#fundamentally those two are good and are morally aligned

[glowingreverie]

.

[sha-brytols]

someone: do you think anders is a good person

the part of my brain that engages in genuine critical media analysis: i think it's disingenuous to label him through the lens of a binary good/evil paradigm because what makes him such an interesting and engaging character is his status inbetween a human with complex emotions and desires and flaws that will never fully align with each other, and the singleminded focus and purpose of a supernatural entity that is literally justice incarnate and has no capacity for nuance and whose very nature is fundamentally incompatible with humanity but the two of them are so deeply connected that they make up a single identity that's constantly at odds with itself and this struggle causes him to act in ways that aren't always clean and often land him and those around him in impossible positions. i think he was morally justified in doing what he did to the chantry but i also believe he understood the magnitude of what he was doing which is why i inherently disagree with the notion that characters like varric or sebastian were wrong in their reactions because that's the very nature of violent revolution—people get caught in the crossfire and are harmed despite their innocence and regardless of the righteousness of the action at large. if someone killed your mom to protect a hundred orphans you probably wouldn't come out of the experience full of love and admiration for the person who killed your mother because regardless of the outcome they still fucking killed your mother. anders destroyed people's homes and lives and there's a conversation to be had about how he gaslit and exploited hawke, his own potential lover, into being an unwitting accomplice even though we know through meta knowledge that he was perfectly capable of doing it on his own and very likely only wanted hawke's involvement because he needed a powerful figure to become the rallying symbol for his cause. the reality is his very nature would have never allowed him to choose hawke and his friends over his goal because to do so would have been fundamentally selfish and antithetical to his newfound identity as one who champions the needs of the many at the expense of the individual. it's a beautifully tragic story about the lengths a person would have to go to in order to enact any sort of meaningful change while constrained in a system that benefits from their powerlessness, and how that process cannot exist without suffering and pain on both the individual and collective level. i also feel like if anders was written by a person with a degree of compassion and awareness for not only the character they were writing but just what living as a vulnerable and targeted minority is like then the narrative and message would have been vastly different than what ended up on screen because, ultimately, the game wants you to look at the stark injustice of a child being ripped away from their family to spend a life locked away in cold isolation where they're at constant risk of exploitation, abuse, death, and even a complete removal of their personhood, and think that there's room for compromise. it's a narrative that perpetuates the myth that passivity and tolerance in the face of oppression is more virtuous than burdening the masses with the discomfort of seeing their own culpability in sustaining it. a better game would have challenged varric and sebastian while also affirming their anger instead of just the latter. a better game would have explored hawke's reaction in a deeper manner that examined their relationship with the system, their own internal biases, and how anders affected their worldview.

the part of my brain that was on tumblr in 2014 and is still extremely petty and spiteful: he should have blown up the conclave while he was at it

[theysingtheirsong]

Gonna spitball a few notes on a few different powers. I'm more stranger aligned (I like anonymity) but kinda have the whole mary key/lietner/salesa/breekon and hope "will work with any power" thing going on.

I think a lot of people badly misunderstand the flesh. They see it as being meat, body horror, and transgenderism metaphor and miss the actual substance linking it all together. I mean, it is those things (though corruption and slaughter are as much body horror as it is), but those aren't its base. The flesh is a fear of objectification and consumption. Of being reduced to just your meat. It is the fear of livestock sent to slaughter, but it specifically emerged at the apex of workers being mistreated under capitalism. Upton Sinclairs' original message in "The Jungle" wasn't "your meat industry is gross" it's "what's really going into your meat is worker mutilation, because fundamentally the boss sees you as interchangeable and disposable". The flesh is about existing as something for others to consume. On a practical level, it gets cannibalism and famine (both fears relating to consumption). But the body dysmorphia angle happens because fundamentally obsessing over self-percieved imperfections is a very reductive, objectifying way to think about one's self. Concerns over bodily perfection are often social, and rooted in making yourself more consumable.

People often dunk on the web having such a strong spider theme, but it makes sense if you think about it for five seconds. Even ignoring the fact that mythologically the fates were often seen as spinsters and weavers, animal fears count too. There are far more insects afraid of spiders as things that create invisible, ensnaring threads then there are humans who find them to be gross little bugs.

I find myself interested in a lot of hypothetical or fanon fears. I love the idea of The Dull created by a different TMA blogger on this site. I also remember really liking a fan theory I read that the combo slaughter/filth fear the web mentioned was an archaic fear of "things that can cause your town to vanish overnight" (and possibly a precursor to to extinction). If I may, I would like to place my own fanon fear here, because I have nowhere else to place it. Feel free to ignore it if you want. I call it the Temptation, or Moral Panic, or Catholic Guilt the fear. It's a medieval fear probably waning in power when smirk made his list of 14 (hence how he missed it). It is the fear that you, personally, are evil. That your soul is tainted with sin, that you have ruined your own karma, that there is just something metaphysical bad about you. Falls from grace, fatal flaws, learning that you are compleatly capable of hurting someone you love for selfish reasons. Its aesthetic is Gothic and religous horror, all demons and judging stone angels and vampires beckoning for you to come have a sip. It started to lose power once the fear shifted from an idea of evil as a personal flaw that stained your soul to evil as culpability in systems too big for you to meaningfully oppose (which is more vast/web). Although I also think we have seen two domains of the temptation in the eyepocalpse.

I also have a lot of thoughts about the vast but that can be a different post. This one is long enough.

I fully agree with you, especially on the topic of the flesh. People interpret all the fears differently so it’s good to hear as many opinions as possible, and I really like your take on it, as well as the others. Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts on some of the fears, it really is appreciated

[whirlybirbs]

Miss birbs, my dearly beloved feral Boston cryptid, I have a question:

My partner and I were gifted a surprise vacation from his parents to any state chosen at random. We got Massachusetts 😅

We've never been and I was wondering if you had any suggestions? Recommendations? Places to avoid or any warnings we should heed? We're open to anything and we're going the first week of July.

We haven't decided whether to fly or take an Amtrak out. Is Boston Logan decent enough or is it equivalent to DFW?

xoxoxo

[CUE THE REVOLUTIONARY WAR FLUTES & DRUMS]

now is my time to shine.

hot take: i love logan airport. but i say this after having recently been in fort lauderdale's fuckass airport for about five hours too long. amtrak is also easy, that will bring you into either north or south station depending on your point of origin — those two spots are nestled in the city of boston!

(side note: don't rely on the mbta to get you anywhere on time while you're here. the orange line literally catches on fire every other month. the red line cannot stay on its tracks. the green line sounds like its using echo location.)

from a tourist point of view, i frankly ignore anything west of framingham. i spent enough of my developmental years in worcester and i can firmly say it ain't it from a wooooaaahhhh perspective.

boston, compared to other US cities, is pretty small (especially once you nail how to drive in it, yippee, that's me). top five things i tell everyone to do when in the city of boston:

isabella stuart gardner museum — i love her, she is amazing and i prefer her to the mfa just because the lore and sights!

red sox games — i hate to say it but i fucking love baseball and i love fenway park even more. games can be pricey these days, but nothing beats a night game + hot dog + beer and heckling from the grandstands

dani's queer bar / club cafe / dbar — these are my favorite gay bars in boston if you're of that sort. personally, i would rather be shot dead than be seen in midway cafe for the infamous queeroke but it could be a blast if you aren't acutely aware of every other person's dating history and beef (this is a small city)

mfa first fridays — if you can time it right! they do themed nights!

chinatown — if you hop off the t by the boston public garden, you can basically walk through the theater district (also fun) and head into chinatown. amazing food, really cool art, and on the way out you can stop for a drink at my shayla: ruka.

modern pastry in the north end — i promise you fuck all that mike's pastries noise. go here, then go to the speakeasy downstairs and order their banana bread martini. that is bliss.

encore — i hate casinos but i did take a free harbor cruise to encore from the north end (you can too) while blasted on aforementioned banana bread martinis and it was great

i will most likely thing of more the moment i post this. now, the real deal, tourist traps in boston that suck absolute ass:

i don't give a shit what anyone says i fucking hate newbury street. nothing good happens on newbury street. oh, there's a cafe you really like on newbury street? cool, i won't be going. it's simply not for people like me, in my meager tax bracket.

don't go to harvard. it's boring. i basically lived on their campus and i promise you the 'park the car in harvard yard' jokes are not worth it. you can't park a car there. it's literally impossible.

listen, it's been a minute since i've walked the freedom trail but that 2.5 mile long stretch is some of the most harrowing shit. people are going to know you're a tourist.

fundamentally speaking the idea of a duck boat should align with my values and morals however: i have seen the way these fuckers drive. also, i have no idea the cost of a one hour long spin around the city in something called jason varitek's left nut or something but it cannot be cheap.

you should definitely head to the cape — live out that yuppie old money dream, sure, but also if you head down to p-town during a certain week in july then you're bound to encounter the most beautiful migration of our species: bear week.

if you get the chance, while you're down there, take a swing over to nantucket. it's a short ferry ride over and good for a day trip. that's something i haven't done since i was a kid and it's reaaallll cute over there.

if you're the outdoorsy type, there are a lot of good hiking spots in our state. me and the queer girlies like to go swimming at walden pond that a bunch of sirens in o brother where art thou.

okay. i fear i have given you all too much information about my whereabouts any given weekend. if you see me in public no you didn't.

[radfemfessing]

The radfem community online and especially on tumblr is largely still stuck in individualist and identity driven thinking patterns they have adopted from the liberal ideology they have been fed for years. I don't say this as an accusation, I just have two words of advice: 1) Don't ever worship or idolize people. Don't rely on a person as a "leader" or moral compass. No person in the world will always be 100% right or likeable. And more importantly: if you start to think for yourself and form opinions by yourself, you will find that you can't agree 100% on everything with a person, especially if you don't know them personally. This is important because if you expect other people to deliver you the correct opinions all the time, you are not better than TRAs and libfems, you just chose a different false idol to worship. Not idolizing people also prevents you from being disappointed and/or attaching your own moral/political alignment to sympathy. If you idolize JK Rowling and find out that she supported Johnny Depp or if you idolize Andrea Dworkin but then find out about some facts about your personal life, you might consider their words and their work worthless entirely, because that's how liberal spaces like to operate. See theory and other womens thought and opinions more as a buffet of inspiration for your own opinion. You don't have to agree with everything someone says and you don't even have to like that person to look at what they have to say and form your very own opinion around it. This doesn't mean you can't like someone or can't acknowledge the genius of some people and their work. It just means to not be blindsided, ignorant or shocked when they do or say something that doesn't align with your values or opinions. It makes you and your standpoint much less vulnerable to criticism as well. 2) "Radical feminism" is almost and sometimes outright treated as a new identity. It's an ideology you can understand, learn about and follow through actions. There are actions and ideas that are fundamentally opposed to radical feminist ideas and actions. And calling those out and talking about them is important. But arguing about "what makes you a radical feminist" so you can go through a checklist that makes you part of this new fun identity/club isn't a good way to go about it. Don't be so worried if you are allowed to call yourself a radical feminist. That's just a hollow identity thing. Rather evaluate which actions are radical feminist and which aren't. Engage with radical feminist theory through reading and conversation and draw conclusions from that for your own life and the actions you want to take on your own or with other women. For example: Wearing makeup isn't a radical feminist action, it's even opposing to radical feminist theory. Acknowledging that and taking action is much more important than "But can I have this radical feminist identity and be part of the identity club online if I wear makeup". Why is it so much more important to you to be able to call yourself something than to understand it and take material action according to what you believe in? I personally do not care if I am "allowed" to call myself a radical feminist. Why should I? It's not like I introduce myself like that anywhere. It's just something you agonize about when you want to know if you can write it into your tumblr bio. I am much more interested in finding out what exactly radical feminism is and then reflecting on that and taking material action according to that.

Think more for yourself, disagree with things because you personal thought them through and not because someone else told you to. Change your opinions if you gather new information. Engage actively with radical feminism instead of passively consuming it or passively identifying with it.

🔱

[liketwoswansinbalance]

Please read or skim the descriptions below the poll and approximate as best as you can before voting. (If you disagree with any of my character interpretations, feel free to comment.)

Hephaestus (or Kyma) - Can and will set their pride aside to help others. E.g., Hephaestus held back and did not stand up to Vulcan in order to save his fellow Evers and spare them from further punishment. He took the selfless way out, instead of going after personal satisfaction. Both he and Kyma care for others, and in doing so, save themselves, too. Yet, they also seem willing to sacrifice themselves. "All against Evil" mentality.

Hook (or Midas) - The "neutrals." These two get their own category, slightly outside of the Kyma to Rhian spectrum. Will save himself first if he has good reason to neglect others. Is willing to betray, lie, and cheat, yet cares for those specifically aligned with him. He cares for those on his side (sometimes, meaning only himself) and that excludes everyone else, the masses. Has an "us vs. them" or "us against the world" mentality.

Rise Rafal - Mostly "Good," or if not Good, honorable on some level, but cannot set his pride aside. Slightly narrower than the Hook category. Deserts and tortures everyone with almost no qualms. Yet does possess a conscience. Has a cynical mentality of: "I will save myself and hang everyone out to dry, to fend for themselves" or essentially, the classic: "Every man for himself." Assumes the worst of human nature, under normal circumstances—unless someone gives him reason to believe they will do Good. Also: "So long everyone. I only care about myself, and will do nothing for you." Plays defensive sometimes, but only for himself with few exceptions (like protecting Rhian). Overall: "Me and my personal gain against the world" mentality.

Fall Rafal - Inclusive of the above description. Plus: Will actively, preemptively hurt (or endanger) others, when necessary (could be "necessary" in his mind). Uses people, and sometimes, treats them as disposable. Escape Clause: If he's feeling particularly vindictive or sadistic, as events take a turn for the worst, the definition of "necessary" will widen to accommodate him. Salient addition of the: "I'm always right" mentality.

Fall Rhian (or Marialena) - Self-serving to a greater degree than Rafal is. Believes other people are Good, that humanity is fundamentally Good (or that it can further his cause), and leaves himself vulnerable... He will lie, cheat, and deceive to save his own skin. Plays dirty. Will actively, preemptively hurt. He cares for himself, and will harm and tear down others if it will benefit him. "Me with the world until the world hurts me" mentality.

[psychopasss4]

Kogami: His return to Japan.

This analysis had long been running to my mind ever since I watched Sinners of the System 3: Beyond the Pale of Vengeance.

This might stir a lot of violent reactions for some folks out there. But bear in mind that this reflections are from SS3 era. So hold your horses and refrain from flooding my inbox with hated remarks 😅😁🙈.

💮💮💮💮

In PP the Movie (Gekijouban), we saw Akane immediately bought a plane ticket to SEAUn the moment she received the news of Kogami's whereabouts. (Our dear Akane-chan is a bit aggressive there. Chasing the man she loves respects most 🤭).

And she tried to indirectly persuade him to go back with her to Japan. But she's unsuccessful. That scene when she wants to join Kogami (before his epic motorbike stunt with Shem) showed how eager she is to stay with him until he's ready to return. But Kogami-chan shove her off while assuring her that he won't die just yet with a smirk on his face.

But then, a year after that he came back after a shared bottle with Frederica and their midnight discussion about Cigarette puff psychological context 🤗😅😁😜

I've been thinking hard what could be playing on Kogami's mind when making those choices and I believe it has something to do with his view of the two women whom he worked with.

Note: Look how old handsome he looks in here 😜😅😳

✨✨✨✨

Kogami's View of Akane

Respect and Admiration: Kogami respects Akane's strong moral compass, intelligence, and dedication to justice. Her idealism and determination to uphold her values in a corrupt system likely resonate with him deeply.

Influence: Akane has a significant influence on Kogami, helping him see different perspectives and consider the importance of lawful justice over personal vengeance.

Bond: Their bond is built on shared experiences and mutual growth. Kogami likely sees Akane as someone who understands him on a fundamental level, given their shared past and the way they've shaped each other's views.

Kogami's View of Frederica

Professionalism: Kogami likely views Frederica as a competent and resourceful colleague. Their relationship is rooted more in professional respect and shared goals.

Pragmatism: Frederica's pragmatic and strategic approach to their work might appeal to Kogami's tactical mindset, but it doesn’t necessarily imply a deeper, personal connection.

Support: Frederica provides Kogami with opportunities and resources that are beneficial for his missions, fostering a sense of mutual benefit rather than personal attachment.

Why Kogami Returned to Japan After Meeting Frederica in Sinners of the System 3 vs. Akane in the First Movie

Return to Japan After Meeting Frederica

Mission-Oriented: Kogami's return to Japan after meeting Frederica in "Sinners of the System 3" was driven by a clear mission and purpose. His focus was on addressing specific threats and working towards goals aligned with his professional objectives.

Strategic Opportunity: Frederica's proposal likely offered a strategic advantage or opportunity that aligned with Kogami's current goals and needs, making it a pragmatic choice to return to Japan.

Not Returning After Meeting Akane in the First Movie

Unresolved Conflict: After meeting Akane in the first movie, Kogami might have felt that returning to Japan would complicate their unresolved personal and professional conflicts. His presence could disrupt Akane’s work and potentially put her in difficult situations.

Self-Imposed Exile: Kogami's self-imposed exile and desire to atone for his past actions might have kept him away, feeling that his return could do more harm than good, both for Akane and for himself.

Protective Instinct: Kogami's decision could also stem from a protective instinct, wanting to keep Akane safe from the dangers associated with his return and the attention it would bring from various factions.

In summary, Kogami's interactions with Akane are deeply personal and complex, while his interactions with Frederica are more pragmatic and mission-focused. His decisions are influenced by the nature of these relationships and the strategic implications of his actions.

Postscript:

After watching PP3/PPFI on 2019, I think Kou-chan is way more comfortable in working with Frederica 🤔. Why?

They've been working for almost 2-3years after SS3 and compliments each other's skills better. Compare with Akane whom Kogami only worked with for only several months.

Yes, yes despite of that Shinkane still have more deeper bond, I know..I know.. but I'll talk about that bond and the intensity of it in the next Shinkane analysis...

🤭😘❤️

[cilil]

𝓐𝓝 ~ For my 6666th post, I decided to compile an Angbang appreciation post to (hopefully) spread some joy and positivity for one of my favorite ships of all time. I tried my best to present the things that I love about Angbang in a broad and open manner, so that it encompasses all sorts of takes and welcomes as many fellow Angbangers as possible.

As I will also say at the end of this: You're cordially invited and welcome to share what you love about this ship and/or add aspects I haven't mentioned in this post. Just keep it positive!

Melkor. Ah Melkor, the man himself, the myth, the legend, a prime example for chaotic evil and our resident devil. Throughout the Silmarillion, as well as Tolkien's other writings, Melkor is busy hating pretty much everyone... except Mairon, it seems. He trusts him enough to let him run entire fortresses and taught him a lot of dark magic, which, as mundane as it may seem, is a lot more productive and friendly than Melkor has been to other people, including those who serve him. I - and I think many other Angbang shippers as well - love the idea that there is this one person in the world whom he actually likes and appreciates.

Mairon. The eponymous Lord of the Rings and general nuisance, enough to make Eru himself intervene twice, the Deceiver, professional pretty boy and peerless perfectionist. No other Maia has come close to causing as much drama, and something tells me Melkor will be proud once he hears about the Second and Third Age shenanigans. Mairon seems to hate everyone as well... except Melkor, with whom you could argue he might be a little obsessed. He's both frightening and hilarious and, for better or for worse, an icon both in-universe and outside.

Great ship name. Angbang is both a handy and memorable ship name and an amazing pun. It sure is a funny coincidence that my (to date) favorite ship all time also has my (maybe forever) favorite ship name of all time. And if that wasn't enough: If you take Morgoth x Sauron as the basis, their ship name is Moron which... yeah. No explanation needed. The stars aligned with this one.

Opposites attract. There are fundamental differences between Melkor and Mairon as characters, such as the chaos vs. order dynamic (as @maironite also pointed out), their goals - Melkor wanted to destroy while Mairon was more interested in getting things to run smoothly, though both were keen on enforcing their will - and their approach to handling situations they find themselves in - whereas Melkor is often impulsive, Mairon is more patient and calculating. You can also create an ice vs. fire dynamic, though they share the fire element (Melkor used to be the Vala of Fire and Ice and is still seen using these two elements a lot). It gives them some additional friction and spice to work with.

Similarities. Aside from their differences creating chemistry, Melkor and Mairon also share a few similarities and things they can bond over to balance whatever conflicts might arise. Both seem dissatisfied with the plans of Eru and the Valar, want to create whatever they wish to create without rules being imposed on them, have a questionable moral compass at best, like screwing people over and have obsessive tendencies (more on that later). I like to think that they can nerd out about about science and magic for hours, which likely became the foundation of their relationship in the first place, and that they also engaged in deep and challenging conversations that satisfied both of them in ways other conversation partners hadn't.

The Fall. We love fallen angels and a good corruption arc. Mairon's origins as a respected member of Aulë's household - who is still remembered for his skill despite his dark deeds - and moments where he could have potentially been redeemed are documented in the Silmarillion and the subject of many interesting discussions and fanworks. However, while less pronounced and presented as far less likely in the narrative, the same applies to Melkor. Even he started out as "good" and his motives, at least early on, are also understandable: He was dissatisfied with his inability to create freely and completely on his own. You could even say he's a bit of a failed artist which... is painfully relatable. As much pain and grief as both of them have caused, it's also tragic that they couldn't overcome their pride and choose a better path, for the sake of others as well as their own, and that Melkor ended up dragging Mairon down with him; both of them would have had the ability to do truly great things if this hadn't happened.

Philosophical aspects. To read Melkor and Mairon as a couple and their fates as a tragic love story creates interesting parallels with other star-crossed lovers in Tolkien's legendarium and raises fascinating philosophical questions. Can evil love? Can love be evil? Could love have been their road to redemption or was it - at least on Mairon's part - his doom? If I had to summarize my personal take on this, I would say that Melkor unwillingly corrupted love by genuinely being in love.

If you'd like to read a (more concise) take on this aspect which also touches on some other things mentioned in this post, I highly recommend this thread by @naruthandir.

There are just so many things you can read into this relationship and themes to explore, which I appreciate so much. It never gets boring and I always find new ideas to have fun with.

Power dynamics. Now, let me preface this by saying that I'm aware that some of you prefer it one way, some of you prefer it the other way, some see the Vala/Maia power imbalance as inherently unhealthy and like to take that as a central theme of their relationship and some prefer to interpret these two has having a fairly equal relationship. However, I'm not here to debate which take is "right" or "better", nor do I have any interest to. I think that, whichever way you choose, it's an interesting concept to play around with. Did you know that Estë used to be a Maia? I honestly think it would be cool if she still was, just to bridge the divide between Valar and Maiar a bit more. Nevertheless, I think we can all agree that especially Melkor isn't interested in what other Valar think is proper or appropriate and that Mairon, ambitious as he is, probably also likes having a Valarin partner/spouse. It's also interesting as a contrast to Melkor's usual arrogance and thinking that he's above everyone, and if you need something to prove that he wouldn't categorically say no to being with a Maia, look no further than his attempt at (forcibly) marrying Arien in other versions of the story.

Kink. Well, we've talked about power dynamics already, so let's not beat around the bush. We have some hot evil gay sex on our hands here. Super freaky too, if that's your thing. This ship is, in my opinion, excellent for BDSM and was what allowed me to discover and enjoy kink for the first time (though, again, none of this is a must if you prefer other takes). You can play with their existing power dynamic, subvert it, have them live out their sadistic urges, have them do elaborate roleplays, make use of all the creepiness and weirdness of the Ainur, particularly evil ones... they even have a convenient dungeon in their basement! There's so much good and sexy Angbang smut out there and I'd like to take a quick moment to thank everyone who wrote these fics that inspired and entertained me for years - and will do so for years to come.

Queerness. There are a lot of gay ships in the Tolkien fandom and fandom in general, but I still feel like it's important to mention this aspect. In fact, if you'd allow me to share something personal: Angbang was my first contact with queer content and, while this may seem strange considering that I am a woman, it also started my journey to discover my own queerness and I will forever appreciate that (I suppose it was "femboy" Mairon in particular alongside Melkor being a raging bisexual disaster - just my headcanon, not trying to push this on anyone - that finally allowed me to break out of compulsive heterosexuality and heteronormativity). I don't know if anyone had similar experiences with Angbang, but, well, I thought if I'm making an Angbang appreciation post, this might just be the time to include it.

Obsession. Melkor is obsessed with all things bright and beautiful, and this might very well include Mairon. As far as I'm aware, him being a fire spirit like Arien and the Balrogs are is fanon, but he's at the very least associated with fire in canon (on that note: kudos to whoever came up with the "little flame" nickname, it's so cute). Meanwhile, Mairon loves power and, as mentioned above, is obsessed with Melkor and his legacy enough to not only continue what they started, but also create a religion all about him. I like to think that both of them are also very jealous, which certainly ended up being the doom of a few innocent bystanders. They're just angry and evil and insane together and it's endlessly entertaining to me.

Tolkien's accidental "evidence". This could probably be its own post (which I might do in the future, though I'd do some additional research for it), and I want to make it clear that I'm not trying to "prove" to you that Angbang is canon or anything like that, I just find it funny when canon gives me tidbits that I can use for my "agenda". First of all, there's the infamous seduction line that has singlehandedly spawned countless fanfics and most likely raised a few eyebrows:

"In the beginning of Arda Melkor seduced [Mairon] to his allegiance (...)" The Silmarillion

One of my personal favorites is also the fact that, in the Lay of Leithian, Mairon starts ranting about how cool Melkor is - after only briefly mentioning Lúthien - and gets mad at Beren and the others for not stanning his boyfriend master hard enough. To make sure everyone knows exactly how awesome Melkor is, he later made sure people pray to him and perform human sacrifices which, since even any positive effects it might have couldn't reach Melkor in the Void, was apparently just for shits and giggles and to troll some mortals. Now that is what I call commitment! There's also Melkor's trust in Mairon and his fire spirit kink, but I've mentioned that already.

Aesthetics. Spiky black armor is incredibly sexy. Then we have peak hell and hellfire aesthetics. We have crowns and rings. We have fallen angels and fire and ice, as mentioned above. And we have two incredibly hot (literally) angels kissing. You could make them fuck in an erupting volcano. It's just... yes.

To conclude: We love villains, we love dark lords, evil is fun!

What I discussed in this post is pretty much just everything I could think of, with my friends and fellow shippers giving me a few additional keywords to mention, so there's definitely more. I hope this post made some of you appreciate this ship as well, maybe sparked or rekindled some love for it, and I invite you to add on and/or share what you love about Angbang. However: I'm going to have to politely and respectfully ask you to remember that this is an appreciation and positivity post, so I don't want to see any negativity, complaints about the way other people enjoy this ship differently or shade. Time and place. Alright? Alright.

Love you!

"Whom do ye serve, Light or Mirk? Who is the maker of mightiest work? Who is the king of earthly kings, the greatest giver of gold and rings? Who is the master of the wide earth? Who despoiled them of their mirth, the vain Valar? Repeat your vows, Orcs of Bauglir! Do not bend your brows. Death to light, to law, to love; cursed be moon and stars above; may darkness everlasting old that waits outside in surges cold drown Manwë, Varda and the sun; may all is hatred be begun and all in evil ended be in the moaning of the endless Sea!" Lay of Leithian, Canto VIII

[harpagornis]

MTG Analysis: LGBT and the color pie

So this is something a bit out of left field since its not Pride Month but I felt like writting this so sue me.

MTG has had a long history with LGBT topics and characters, from Xantcha from the early days to an explosion of LGBT characters in recent years. Officially, homophobia doesn’t exist in the Multiverse (I call bull if you’re familiar with older canon) and that’s fine and dandy, not everyone needs bigotry in their escapism.

However, I like to keep things real, and the matter of fact is that the color pie is philosophical. So I though it’d be fun to see how the colours interact and react to LGBT topics.

White

White I think is the easiest to depict as homophobic/transphobic. After all, real world religions and politics have persecuted LGBT individuals, and White is all about marginalising the outgroup, imposing restrictions on community and using faith as means to dictate one’s life. Conversely, White is also likely to be shown as an ally, since it often also fights for the meek and vulnerable.

An interesting way to depict White in this regard is the different double standards it may have. For example, in some real world cultures trans individuals are accepted because they’re seen as a way to enforce gender roles, while non-binary or gay individuals are shunned because they dismantle gender roles. Conversely, homosexuality may be seen as means to reinforce military bonds, which plays in White’s love of community + militarization.

Overall, because White often governs over society and factions I think there’s a real potential for worldbuilding.

Blue

On the surface, Blue can appear as rather accepting since it believes in reason and science. Its philosophy of one being able to do anything one desires to improve oneself also plays well into accepting trans people. I don’t think there’s a coincidence that the two first non-binary planeswalkers are Blue aligned; one even defied fate for crying out loud!

However, Blue’s belief in tabula rasa also means that it doesn’t believe anything is inherent. Therefore, Blue is the most likely to believe in conversion therapy. Worse, given Blue’s factions penchant for amoral science it is the color most likely to dispense “cures” for homosexuality and make straight designer babies.

In conclusion, Blue’s allyship is highly dependent on what it feels self-improvement entails. On a good day, it rallies for LGBT rights. On a bad day, it makes White look reasonable in comparison.

Black

Black, being the colour of individuality and giving the middle finger to societal norms, is most accepting of all letters of LGBT. This comes with a big caveat, however: it is focused on the individual foremost. So if going to a pride parade displays one’s power and charisma, it will do so. If being a closeted bigoted politician provides that, it will be so. Black has no morals or obligations, why should it care if it can be a hypocrite or profit off pride?

A very fairweather ally, but a staunch supporter especially to spite bigotry.

Red

Red is the colour of freedom and self-expression. It has no patience for those tearing others down in the name of society and laws. Naturally, I think it’s a no-brainer that it is the most LGBT positive colour. It loves who it loves and indentifies as it identifies, and unlike Black it has a sense of empathy and a healthy dose of disregard for authorithy in any way shape or form. And its always down to experiment!

That said, I can see some violently homophobic characters being partly-Red aligned, with some other color to provide reasons as to why Red’s normal love of self-expression is restricted.

Green

Green, like White, is a double edged sword. It fundamentally believes in fate, tradition and genetics; on one hand, it can decry such things as “unnatural”, but on the other it can be supportive, especially if it sees such things as “always meant to be”. Unlike Blue, it believes things are inherent, so it is less likely to believe in “cures”. This in particular is why its dichotomy differs from White, as unlike it Green derives its beliefs from philosophical concepts rather than morality.

It’s opinions on trans topics in particular can be pretty interesting: does it see an individual’s body as the natural truth, or the soul? Loreley Writes once wrote a post I can’t find that Green magic could theoretically work with a person’s own identity to modify the flesh; that’d be a cool use of biomancy if made canon.

So in conclusion

I respect WOTC for not wanting to deal with topics that could backfire horribly, but I just can’t help myself!

[princessofdragonsandwolves]

I don't know if anyone will care, but here's one of Salieri's part translated in English from my Mozart's story on Wattpad (currently it's only in italian and I'm currently writing it lol). I gave him a LOT of Amadeus/Murray Abrahams vibes (at least I hope so lol), and I love his relationship with Wolfie so much.

I hope you enjoy my humble writing 🥺❤️I've put in it some historical informations (although the Ofelia's thing is still considered a theory😅)

In the antechamber used as a dressing room of the Masonic lodge Zu Wohltätigkeit in Vienna, Antonio Salieri takes off his white gloves and unties his apron, typical attributes of the Mason brothers, a session just ended.

The Eye of Providence of the Great Architect of the Universe - emitting luminous rays, inscribed in a triangle - watches from the top of the architrave, above the door.

The gloves, elegant in the mason's uniform, symbol of his moral integrity, purity of spirit, incorruptibility of the soul and all those axioms and precepts of equality, communion and brotherhood advocated by the brotherhood. The apron, triangular in shape surmounted by a triangular bib, belted at the waist, armor of the fickle lower part of the body, seat of organs and humors that are perishable and prone to passions, pleasures, and the animalistic and brutal instincts of the flesh. In the Temple, only the rational sphere and the spiritual faculty are welcome.

Freemasonry is an epidemic in high-class environments. Every honorable man has pronounced the vows, admitted to his lodge. In line with the ideas of the Enlightenment, Freemasonry envisions a world where fundamental rights are guaranteed to everyone, regardless of creed, race or political alignment.

The French and their subversive men of letters also know how to produce something good, in addition to insurrections, barricades and conquered fortresses. Will the riots in France ever be resolved?

A creaking of doors.

Salieri freezes, a prey sniffed out by the beast.

He has entered. He is changing.

The Obscene Child of Salzburg, the Creature.

The Ulcer Personified.

Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart.

"Signore! Signor Antonio! Your Excellency! Signore! Signore! Your Excellency! Signore! Your Excellency! Signor Antonio! Maestro Salieri! Your Excellency! Signore! Salieri!"

Initiated into Austrian Freemasonry on December 14, 1784 within the walls of this same lodge Zu Wohltätigkeit, Beneficence, in Vienna. A movement strengthened by the bans promulgated by the bigoted Maria Theresa. Wielding the scepter of power completely at his disposal, without his mother holding the reins, Joseph II proved to be much more inclusive. Although, by issuing the edict called Masonic Patent, His Most Christian Majesty limited the number of lodges scattered throughout the imperial territory, requiring the official registration of members. Conspiracies hatched by the powerful lodge Zur wahren Eintracht, infiltrated at court? Internal maneuvers of the late liberal sovereign? We hope that the brother recently ascended to the throne, Leopold, continues along the path beaten by the deceased monarch.

He joins the fraternity, if Salieri's memory has not faded.

Mozart, a regular visitor to the lodge, is listed as a third degree Mason and was often received as a guest among the affiliates of Zur wahren Eintracht, the reins in the hands of Grand Master Ignaz von Born, characterized by a rigorously scientific approach and directed to an elite clique, before internal weaknesses weakened the organization, repealed two years ago.

But, whatever the genius infant sees in Freemasonry, he never misses a meeting of Zu Wohltätigkeit.

Which means an almost constant presence.

Unfortunately.

Salieri pretends to be lost in thought, distracted. What a pain. What is that insolent person thinking now to come and disturb him? Luckily, the Lodge is supposed to be a meeting of dignity and composure. Words whose intrinsic meaning the Child probably does not know. Or ignores. More likely the latter.

He is also quite... sustainable, this cockroach. On a character level, of course. When, in this sumptuous world marked by labels, ceremonies and titles, the Child behaves up to the gift that has been bestowed upon him - and that Salieri has sweated his whole life to conquer - his presence is at least acceptable. As much as human patience can tolerate constant tics, fingers always busy, snapping, composing, fiddling.

Like now. Frustrated, Mozart snorts, his stubby hands twisting and twisting his lace cuffs. He stamps his foot, standing straight in front of his colleague, the twenty centimeters that separate them compensated by his disheveled, candy-pink wig. Questionable taste, but Salieri has adopted the adage de gustibus, from his Latin ancestors, for quite some time.

Annoyed like a whining infant, it is clear that Mozart will not be moving out any time soon. Salieri gnashes his teeth, invoking the enigmatic God who has inoculated a spark of his talent into such a hardened troublemaker.

He turns, flashing his friendliest smile.

"What is it, Mozart?"

The boy sucks in snot through his nose, his face congested, dark circles under his eyes, wild blonde locks of hair escaping from his wig. He must not be doing very well. At the beginning of the year Joseph II, his benefactor and great admirer of music - if it did not weigh too heavily on the imperial skull - has passed away, and his friend in revelry and business, the librettist Lorenzo da Ponte, has been summarily dismissed from his position as court poet, an Italian replacing him. The Child's clothing appears threadbare, worn, the edges frayed. He is shivering. Shivering with cold.

Or is it an impression of Salieri?

"You... y-you are a dear friend, signore, a pillar of the musical institution..."

A pillar destined to support the bust. His brazen, insensitive, bust.

"A cornerstone." Mozart continues his praises, stammering. In his presence, for some time now, he has lost the self-assurance of a small, lecherous, boastful, peacock, and his tongue is stumbling. Salieri doesn't dare imagine himself as a supporter of such subjection. His students praise his humility, the modest son of Lombard shopkeepers, usually. "A true founder of the genre..."

Ruffiano il ragazzo.

And you would be the founder of a renewed, purified angelic music, if only you realized it, you kind of faucet from which the thirst-quenching water of God flows!

"Come on, come on, I'm not a holy relic to be venerated!"

Mozart sneers, his shrill laugh, and Salieri curses himself for having eased the tension. That laugh will pierce the eardrums of some poor unfortunate, sooner or later.

He would like it not to be him.

"I-I was wondering w-if you... if you could..."

The Child avoids meeting his gaze, blushing, ashamed.

"Speak, Mozart." Salieri urges him. The sooner he gets going, the sooner he'll be out of the way. A blessing, it would be a blessing. "I won't eat you!"

The Creature inhales, showing initiative. "If you could grant me a... loan."

He's in bad shape from an economic point of view. Now everything is clear.

"I'm flattered to know that you consider me a resource second only to our beloved Baron van Swieten."

"Oh." moans the Child, turning pale, his bluish irises wide open. "Has he complained to you about my conduct?"

The Van Swieten who, despite his excesses, holds him in the palm of his hand, his beloved pet? How many of Mozart's transgressions must he have overlooked? He adores him, admires his genius, appreciates his music, finances his works at his own expense. Will it be the same this time? Will the benign Baron loosen the strings of his purse or has the Child gone beyond all bounds of decency?

If he has to be reduced to begging for money from his friends in the Lodge, the answer comes naturally.

"My dear, you have suffocated the entire lodge from what I understand."

The boy bristles, frowning. Here comes the ardor again.

"What's wrong with that? Are we bound by bonds of brotherly love or not? And yet, when I submitted my problems, no one came forward to help me!"

If you curbed your spendthrift streak, perhaps they would be more inclined.

Seriously: how can genius, creative, joyful, a revelation, marry with a lewd, scurrilous, uninhibited brat like Mozart? Amadeus, really, never was a stage name more truthful. Loved by God. He must have instilled his gifts in him, otherwise it cannot be explained. It cannot be a coincidence. The Almighty does not make mistakes.

He does not appoint a chosen cicisbeo.

No?

Oh, if Salieri thinks back to the notes that pierced his soul, that night of their first and fatal meeting, in the Viennese palace of the Prince Archbishop of Salzburg! Music, the sweet music of Mozart. A fragrant, magnificent rose, inebriating with its perfume, the thorns lurking, making him bleed with pain as soon as he dares to pick it. He cannot eradicate it from that soil in which God fertilized his genius.

The perfect drafts, no trace of correction, not the slightest touch-up on the scores. Untouched. Virgin. Notes caging the very essence of God, diluting the divine in a music that plucks the heartstrings. Amazing. A dagger vibrating his blow, sinking, penetrating, the thrust! It was... it was like inhaling opium, a dementia, a hallucination so real and clear, an ecstasy and a torment at the same time. The peak of orgasm while copulating with a woman. The blurry vision, the knees buckled, like shortcrust pastry, the labored breathing, the heart beating the chest.

On the page it seemed... A nothing. A simple, almost comical beginning. Just a heartbeat with bassoons, basset horns. Like the opening of an old chest, a rusty accordion. Then, suddenly, an oboe emerges, stands out like a saving angel, a revelation to the sinner. A single note, suspended, motionless, piercing the soul, graceful as a breeze. A blade in the flesh. Until... a clarinet takes its place, ousting it, sweetening it with a phrase of such delight... and the movement becomes pressing, fleeting, elusive, the wind instruments conversing with each other as if they were fiddling in a café...

That was not the composition of a trained monkey, of a freak show. No. It was music I had never heard. Expression of such desires, of such uncontrollable desires! An addiction that satisfies the unappeasable, the mirror of my own truths. I seemed to hear the voice of God...

The chords on which God would have chosen to reveal his Voice to mortals would be those of this scribble! An Obscene Child, immodest and pompous, as his instrument! Banner raised to his glory!

"Someone must have put fleas in their ears."

"Fleas?" Mozart comments, bewildered. "What fleas? The ones that infest mattresses?"

He bursts into a harsh, shrill laugh.

Salieri smiles at him. "Rumors about your... financial troubles."

The Child puffs out his cheeks, purple, annoyed.

"Slander! I always pay my debts! " he bursts out, emphatic like a general to his troops, becoming, in a flash, docile. "I don't deny it, it's a bit... a bit dark... and-and Vienna no longer desires me with the same ar-ardor as it once did, b-but I'll get back up! And my wife will no longer wear clothes her sisters have cast off..."

Salieri feigns surprise. "You don't tell me you're poor!"

"What?" Mozart realizes. "Oh, no, no, no! You've twisted my words! It's just that ideas flourish, but there's no work to plant them in. At least... one for sure."

"I warn you: you don't want to build a reputation as a debtor in Vienna."

At the time of the six-handed work, the triptych of the cantata in homage to the recovery of Nancy Storace, her fabulous virtuosity, entitled Per la ricuperata salute di Ofelia, was his situation in bad shape as it is now? A trifle, a small job to seal the return to the scene of the British singer at the request of her brother, Stephen. Nancy had lost her voice and, while her vocal cords were healing, her adoring blood relative had collaborated with Mozart and Salieri in the drafting of the cantata, the verses of Da Ponte. Completed in the space of a week, the cantata - bucolic outings in Arcadia among herds, shepherds, nymphs, whistles and altars to be garlanded with flowers - had met with a fair amount of success.

Stephen Storace had kept his identity hidden behind the pseudonym of Cornetti, Salieri had proudly allowed Da Ponte to use his characters - Ofelia was the role that Nancy was supposed to play in his La Grotta di Trofonio, the first performance of which, scheduled for that June of 1785, had been postponed because of the singer's worsening throat - and Mozart, having thrown out his part in an improvisation on the harpsichord, had calmly spent the rest of the afternoon chattering away, petulantly, as if there were no tomorrow.

In addition to giving Salieri a massive migraine with his idle chatter.

"Nor do I intend to make you look like a loan shark!" exclaims the young man. "Never! I would never dare to sully your good and honest name! It's just... I need that money. My children are so young, our house is in a bad state. If only you could-»

Good heavens, let's cut the bull's head off and get him out of trouble! Salieri unhooks his purse, rummaging inside.

«When do you need it?»

He has never seen such surprise rise on the Child's little face. He slaps his hand with deferential kisses.

«Oh, generous, magnanimous man! Thank you, signore, thank you!»

Salieri snatches it away, disgusted. Saliva d'un mostriciattolo.

«Mozart, straight to the point: how much do you want me to lend you?»

He gives a little smile.

«Two hundred...?»

Salieri is not convinced. And he doesn't trust him. Does he wants to bleed him?

«A hundred?»

He can forget about it.

«Fifty?»

A fair sum. Not too much so that the Child owes him un gruzzolo he can't accumulate, not too little so that he leaves him to starve.

"Fifty, let it be. It's doable."

Mozart grabs the jingling bag of coins as if it were a matter of life and death.

"I'll repay you, I promise, I'll give you back every last penny, you have my word." He crosses his index and middle fingers at heart level, on his worn waistcoat, authoritatively. "Giurin giurello, accoppa il fringuello! I expect to repay you shortly, in a few months, as soon as the Singspiel opens..."

The... what? Did Salieri hear correctly? What's cooking in the Creature's pot?

"I beg your pardon? You mentioned a new-"

"Nothing!" He covers his mouth, a child who has spilled a secret, taking back what he said. "Forget what I said, erase it from your mind! I'm rambling nonsense. It's-It's a secret, a project in progress, a plot... secret." He mimes a key inserted into the lock on his lips. "Lucchetto alla bocca, scocca la rocca con fuso e conocchia, coc, coc!" He bows to kiss his hand without restraint. "Goodbye, Salieri, magnificent and munificent and astonishing, sublime-"

Let him cut it short, the bile in his gut is already souring. Salieri goes to the coat rack, picks up his tricorne and cloak from the peg.

So much flattery.

"I understand, I understand. Goodbye."

Genius and body don't really go together, eh Amadeus?

.

[sapphire-weapon]

I have been going through your analysis of Ada and I'm just going to write what i said to someone before because i can't agree with anything you all write about her and Leon for that matter

A lot of you guys love to shit on her even after the remakes but to me it's clear as day that they are going for an redemption arc with her because even in RE2R how many times she tried to make Leon leave even when she was hurt and she truly felt guilty about using him even during RE2R. Then in RE4R the most noticeable things are the fact that she ditched Wesker's plan to blow up the island and instead she chose to honour Luis and his last wish to protect Leon. I believe that she changed because of both of them not only Leon proving that she cares about more people than just her and the person she loves.The second thing is the fact that she worked just for Wesker this time and she chose to betray him after she founded out that innocent people will die because of her and she did both of these things after Wesker was death threatening her. Basically she put her own life in danger two times for the sake of others showing that she is actually changing. Obviously she has flaws and she has her dark side and past but i think in the remakes they will make her more selfless and leaning more to her good side than her original counterpart

I recently got back to og RE2 for example and they changed a lot of things. In the OG Ada convinced Leon that they should work together from the start in the remakes she wanted him to leave from the start. When Leon took a bullet for her in the og she just left him and didn't even came back Leon was the one to find her in the remake she took care of him immediately. RE4 has those kind of changes too and the fact that now she actually ditched her own mission for others shows a lot. Because in the og she was shown to care the most for her missions and then anything else

>to me it's clear as day that they are going for an redemption arc with her

stopped reading here.

ada isn't a villain, and you can't redeem a character that's not a villain. there's nothing to redeem. that's not how any of this works.

"redeeming" a character, by its very nature, is to change their function within the story. it changes the role they play. if you "redeem" a character, you are shifting their function from a force of resistance to a force of assistance. "redemption" just means that a character stops fighting against the protagonist and starts helping them instead. it does not mean that it changes them into a morally good person. that often happens in tandem with a redemption, but it's not a requirement.

persona 4 eventually redeemed adachi, but he never stops being a scumbag of a terrible human, and the heroes never grow to trust or like or forgive him. devil may cry 5 redeems vergil in the end, but he never stops being a self-absorbed mass murderer (nor does he ever become a good dad, which was the whole point of the ending).

ada is irredeemable, because she's never functioned in the role of a villain. again: there's nothing to redeem. so, for you to make this argument would be to claim that capcom is fundamentally changing the function of her character into something completely different -- which is directly contradicted by hirabayashi explicitly stating that he isn't doing that and doesn't want to do that because he knows that the fans don't want him to.

all that he did was alter her personality to give her character more focus, and he aligned her conscience (something that she's always had) in a direction that makes more sense. but it doesn't change anything that she actually did. it doesn't change the role she plays in the story.

he altered leon's personality, too, into something much darker. leon has a positive character arc in RE2 OG, but he has a negative character arc in RE2make. but no one's claiming that the remakes are on the path to turning him into a villain LMAO because his role in the story hasn't changed. it's the exact same principle with ada.

so nothing else that follows in your ask matters, because your thesis statement is factually incorrect.

[elisabethbabarci]

GUARDIANS

A guardian encompasses courage, noble qualities, outstanding achievements, selflessness, and compassion. One that dedicates their time and energy to loyally stand proudly by others, without an expectation of recognition, and defines the true meaning of heroism.

During my educational years of elementary school, due to a misalignment of principles at my old school, my Mother who adopted me, decided to enrol me in a new school located within my hometown whose values represented a more realistic approach to the world. My previous school encompassed greed, selfishness, abuse, and judgement which overrode their mentality to do what was humble, just, and good for the collective.

As a child of two working parents (my Mother and Grandmother), my Mother instilled within me an entrepreneurial spirit, can do mentality, and the ability to set my mind to any task that I endured. My Grandmother being a refugee from Europe from WWII, grew up very humble, valuing and appreciating fundamental freedoms, diligent in everything she pursued as she handled every matter with love, engineer mindset as she built radiators for Long Manufacturing and dedicated her life to her family with upmost care. Within my family dynamic, there were no excuses to not succeed or prevail, and there was a constant mindset to save money, be prepared for the unexpected, respect and tolerance for others, and to give back to the community.

My Mother and Grandmother collectively decided that I needed a change in environment and enrolled me into a small elementary school which values, humble roots, and compassion. The majority of the children that enrolled in the school were themselves immigrants, who experienced struggles of their own such as poverty, divorce, abuse, and having to learn another language as they were new to the country. This school did not recognize what a social calendar was, bake sales, seasonal trips to the museum, or an assortment of new stationary to begin the new semester. Every individual was grateful for what they had, which was very little. The school however, was exceptional in their academic achievements, praising languages, science, arts, and historical studies, with remarkable teachers that not only instructed on a daily basis but were also family, friend, and a parent to students who lacked fundamental strong safe environments at home.

My previous school was very insidious, where they valued status above scholastic achievements which fostered an unhealthy environment of having the equivalent of the hunger games, children’s version. The children often preyed on those that were perceived different, “the other,” or weak. If these children did not exhibit dishonesty or cruelty, they created situations of intolerance for those that lacked nuclear families or racism against those that came from other parts of the world. As a moral judgement call, by grade 6, I wanted emancipation from the toxic environment that was not conducive to learning or safety. Their values did not honour or align with the education, principles, or treatment I received at home, and I felt it was causing a disconnection and deterioration of my personality.

At my new school, it was a fresh start. The children were well rounded, compassionate, respectful, and were fearful of authorities, but most importantly valued education and those that instructed them. This school enabled me to return to my roots of providing for others, giving back, and volunteering to help raise funds. The school lacked basic funds to support new innovation, trips to museums or science centres for cultural, historical, or innovative experience, and unfortunately lost its funding to provide nutrition for those who could not afford to have breakfast. Within time, I and a few others, partnered with the principle, teachers, parents, and school board to help foster more awareness and aid to those that needed it. Without question and discreetness, if I was aware that someone within my class did not have food, I kindly asked if it was within budget with my Mother and Grandmother to pack extra for my meals then I would place them in their desks anonymously. Giving back to others and helping them in the smallest ways provides a huge impact. Always be mindful that we never know the experiences of others. Being immersed into a multicultural school enabled me to learn about other cultures, religions, view and see that divorce was accepted or even rehabilitation from abandonment was possible. It was a secure place of no judgment as everyone had their own experiences and intricate stories of perseverance.

The story that inspired me to become a humanitarian was my Mother’s trajectory about having to grow up in poverty as a refugee in a rural community in Ontario. With very little funds after escaping the war, my Mother did not have the ability to have what every child has been accustomed to such as dolls or toys thus, she had to make due with what was available. Her first inspiration was cut out dolls with dresses which later inspired her to go to Sheridan and become a Designer. My Mother (Aunt) once she adopted me, consistently reminded me to be grateful and appreciative of what was given, to understand the value of money, to earn a living, and most importantly save. Poverty instilled within my Mother and Grandmother scarcity mindset which retained in their construct for many years. When one experiences poverty , it is a state of uncertainty which one is not able to afford or have the basic needs such as shelter, clothing or even nutritious food.

As a child of abandonment, legally till the age of eleven, I did not have the right to choose the home as the courts leave an open window and space for biological parents to return and reconsider their decisions. Not being able to formally choose legally who was to raise me, even if a biological parent signed off, or took no responsibility, there was a question presented to me about legal guardianship. A legal guardian is designed by the court once a child has been abandoned to help assist or be as a backup in case of the event that the primary caregivers (my Mother or Grandmother) were no longer able to take care of me due to unforeseen circumstances. As mentioned in my previous article “Rite of Passage,” I outline the intricate ability to recover from abandonment, and what impacts that has on a child going forward. A secondary legal guardian is one with the legal responsibility to take care of a minor in an event that there should be an emergency, or another safe environment. As a child that grew up surrounded by the LGBT community, I chose 2 sets of partners (Wayne and Hunter) and (Derek and Jacob). All of those men supported without hesitation my family, and helped lift us out of destruction.

Wayne, Hunter, Derek, and Jacob, all knew what it was like to endure discrimination, judgement, and to not feel accepted or whole within a community. Both sets of partners were together for many years, and exhibited good moral character, strong foundations, and most importantly I trusted their judgement and care. It was a decision that I was proud of, as I was always included and accepted within their lives, and they all served as Father figures for myself. It strengthened our family foundation, as there was unconditional love, and support. There was understanding, acceptance, and patience regardless of circumstances, encouragement, and most importantly offering assistance, guidance, and wisdom during difficult times.

Once I graduated from elementary school, we were told that we had to have a Father and Daughter dance. Having an absent Father for the majority of my life, I almost felt a loss of belonging for not having that experience. Wayne and Hunter immediately were notified of the situation and decided to take the collective role of Father and told me that they would both attend the dance. They proudly attended my Graduation, listened to my speech, made me feel welcomed, seen, heard, and were proud of my accomplishments and achievements. The dance represented a symbolic journey and transition, signifying my journey into life. I want every reader to be aware, family is not defined by biology, it is the time, care, consistency, and support that is present in the child’s life. I am truly appreciative and honoured that these two wonderful men decided to take this action for it taught me solidarity, loyalty, and dependability.

I honour the love, guidance, and wisdom from every individual within my life. It enabled me to break from stagnated traditions or cultural norms, to cultivate acceptance, tolerance, love, and appreciation for every situation and circumstance. The memories we embark during our childhood and teen developmental stages are a symbolic transition of the journey from innocence into enlightenment. No matter what our journey is, always acknowledge evolution, growth, support systems and how they have influenced your fundamental foundations of the world. When we leap into new stages or chapters of our life, it is significant to understand and comprehend the pivotal roles that individuals had in our development. Nostalgia evokes joy and transcendence of cherished memories. Our memories build our character and shape who we become therefore, we must always be mindful of who were are surrounded with.

The key lessons are, relationships and circumstances enriches the overall experience of our existence for we extract wisdom. We learn that within life there are no strict guidelines, that conformity is a myth, that norms are meant to be broken, that tolerance and acceptance have to be incorporated into our daily lives for it promotes love, unity, and peace. Age has no barrier for learning, we all will have magnificent individuals that will ignite our human spirit and allow us to see potential in ourselves and believe in a greater future. The sacrifices and pains of our generations before us teach us how fear creates scarcity in the mind, and with that eventually we will recognize that closing of cycles leads to bright new beginnings that light our path. That in life, just like dancing at times our movements will be abrupt, graceful, livelier, or we learn to integrate pivots, spins and twirls into our routine. There is no set standard on how to live your life, just to be the best version of yourself. Inclusivity, it taught me to encompass and encourage the diverse nature of families — celebrating all forms of love within a family. A passage from one life stage to another from the guidance of our guardians to independently progressing towards the celebration of our own lives.

[jayahult]

Spell Alignment in TTRPGs

So. a while back I saw a post about D&D (and close cousins Pathfinder and similar games) and the sort of implicit problems with the morality systems of those games as it relates to magic. As a really basic example, a lot of spells are cordoned off as being considered basically, fundamentally evil, particularly if they relate to necromancy. From a meta perspective this sorta makes sense. The default party is assumed to be either explicitly on the side of the righteous or at the very least mercenary enough to realize that the Cult of the Demon of Backstabbing Machiavellianism are not good business partners, or some combination of the two. You cordon off certain spells to be "baddie only" and you can essentially tweak those abilities however you please and not really upset player balance, while still keeping the option open for an "evil" party.

The problem comes with how spells are labeled as "evil" and the sort of underlying implications of those labels. The classic example is raise dead. You take a corpse, and turn it into a mindless servant that does whatever you tell it to for a period of time. The underlying assumption here is sort of obvious: you're desecrating a corpse and using them as a slave, which is always an evil act. The problem is that this creates a dissonance with basically any contact with reality. The soul has already quit the body, left it behind, and the corpse is a shell. Animating raw clay or iron to serve you is a morally neutral act, but when that raw material used to be a person, it suddenly becomes taboo because of underlying assumptions the creators have about corpses, not because the act of using those raw materials is inherently immoral. And this isn't even getting into the fact that, theoretically, someone could willingly consent to have their corpse brought back as a servant. After all, in real life, people donate their corpses to science or to donate organs all the time. Plus, that servant could easily be used to do good or neutral acts. Nothing really prevents you from running a farm or building a house with undead servants besides maybe the fact that they've got bad ability scores for it. I guess you could argue that you're undercutting the pay of living workers, thus it's evil, but you get the idea.

This dissonance only gets amplified when you start looking at combat-oriented spells and classes that are cordoned off for being evil. To really get into the highest level of this disparity, we can look at The Book of Vile Darkness for 3rd Edition D&D. TBVD was designed explicitly as a sourcebook for more options for evil characters, whether in the party or on the DM side of the screen. Some of these spells make sense for why they're explicitly considered evil. For example, befoul and despoil poison and kill water and food supplies on a mass scale, something often considered a dick move across cultures. However, a lot of them are just... cartoonishly violent? Slash tongue is an eeeevil cantrip that instantly cuts your opponents tongue. It deals one whole point of damage and makes them take some penalties for a few rounds from pain. Sorrow is an eeeevil enchantment spell that makes someone really sad so they take a -3 on all rolls for like, a minute or two at most. Drown is an eeevil spell that makes a target's lungs instantly fill with with water, which you might think would instantly kill them but rules-wise it just makes them start to drown on dry land, with associated penalties to anything to do with speech using their lungs. My point is, when you look at a lot of these spells, they aren't inherently more evil than a lot of the stuff you'd give to players. Acid splash is a very basic spell available to a lot of spellcasters in most editions of D&D that does what it says on the tin: you splash magically-conjured acid onto a target, dealing acid damage to them. In real life, that would be called, you know, an acid attack, and is widely considered to be one of the more heinous forms of assault that can be performed on someone because in addition to being potentially lethal in the right circumstance, it can also leave someone with permanent, visible and disfiguring scars. Fireball, a mainstay of wizards throughout D&D history, is essentially an incendiary bomb that turns enemies into charcoal. The ways in which you could abuse dominate person or polymorph barely need mentioning. Perhaps most weird out of the bunch is the vermin lord - essentially a prestige class who functions sort of as a druid, but for bugs. And they're evil!... because bugs are gross? It's really unclear why vermin are inherently more evil than other animals besides sole, out of universe disgust factor on the part of the creators.

So, how do we resolve this problem in D&D? I dunno. I mean, let's be real here. D&D is not really the best TTRPG for the fineries of moral debate over whether your wizard is breaking international law by casting cloudkill. It's not really that sort of game in any edition. There aren't really hard and fast rules in the base game for determining what alignment particular actions fall into, just general ideas and concepts that are nebulous and shift from edition to edition and even adventure to adventure. The game, mechanically speaking, is not particularly interested in the exact morality of a character, and it's become less interested in this over time across editions. Paladins in 5e, for example, are no longer limited to being lawful good, instead having a specific code of conduct that they adhere to. And from a pure play perspective, I think this change is probably for the better. Without both a strong mechanical system and consistent outlook, all alignment does is 1) delineate what targets are acceptable, 2) delineate what mechanical options are available to certain kinds of players and 3) create arguments at the table with no answer in the rulebook that grind play to a halt.

(This whole myopia did incidentally inspire the only real D&D adventure that I'd like to run someday. The core hook is that one of the player's friends is being attacked by devils, and no one is quite sure why. The players do some fighting, try to figure out the mystery, and then eventually a higher-up from Hell intervenes. He apologizes and explains that the friend in question was targeted as part of a clerical error; a person who was trying to avoid damnation got confused with the friend, and he'll gladly pay for any damages - this sort of thing rarely happens anymore, the first slip-up in a few millennia. When the players inquire further, or get mad at his failure, he will explain the actual structure of the universe. It is, inherently and irrevocably "just." Every good person gets a good afterlife. Every bad person gets a bad afterlife. Every neutral person gets a neutral afterlife. In history, no good deed has ever gone unrewarded and no bad deed has ever gone unpunished. The gods actually engineered the exact scenario that allows adventuring parties like theirs to proliferate. This is because adventuring parties are able to deal with things like vampires, ghosts, liches and other semi-immortal creatures, which are seen as basically trying to "cheat the system" and get out of their just desserts. And then he reassures them that they're doing great work, leaves, and lets the party sort of stew in that revelation. Their reaction - hopefully to try to overturn the system - then becomes the overarching metaplot.)

There is something there to the design element of "action / morality tied abilities" in the context of TTRPGs, though. I think if you really wanted to go all out with it, you'd have to crib a bit from White Wolf-style morality bars, where players have sliding scales representing where they are morally, but instead of relating to humanity, it could relate to different kinds of and levels of magic. As you unlock more powerful abilities and magic, the restrictions you face are more and more stringent. A level one life magician can only take a life if it would prevent another person's death, whereas a level ten life magician has to literally watch where they step lest the crush an insect beneath their foot and lose some of their power. I think there's something there as a design idea that naturally plays into roleplaying.

[valeffelees]

Fandom asks 9, 13, and 19!

hey Ace, thanks for coming to hang out! 🖤

9. Best new fandom discovery of the year

best fandom discovery of the year for me was def your aromantic Carry On content. no, i'm not just saying that. i don't know how to explain, but there was something really good for me about getting to read aspec headcanons and realising, hey, i can just... do that, if i want to. i'm living in a happy little world of my own with my demiro Simon hc now and, fuck, is it ever nice here.

13. Favourite villain of the year (oh no this is about to be so long) (had to switch to my gdocu to type all this) (i'm so sorry)

So... It’s the Mage. BUT LISTEN, I want to defend myself here ‘cause it’s not like I read Carry On and was like, “oh man I love how commendable this guy’s actions are”, like no.

My whole thing with Davy is that I like what an absurd shitbag he is. I mean, at the end of the night, he is such a deplorable motherfucker. (And okay, sure, maybe I’m a little notorious for getting puppy-eyed over an atrocious fictional bastard or two.) (I acknowledge and accept my flaws.) I don’t think he’s a good person. But I think he’s interesting, and part of the reason I ended up getting so attached to him is because I got tired of the way he was portrayed in fanfiction like he was one top hat away from tying damsels to railroad tracks. I kept expecting Dudley Do-Right to make a cameo.

I got such a chip on my shoulder about it that I started really thinking about him as a character, y’kno? And I thought about him so much, and wrote so many personal meta essays about him, and created this whole character analysis of the way he speaks, the way he thinks—every time he’d appear in a fanfic in a way I didn’t like, I’d pause from reading to write a breakdown for myself of why I felt the portrayal didn’t align with what I expected of him—and when you spend that much time with a character, y’kno, it is hard not to get a bit attached. You start to care, and have fun. I think he’s fun. In my own fanfics, I’m very confident in my portrayal of the Mage when he’s the main antagonist per canon, but I’m also not afraid of pulling out his stitches and making him into a better character for Simon’s sake because of the perspective I have of him. It’s actually really neat to explore, creatively speaking.

I get why people don’t like to think about him very hard. I don’t blame them. He hardly deserves it. And there are plenty of characters in the series that other people really like (Fiona Pitch, for example) that I don’t care for and so don’t think about much, unless I have to for a scene. But I think it’s a shame, too, ‘cause in my weirdo opinion, he's genuinely an interesting character, he’s a great villain.

When we think of nuanced characters, we usually think of morally grey ones. Of good people on the wrong side of things, or no side of things, who make selfish choices and aren't always trustworthy and don't pretend to be otherwise, but what happens when you have a character like Davy who believes in goodness, who views himself as the absolute good, but has fundamentally failed at every opportunity? Davy’s character is plagued by his sheer capacity for making bad decisions. He’s an extremist, and he’s capable of a staggering amount of cruelty. Davy Cadwallader worships at an altar of false gods and logical fallacy.

In the tags of another post, a long while ago now, I once talked about Davy and how his mind functions on a trolley-problem-system. His moral compass, his political pursuits, they are a set of tracks, and he is at a lever: if he pulls the lever to the left, he sacrifices only a few people. If he pulls the lever to the right, he sacrifices thousands. Against all odds, Davy intrinsically values the path of least resistance: to save more people than he hurts, except the problem is that he hurts readily, there is no middle ground for him, there are no other options, he believes it is necessary and doesn’t care who those “few” people are. He doesn’t care if they are his friends. He doesn’t care if they are innocent bystanders. He doesn’t care if it is his child. Afterall, it’s all for the greater good, right? 

This is how he views the entire world, he has so much bitterness in him, so much resentment, he fuels every choice, action, decision, thought by this logic, and because of that, he feels absolved of the wrongness. 

I’ve had a post in my drafts for the last few weeks that sums it up pretty good: “the thing i love about the mage and what makes him a really great villain to me is the way he has this looney tunes logic about him, you kinda have to look at him like he's animated out of nothing but smear frames. the mage views himself as ultimately and fundamentally righteous. and it's not even that he's ignorant to his own moral failures, he feels absolved of them, he truly believes everything he does is for some greater good. he's claude frollo with a robin hood complex. i fucking love his final scenes bc it's like watching a candle that's been burning for too long start to drown in its own wax.”

And n e way, yeah, that’s the story of how Davy Cadwallader is my favourite villain of the year. here’s his theme song:

19. Fandom that made an unexpected comeback

Merlin, for sure. i've been in the Merlin fandom for years, but i go through phases with it, yk?

[questions are here, ask me things!]

[baldursgated]

so  i  know  i  haven't  talked  about  it  on  here  at  all,  cause  rp  is  going  to  be  different  than  my  play  through. but  so  far,  yrenia  had  a  one  night  stand  with  lae'zel  and  has  been  romancing  with  wyll. i've  started  act  ii  and  wyll  and  yrenia  have  danced  together,  kissed,  and  wyll  has  basically  said  that  the  sun  rises  and  sets  with  them. yrenia  would  describe  being  with  wyll  like  the  most  unforeseen  thing  in  her  life. she's  never  fallen  in  love  before,  never  given  anyone  the  chance  to  break  her  heart. she  stumbled  into  it,  making  choices  for  what  she  felt  was  right  for  herself  and  the  people  she  now  cares  about ( the party ). those  choices  just  happened  to  align  with  wyll's  sense  of  morality. which,  if  she's  being  honest  with  herself,  surprises  her. 

 in  yrenia's  mind,  wyll  is  goodness incarnate. the  kind  of  good  that  people  want  in  the  world. the  kind  of  good  that,  as  a  child,  she  believed  in. she  believes  them  to  be  fundamentally  different  people  though,  and  that  could  affect  what  happens  with  the  two  of  them  later  on  in  the  game.

[insidetheinsight]

Thoughts on ministry (unfinished)

I have two gripes mainly: first, I don't know how to completely articulate my stance on religion, the claims about the miraculous acts and subsequent divine nature of Jesus Christ, or the existence of God itself. I believe there is obvious physiological significance not only in the biblical narrative and its major themes but in the belief itself. That is to say, I believe an individual's psychology is significantly impacted when one adopts the axiomatic belief of a Christ, God, higher power, etc. I also know on a practical level, the concept of something being "real" is not constrained to the intrinsic physical or causal relation of its existence itself. I know that things can be "real" if a person believes they are "real," which is a very complex and important idea in itself. This ties back to my original point about psychological significance. Ok, so the problem is that most people I encounter when speaking about faith, Christianity more specifically, is that they don't look at faith like I do. First, they clearly mean "real" in its most fundamental sense. The difference, again, between my thought on faith is that I can't substantiate the claim of these individuals' particular, dare I say dogmatic, belief. This fundamentally cuts the line between what I, and probably most, would consider a Christian and myself. The "buy-in," so to speak, to Christianity in many ways is to accept certain beliefs in a very certain way, e.g., accept Jesus Christ as your lord and savior and as the true son of God. I don't know what any of that means psychologically, but on a practical level, i.e., in the way people mean "I believe this is real," I remain in my stance that I cannot substantiate those claims; therefore, I do not believe. There are deeper things to touch on, like morality, intrinsic human value, right and wrong, and good and evil, where I believe dissecting theology reveals its significant place in those conversations. It's important to note that I am still human; I still at times find myself whispering internally, wishing, believing even, in ways that align with the typical Christian. I still don't fully know what this means, but I do know it is transformative on a practical level. Real change in my life in whatever way seems to follow…