic, he raised Harry the same way. A pawn to be protected, yes, but only until it was time to be sacrificed.

Severus recognised it all too well. The same cold detachment Dumbledore had shown him as a man—keeping him close, not out of care, but for utility—was now being applied to Harry. Despite the tangled mess of resentment and reluctant protection he felt toward the boy—born of Lily, shaped by James—Severus could see the pattern. He could see the purpose.

He saw through it: "You've kept him alive so that he can die at the proper moment. You've been raising him like a pig for slaughter!"

Two lives. One broken young, the other burdened late. Both groomed to serve, both shaped for sacrifice—and in the end, perhaps, both meant to die on cue.

And when the war ended, Dumbledore offered Severus a position—not because he sought to make amends, but because it served a purpose. Severus had returned to spy, initially under orders, a reluctant shadow caught between masters. And once the mask was worn long enough, Dumbledore simply let it stay.

As if a professorship could heal years of sanctioned cruelty. As if being called "Professor" would cleanse the memory of being a punchline in the corridor.

⸻

🧪 Horace Slughorn — The Collector of Potential

He loved talent. But only when it glittered.

Slughorn praised Severus’ brilliance in Potions—called him promising, sharp. But he never once shielded him.

He didn’t invite him to the Slug Club. Not until Severus’ name meant something. Not until his mind could decorate a shelf.

Slughorn’s affection was conditional. You had to be charming. Presentable. A legacy. And Severus? He was none of those things. Just a poor boy with a hungry mind and no surname to flaunt.

And perhaps that is why, years later, Severus held nothing but quiet disdain for him. Because if anyone should have noticed what was happening in the shadows of Slytherin House, it should have been its Head. Not McGonagall. Not Dumbledore. Slughorn.

He should have seen it first. And yet—he didn’t.

Slughorn used him on parchment, but never sat beside him in reality.

⸻

🐈‍⬛ Minerva McGonagall — Sharp-Eyed and Selectively Blind

Minerva loved her lions. James Potter was golden in her eyes—brave, brilliant, bold.

She watched him torment Severus in broad daylight. She called it mischief. At best, she scolded. At worst, she said nothing.

She taught Severus Transfiguration. She saw his talent. But she never once stepped in when he was dangling upside down in a public corridor.

And years later? She called him Severus. Perhaps it was meant as respect. Perhaps it was all she had left to give. But even that name, spoken in her steady voice, must have tasted hollow.

Because if I were Severus, I don’t know what I would feel beneath the careful nods and professional courtesy. Not really.

Respect? Yes. She was formidable, fair—in her own way. But also a bystander. A witness to pain who never raised her wand.

The bitterness would have settled in strange places. Not hatred. Not fury. Just that sharp ache that lingers when someone could have helped—and chose not to.

As if calling him by name could erase the silence that came before it.

⸻

📚 Filius Flitwick — Gentle, Brilliant, Absent

Flitwick was kind. Clever. Charms master of immense skill. The sort of professor whose praise felt like sunlight.

And yet—he kept to his corner. He didn’t speak up.

Severus wasn’t just a good student. He was exceptional. The sort of student whose talent should have lit up the classroom like a Lumos Maxima—quiet, focused, effortlessly precise. The kind of brilliance that doesn’t need to shout because it radiates.

He invented spells. Created incantations from scratch. If anyone in Charms class should’ve stood out like a blinking sign under a spotlight—radiating silent brilliance from the back of the room—it was him. You didn’t need him to speak to notice. You just had to be looking.

Surely Flitwick noticed. How could he not?

But maybe noticing brilliance wasn’t the same as seeing pain. Maybe house loyalty got in the way. Maybe the politics of Slytherin versus Gryffindor made it easier to stay silent.

Perhaps he thought it wasn’t his place. Perhaps no one ever taught the professors how to reach past a student's wandwork and into their wounds.

And so, in the silence between spells, a boy learned that even kindness could be hollow.

⸻

🌿 Pomona Sprout — The Kind Bystander

Warm, earthy, nurturing. That was Sprout’s image. A Hufflepuff’s dream.

But she, too, looked away.

Maybe she frowned at what she saw. Maybe she clucked disapproval over tea. But she never interrupted the hierarchy.

Not when Severus slouched through corridors like a shadow. Not when he withered a little more each autumn.

She believed in fairness—but not enough to fight for it.

⸻

🏥 Madam Pomfrey — The Healer Who Didn’t See

Out of all the professors, Madam Pomfrey may be the one I find myself most curious about. Not because she was cruel—she wasn’t. Not because she was blind—she couldn’t have been. But because if anyone should have noticed—it was her.

She could spot a fractured rib with a glance. She healed Quidditch injuries between spoonfuls of broth. Her hands were warm, her wards comforting.

And yet… she didn’t notice Severus returning each term thinner, paler, greyer?

No trace of curiosity when he flinched at loud spells? No quiet pause when he walked too carefully, too lightly—as if even the castle floors might punish him?

Did she not see the hex marks? The magical burns? Did she really miss the boy who never sought help unless he was near collapse?

Or perhaps... he hid it too well. Perhaps he wore silence like a second robe. Perhaps he'd already learned that pain, when visible, only made you more vulnerable. That vulnerability made you expendable.

But still—she was a healer. She would have known the signs. Malnutrition. Exhaustion. The long-term magical residue that clings to a child who’s been hexed too often.

Pomfrey, as matron, was in a position to notice it all—if he had come to her. But maybe he didn’t. Maybe he couldn’t. Maybe he knew better than to hope.

We know his home life wasn’t gentle. Tobias Snape, his father, was a drunk—furious, unkind, loud enough to silence the whole house. We weren’t shown every bruise or every scream, but we were shown the aftermath.

So when Severus came back each September—robes loose, eyes dimmed, voice flat—surely, surely she must have seen something. Anything. A flicker of concern. A whisper of doubt.

To be fair, we cannot fully blame her. Hundreds of students passed through her care. She healed what was asked, tended what was brought. Perhaps she was simply overwhelmed. Perhaps she assumed someone else would act.

But still… I can’t help but wonder.

She offered pepperup potions to those with sniffles. She wrapped bandages around bruised Gryffindors.

But Severus? The boy who never asked, who needed most?

She offered rest to others.

But not to him.

⸻

They all had eyes. They all had wands. They all had duty—but they wore it like a decorative cloak, not a vow.

And oh, how one wonders. How could they not see the bruises? The shoulders pulled too tight? The voice too low?

How could a castle brimming with portraits, portraits that whispered and staircases that listened, miss the slow crumbling of a child?

Perhaps they did see. Perhaps that’s what makes it worse.

Because silence isn’t always ignorance. Sometimes, it’s a choice. Sometimes, it’s self-preservation masquerading as neutrality. Sometimes, it’s indifference dressed as decorum.

And still—they looked away.

Severus Snape returned to Hogwarts as a man.

But once, he was the boy they failed.

And they seated him at their table as if none of it ever happened.

[iwriteaboutfeminism]

It's so important to have a political imagination. Even before you can hope for change, before you can work for change, you have to be able to imagine it.

[sylvanus-cypher]

It's weird that the people I see with the most vitriolic disdain for Lancer aren't the conservative, chauvinistic, right-wing morons who the game explicitly criticizes, but a lot of far-leftists whose policies line up pretty damn close to Union's but disagree with its existence for seemingly incomprehensible reasons; I think it perfectly demonstrates how pervasive Capitalist Realism is that even many leftists reflexively denounce the idea (and it is the idea, because it's in a sci-fi TTRPG) of a democratic state that genuinely has the people's best interest at heart

[shesalittlelost]

The way y'all talk about victims is actually disgusting “she is not just a passive victim” “she summoned him” “don't reduce her to just a victim” what is wrong with a character just being a victim? no seriously, why the fuck do so many of you talk like being a victim is this inferior thing that a character must surpass and become “more than” like i'm sorry but what the fuck is going on here? y'all's aversion to the idea of ellen being a victim of grooming and SA is all rooted in your belief that survivors of abuse aren't normal fucking people capable of any moral and emotional complexity. that's why you feel the need to erase and push so vehemently against the idea because a victim can not feel desire for her abuser and if she displays even a remotely, complex emotion for her abuser then it means it wasn't abuse and that she wanted it all along right? smfh.

[akkivee]

.

[hungergameshyperfixation]

By the way, I’m sure it’s very obvious to everyone WHY Woody Harrelson is the top fan contender for this (at least my top contender LMAO) but still

I’m mega biased though (please please please let it be Woody Harrelson let us have one good thing in this wretched timeline)

I mean?? Without delving too much into celebrity culture and my thoughts on it, all I’ll say is that I make exceptions rarely and this is one of those moments where I’m riding the hype train. Woody Harrelson’s voice? Again, I’m biased, but in my subjective opinion I’d love to have a narrated book (possibly my new favorite novel depending on what happens/how it all goes down because: Haymitch Abernathy being arguably one of my top favorite fictional characters for years) done by him.

[fadedsweater]

lmao I think I reached the tag limit on tumblr for the first time EVER and you'll never guess that it was because I was trying to hash out my thoughts on the veil staying up in da4 😂

this is why before the game came out I had narrowed things down to two potential directions the veil plot could go #option one was the veil stays up and thus the story is about healing from grief and putting down burdens#this option assumes that the veil does need to stay up #it treats the veil narratively as a new but essential part of the world #option two is the veil comes down but through a better option #in this option the story is about trusting people and finding a new better path #it assumes the veil is an artificial construct that is hostile to nature #(this is the brief version distilled into tags but like you get the picture) #As much as I really wanted option two #I knew we'd probably get option one#because actually taking the veil down would radically change the setting in dramatic ways #In this option I also assumed that the veil would eventually come down on its own anyway #thus the necessity of a better way to take it down #my main issue with option one (veil stays up) is that it doesnt contend with the harm the veil does to spirits #or the fact that the veil is inherently an artificial construct #and after the game came out and actually gave us option one (veil stays up) #turns out it also doesn't do the best job of contending with what happens next #like okay Solas is the only person keeping the Veil up #but all the Evanuris dying off is what was making it so weak #so like what's the long term plan here like how weak is the veil when it's only sustained by one person

anyway the gist of the tags that got yeeted into the void:

In Trespasser Solas tells us that his plan would basically wipe out everyone and everything, that our world would burn in the raw chaos in order for him to save his. But in Veilguard, he tells us that he created enough precautions that only a few thousand people would die (still a lot! but worth noting that at least that many people died anyway as a result of the Blight and the Evanuris escaping).

So basically, with this canon knowledge -- who's to say there wasn't a way to take down the Veil with ZERO causalities? The move from "the world burns in the raw chaos" to "a couple thousand die" is a pretty significant difference. Maybe there could have been a way to keep refining the plan, creating more precautions. Idk. Veilguard wasn't interested in exploring that.

All this to say, Solas being the sole person keeping the Veil up seems unsustainble to me (and it is weird narratively - like the point is that he ISN'T a god?). It's also like...how weak is the Veil now with one person sustaining it? How is he supposed to sustain it FOREVER? What does that narratively say about our ideas of redemption and forgiveness? I don't really have the answers but it certainly raises those questions for me.

[pyrosomatic-metamorphosis]

tbh i think that even unwinnable fights should be winnable. some of the BEST fights i've ever run as a dm were ones i built kill the players (in a fun way. I had some cutscenes prepped so even the loss would be a different flavour of win)- but then they were clever bastards and managed to either win the fights or pull themselves out of trouble. I think it's perfectly fine to plan for a fight that players aren't supposed to win, but you need to let them. if they can't win, they can't lose, and the meaning of that encounter is diminished. do that too many times, and they stop trusting you to give them roleplay prompts and start expecting to sit there waiting while you drive the story for them.

but if they can win... if there is always the chance to win, no matter how impossible the odds, then they ALWAYS have hope. they always get invested. they feel the big emotions of success or the big emotions of failure, and you fucking Win as a dm/roleplay prompter/lead bastard.

[rwbyrg]

hi! noticed the ask by the anon about the reactions to rosegarden and i can't help but wonder...

do you think any of them would have some reservations because of the oz in oscar's head thing? i reckon there may be some slight lingering intensity for each member regarding him so there's a chance they could be wary... but more so for ruby and oscar, rather than exclusively ruby

I answered the last ask on the assumption that them becoming canon wouldn't happen until after the war is won and the Oz curse is broken. Simply because I don't think either of them have the time or capacity to tackle that sort of relationship before the main plot is resolved. So in the hypothetical situation that they would get together and it's before the curse is broken, I think there's a chance some of the people around them might be a bit wary. At least Qrow, Tai, and maybe Yang. However, with it being so close to the final fight, it would probably be the least of anyone's concerns at that time. "Seeing as the world might end in three weeks, so long as those two are happy for whatever time we have left, I don't really care if Oz is around for it or not", if you know what I mean?

That being said, I think I am too biased to answer this in a yes-and kind of way. I know you're probably asking in good faith, but in full transparency, I'm pretty jaded by how often this particular topic gets brought up. Since this is not the first time and probably won't be the last, I'm going to take this as an opportunity to share my stance on this idea as a whole.

Ozpin's place within Oscar and RG's stories is one of conflict; which is what all stories revolve around. And it is not, nor has it ever been, a deal breaker for RG's relationship to me. The Ozcarnation curse is an allegory for a few things. The first is simply growing up. RWBY is a coming of age story, and Oscar isn't the only one going through that arc. But this conflict and grief of how he doesn't get to choose the kind of person he wants to be - largely because of the people he's met and things he's experienced - is not unique to him. The curse is just a fantasized and exaggerated version of it.

The next one isn't so much an allegory as it is plainly stated in the text, but it's a story about choice. It's about how even when we are irreversibly changed by things outside our control, we can still choose who we want to be. Even when it's hard, even when the influences are strong, even when it's downright traumatic. Oscar's story is about self discovery and self acceptance; about choice and change. Regardless of if Oz fades into the background, or his curse is broken, or they become a blendy merge of the two of them, Oscar is still going to remain his own person in some way by the end of it. Because this is ultimately a happy story and that is the main driving conflict of his personal arc.

The assumption that Oscar is going to get absorbed or overwritten by Ozpin being such a common take in this fandom never ceases to confuse me because of that. It also confuses me because the show - while it doesn't fully explain the extent of the merge mechanics - has told us that Oz has had families in his previous lives by "learning to live with the souls with which he had been paired".

The other allegory I'll mention - of which I am not the first, nor necessarily the best, to be pointing out (here is a great example from a little while ago) - is one for plurality. Some of the friends I've made in RG spaces have DID and have spoken to me about how they interpret the Ozcar situation; how it's similar or different to their own experiences. Hearing those stories, once again, makes it really hard for me to see Ozpin as any sort of deal-breaking barrier to a rosegarden relationship. This idea that Oscar must be isolated from his friends and constantly scrutinized when showing interest towards any romantic partners because of Oz's presence lacks both imagination and compassion for me. Oscar never asked for this curse, he didn't do anything to deserve it, and to condemn him to a lonely life because of something like that seems really antithetical to the themes of this story and to the characters involved. While some characters within the story might have some doubts about the relationship, at the end of the day it is not up to them on what Ruby and Oscar decide to do for themselves.

Again, this isn't aimed at you, Anon. I just wanted to say my piece on it given how pervasive this topic is. I truly look forward to the day where folks can talk about RG without this being the first thought or argument that everyone jumps to.

[brownnbears]

The discourse around Jinx’s sexuality recently is crazy because ever since I first saw Arcane Jinx has always been like completely sexless to me lmao

Maybe it’s just my aroace bias but I was so confused when her and Ekko were sort of a thing in s2 bc I don’t even think they interacted up to that point other than the fight on the bridge and a literal alternate universe. I’m sure it’s implied like “they grew up together” but it just never really worked for me, probably s2’s pacing problem striking again

But fr you can hc jinx as whatever you want bc that’s the great thing about fandom culture lol

What really needs to happen is people need to stop feeding into the guys intentionally trying to get a rise out of you by saying “erm canonically jinx is straight 🤓” because you don’t need to validate your hcs to some random and it’s annoying to see on my tl

[54625]

Morning crew discourse in fandom is so fucking funny .

"Morning crew are a family!! Fathers and their son!" (They constantly make dirty jokes towards each other/ make sexual innuendos about eachother, are generally very inappropriate and weird about eachother)

"Morning crew are a relationship! They're all in love!" (They have called each other family on countless occasions, Fit called himself an older cousin/uncle figure towards Tubbo, says Tubbo reminds him of Ramón and acted like he was a stand-in Ramón while he was missing, Ramón calls Tubbo his brother)

remind me to introduce yall to this crazy concept called a friendship

[fannedandflawless]

The Great Galleon Plot Hole

You ever sit there re-reading Harry Potter and suddenly get punched in the face by a plot hole so loud it drowns out the Hogwarts Express?

Because I just remembered something:

Wands are the most essential magical tool in the entire wizarding world—your literal magical lifeline—and they cost less than a decent meal in Diagon Alley.

Meanwhile, broomsticks? Luxury items. And somehow, everyone’s just… fine with that?

✨Absolutely not.✨

Let’s talk about it—because the wizarding world economy is giving narrative convenience over logic, and I have questions. Big, wand-swinging, Gringotts-auditing questions.

But Why Is the Soul-Bound Wand Cheaper Than a Broomstick?

THE WAND IS YOUR LIFE

It’s your weapon.

Your shield.

Your link to identity, emotion, power, precision, and survival.

You can’t even perform most standard spells without it—unless you're a trained wandless magic user, which is incredibly rare and usually requires advanced discipline or heritage-based skill.

It chooses you. It bonds with your magic. It’s irreplaceable. So how much does it cost?

Roughly 7–20 Galleons. Literally less than a decent cauldron—or, depending on the wand, not much more than dinner and dessert in Diagon Alley.

According to J.K. Rowling, wands sold at Ollivanders are generally priced around 7 Galleons, though some fans speculate they could range up to 20 Galleons depending on wand complexity or materials. If we use the exchange rate Rowling once suggested (1 Galleon = ~£5), that means the average wand costs £35–£100—cheaper than a modern mobile phone, and it lasts your entire magical life.

Considering the effort it takes to craft them—rare magical woods, powerful cores like phoenix feather or dragon heartstring, and the expertise of a wandmaker—this price range is still shockingly low for something that serves as a witch or wizard’s most essential magical instrument.

—

MEAL PRICES IN THE WIZARDING WORLD

Let’s quickly look at the cost of food in the wizarding world, since we’re comparing life-altering artefacts to lunch.

From the Hogwarts Express trolley:

Pumpkin Pasties, Cauldron Cakes, Chocolate Frogs: ~1–2 Sickles each

Harry buys a dozen items with a handful of Sickles (17 Sickles = 1 Galleon)

A full trolley binge? Roughly 1 Galleon.

In Half-Blood Prince, we also get a glimpse of Hogsmeade and Diagon Alley prices:

Butterbeer: ~2 Sickles

Light lunch at the Leaky Cauldron: ~1–2 Galleons

Full sit-down meal with drinks and dessert (e.g. Madam Puddifoot’s): ~3–4 Galleons

So yes, a wand could cost less than a proper meal out—especially if you’re treating someone.

—

THE BROOM COSTS 50x MORE?

A Nimbus 2000 is gifted to Harry—major moment. Retail: ~100 Galleons.

A Firebolt? Easily over 1,000 Galleons. That’s more than Arthur Weasley’s entire annual salary, and he works for the Ministry of Magic. Literal luxury transport.

Some Hogwarts students can’t even afford a broom—they borrow school spares.

So what are we saying?

“Yes, your enchanted flying stick of wood is more expensive than your magical soul-bonded wand.”

🚨 IT’S A PLOT HOLE. A BIG ONE.

We’re expected to believe that the literal core of magical life is cheaper than school transport, postal birds, and half the Hogwarts supply list?

—

ROWLING’S LIKELY INTENTION:

A cheap wand makes magic feel accessible to everyone.

Expensive brooms show status and privilege (Malfoys flexing 101).

It creates visual contrast: Ron’s taped wand vs Draco’s top-tier broom.

But from an internal logic standpoint?

You can’t ride a broom into a duel. But you can hex someone across the room with a wand. So why is the life-sustaining object priced like a trinket?

—

HEADCANON FIX (Because We Always Clean Up for Her):

Wands are partially subsidised by Hogwarts or the Ministry. → A “no child wandless” policy. A right, not a luxury. → Ollivander charges less than market value to protect magical equality.

Brooms are like cars. → Basic ones are cheap. → High-end ones are status symbols (think: Quidditch Rolex on a stick).

Ollivander keeps prices low on purpose. → His family name is legacy. → He’s not selling wood and string—he’s handing over destiny.

—

🫠 BONUS RAGE: OLLIVANDER HAS TO EAT, TOO.

Wandmaking isn’t hobby work. This man carves magical wood, cores it with dragon heartstring or unicorn hair, and attunes it to individual children’s energy signatures.

And you’re telling me he charges 7 Galleons and calls it a day?

Meanwhile, in the Muggle world, wand replicas at Universal Studios theme parks sell for £40–£70, depending on whether they’re interactive or display-only. That’s almost the same as—or more than—the actual wand price in-universe. And those don’t even come with phoenix feathers.

Either he’s surviving on principle alone, or there’s a secret Wand Subsidy Act nobody talks about.

—

“If my wand is cheaper than an enchanted kettle, someone’s cooking the books—and it’s not in Potions class.”

Capitalism really said ‘Expelliarmus your wallet.’

—

💸 If wand prices made you blink, wait until you see how Severus Snape maintained a house, a potions lab, and an aura of controlled menace on what Slughorn called a “meagre” salary. → Read Spinner’s End Wasn’t Poverty—It Was Privacy.

[moe-broey]

Imagine if the new Tomodachi Life skirts the gay marriage issue (a bit damned if you do, damned if you don't at this point) by abolishing marriage as a construct. Deserting the war on gay rights on the side of DIVORCE EVERYONE. NOW‼️‼️‼️‼️‼️‼️‼️

[ebenelephant]

"my ship's better because it's canon" where were you for the last 60 years of spirk?