#in the even the kindest people you know can have one fatal flaw

[randomnameless]

Reading something about "why won't the CoS open the borders will Almyra?"

Disregarding the fact that the only CoS controlled territory is Garreg Mach and the Locket is located in the Alliance, why won't the Alliance open the border and welcome Almyrans with open arms?

Well, it's basically showcased (tfw show not tell) in a certain paralogue in FE16.

To start, this is one of the few "defend" maps in the entire game, iirc we have this one, the "protect GM" version of chapter 12, Shamir's paralogue and, iirc, Chapter 14 when Randolph tries to earn "merit".

Basically, the objective of this map is to protect the locket from Almyran forces who are raiding them for some reason.

Hilda starts with :

"Most of our allies have fallen."

So confirmation that Almyran forces aren't only coming with mock weapons to play bowling with their Fodlan neighbours, or are asking politely if they can pass, House Goneril's allies were killed.

"He's not here?! Oh... I'm sorry. You must have been absolutely terrified."

She tries to reassure her random (a Goneril soldier) that she will help, so they don't need to be afraid/to panic anymore.

"That's you, Professor. Please help us save our allies and protect Fódlan's Locket."

The first thing she says is to please "save" her allies/her randoms, and then to protect the locket. Emphasis again on "saving" lives, because Almyrans are raiding not only houses to bring souvenirs, but take lives too.

"Support! We're saved!" "Ah, things are looking up. Let's keep going, and save the others!"

Yep.

If a loldier dies :

"Oh no! They got one...but we can still rescue the others!"

Hilda still wants to "rescue" the others. She worries about the lives of her soldiers who are defending the Locket, but not only the locket!

If they all die, a soldier says this "We must defend here, or else... Our house... The Alliance...".

And if the line is breached, an Almyran soldier will say this :

"Yeah! We took Fódlan's Locket! With this, we'll be able to invade, no problem!"

:(

So bar this chapter blowing a hole the size of a 7 floors building in Claude's character across both games, we see here that, well, Almyra uses weapons and isn't afraid to kill Goneril soldiers who want to protect their homes and houses to "invade".

So who is behind Fodlan's general apathy towards Almyrans, the CoS like Claude says in both games (even if he seems to reconsider after discovering water is wet in VW), or Almyrans themselves???

Or, in other terms, who are we supposed to believe, Claude who tells us the CoS is the reason why Fodlan people don't like people coming from Almyra, or the game, showing us Almyrans are trouncing Fodlan people to happily invade ?

[lhaewiel]

So, as promised this is my essay.

Well, I tried, I was never really that good in essays at school. I will delve a bit in personal stuff, just be mindful, k?

Everything under cut.

So, today is a JC feels day, so here I am. I am not going to discuss his character in particular, as several other people on this hellsite have already done it in depth and I recommend you go and check them out.

My sort of discussion is mostly around how I relate to this one character and why he is my favourite. It is an absolutely personal opinion, but I felt like airing it out, especially with all the discourse around him.

Let me make a quick premise, if one single character can stir up so much discourse in either direction it means that it is a well-written character with realistic drives and fatal flaws.

And boy, oh boy, Jiang Cheng truly is the one I can relate to the most, when speaking in this terms.

But let’s get down to business.

Jiang Cheng is a deeply flawed character, who does make very poor decisions in spite of trying his best. He is at least five childhood complexes barely held together in a hanfu, has the self esteem of a boiled courgette and on top of that he is also a war veteran who lost everything and had to rebuild from literal ashes. Both of his siblings died minutes apart right in front of his eyes and he has not been allowed to mourn them properly because he had a sect to rebuild, a nephew to raise and the wall of sect politics to deal with.

And I can understand the rage he has; he is mostly trying to mask the grief he cannot express.

I know.

To make a Real Life example, my dad lost everything too and when he also lost his wife, my mother, there were a couple of difficult years where he was constantly angry and quoting him: “I can’t have one single happy moment, because the next moment everything is going to shit!”

My dad lost his parents and the house he grew up into, my aunt and uncle, his older siblings, went on their own ways and he was left alone to deal with everything. He then met my mother and then my mother died, leaving him a broken husk of a man who would happily jump off a bridge if I was not there.

And yet, with all of the poor decisions and wrong turns, he is still the kindest man on earth.

And Jiang Cheng strongly reminds me of my dad. Jiang Cheng too is a man who lost everything. He had to make horrible decisions because society forced him to do so.

I am 100% convinced that if he had received support when he was taking the Wens’ and WWX’s defences at the Phoenix Mountain Hunt, things would have gone differently, but everyone there was just trying to save their own.

And it is politics, if anyone who had any weight had supported him then he probably would have made better decisions.

He probably would not have had to lead the First Siege at the Burial Mounds – because that was something JGS forced him to do to demonstrate that he was not compromised and that the newly established Jiang clan would not suffer again the same fate under a different Sect Leader.

Jiang Cheng had to be strong.

He did not need to do that, if politics were not involved and if JGS, you know, the man who thought that WRH was neat didn’t want the Stygian Tiger Amulet.

Jiang Cheng had to let the world think he had killed WWX to make up a reputation, so that he could protect his sect. And in this whole mess he was even supposed to be happy that WWX had died!

1. This sucks

2. This requires a sort of strength that really makes people reach for the impossible

Speaking of which, JC REALLY attempted the impossible and succeeded, so JFM can just shut up. JC has been mostly ignored by his father and constantly compared to pretty much everyone. And I get that this might be something parents pull to make their children better, but????

I know what that does.

It just sinks any sort of self esteem below ground level, it gives anxiety and spikes up the “I am a failure and I will never be good enough to anyone and never be good enough at anything”. Not only, this also spikes up the whole “suck it up, kid, no one cares about what you feel, no one will ever care enough, so what if you are hurt, just suck it up”.

I know those feelings very well, because they are my own.

I was constantly compared to everyone, my successes were dismissed with a “if you reached there you could definitely have done better”, and whatever I created had constantly a ton of mistakes and would never be enough. Ever.

I was angry. I gave up on myself. I felt useless and I felt that whatever I did no one would ever love me, or accept me. My best was never enough.

This awareness has crippled me in ways that in a decade after I went away on my own they still have effect on my day-to-day life.

I understand how much JC has to be angry and salty about everything.

I understand if he takes years to get over everything that happened because he has had no time to think and heal, like let’s say LWJ.

You can move on only after healing and I really love the fact that post-canon he gets to reconcile with WWX, because it means that he’s had a confrontation, that all those issues were laid out and both him and WWX could have some sort of closure.

JC is a very cathartic character and either way he is going to stir emotions.

Maybe antis should REALLY see WHY they hate him, it might be a case of “my issues are mirrored in him and I don’t like it because I feel called out”. In the same vein, it could be, for the stans, that “my issues are mirrored in him and I feel liberated and happy that I am not alone feeling like that”.

What it is, he is supposed to be a morally grey character that does not stand in only white, or only black, but instead stands in the middle of greys and colours.

And even being a morally grey character he still is quite chill compared to other characters, including WWX himself.

Also, please love him or hate him for the correct reasons.

I am fairly sure there is more to say and a lot has been said, but I keep an open mind and I am open for discussion :)

[phantaloon-books]

(some) Riordanverse characters (bc I never read TKC) and which Hogwarts House I think they would be in

Warning: this is a long one

Nico: the dude is definitely Gryffindor without a doubt. Like Sorting isn't about some traits and some characteristics, it's about core personality. He may have gone through some of the roughest stuff when he was 10-12, and he was resentful and bitter, but he was brave and bold af throughout everything he did. From learning about his powers, to using them relentlessly despite knowing how exhausted he is afterwards, to his willingness to do whatever is necessary to do what has to be done, because it has to be done. You can't change my mind that he's Gryffindor lol.

Grover: Do I even need to explain why he's Gryffindor? He's a satyr, and even if we're shown strong satyrs, they're not really supposed to be brave fighters. Yet he is one of the strongest, bravest nature spirits we've ever encountered in the Riordanverse, and one of the bravest in general. Like he's so passionate about doing what is good, he's a hero, and the only thing he doesn't match with common Gryffindors is that he's humble and as far from arrogant as could be possible, but it doesn't take his courage away.

Hazel: She's Gryffindor, and core personality-wise, she and Nico are very much alike. They don't ever think about themselves, like Hazel really always does what has to be done, no matter the cost, I mean she literally died preventing Gaea to rise the first time, and she freed Thanatos while believing he would take her back to the Underworld. She's brave af, and she has one of the most strong willpower we've seen in the Riordanverse. She's a passionate hero, and she's the closest thing to a real knight in shining armor.

Lester: I'm gonna place him in Gryffindor because I don't think he fits in in the other houses lmao. That said, as Apollo he's very shitty, but as Lester, he's one of the most courageous people. He's grown so much, he's so willing to actually do stuff now, and sacrifice everything to do what's right, including his life, even if he doesn't know he's gonna survive. Hell, he really went most of TTT with an incredibly painful wound that nearly turned him undead, and he cared more for the future of Camp Jupiter than his own life. Additionally, he's a bit arrogant and cocky, but he truly means well, I love Lester so much.

Clarisse: Look look, all I have to say is that no one could have pulled off less than half the stuff Clarisse has done, she's so Gryffindor it hurts. She's reckless and impulsive, but she's driven by her passion to do good, even if she's the daughter of war, and was bullied by her own father. She's daring, she's bold and she is the hero. She's also arrogant and thinks she can solve everything by herself, something characteristic more of the canon Gryffindors in the books, rather than what the fans have shaped. In fact, she's very much like Gryffindors in the books, who are actually very rude to other houses and think they're the best. Still, at heart, she's in this house.

Alex: I'm in a huge dilemma about where to put them, but I reckon they'd fit pretty fine in Gryffindor. Not only are they daring and courageous, they're proud of who they are, but not in a too full of themselves kind of way, rather in a 'I am who I am, and if you can't accept me, fuck off' kind of way. They can get carried away rather easily though, and very arrogant, thinking they don't need anyone else, when they do in fact need some company. They are one of the kindest and at the same time most ambitious characters we've met, but they are brave beyond understanding in a very personal way, thus, Gryffindor.

Percy: I think it's fair to say he'd be Hufflepuff, because loyalty is literally his fucking fatal flaw, and he is the kindest sweetheart to all those who deserve it, he goes out of his way to help those who need help, whether that be mortals, halfbloods, gods, magical creatures or even his own enemies. He's too good for this world, and even if he's grown a bit bitter, he always looks to fight justly for what is right, and never loses faith in others. That, and the fact that he turned down immortality so that the olympians were more inclusive of minor gods, and their children were treated better. He's just a lovely soul, he's like 80% Hufflepuff so that's enough for me. All that and he's stubborn as hell.

Jason: Hufflepuff. Just, undoubtedly Hufflepuff. Like he seems to be this cold and self centered hero with a superiority complex (bc of all the son of Jupiter stuff) but he's the softest guy there is. Not only is he hardworking, open minded and kind, he appreciates justice but he doesn't seek for revenge or anything, he makes sure people are treated fairly and wants everyone to be accepted. Proof of that is how he continued Percy's job of including more gods, and made sure Nico felt comfortable with who he was. He truly has a heart of gold. (He deserved better btw)

Meg: God I can't decide between Hufflepuff and Gryffindor, but I think I'll go with the former. She's so strong, my baby, she's faced so much wrong, but she's still so kind and understanding of others, especially those who deserve kindness. She puts up such a hard facade, but she's so patient and warm and inclusive. She's brave and strong (as strong as the big three kids, if not stronger), but she's also so loyal to her beliefs despite how she was forced someone else's beliefs for years, so I'll keep her in Hufflepuff. Also, she's stubborn af, and she can be lazy, so that settles it.

Will: I KNOW some people will say Will could be in other houses that are not Hufflepuff, BUT I won't have it any other way. Will is literally the warmest person ever. He is kind and sympathetic and enthusiastic and patient and inclusive. Like Helga Hufflepuff would take one look at him and lose her shit screaming "mine". He's the guy who saw the son of Hades so many people were scared of and immediately grabbed his hand and transfered him some warmth and didn't let him go ahead and get himself killed. He's also the one who everyone loves and likes, so much that Clarisse gets along with him and he can calm her down. He's the ideal Hufflepuff, you can't change my mind.

Magnus: I mean, what else can you expect from the son of the god of summer? He's literally a guy who heals others with warmth. He's also the guy who spent years on the street with the most difficult situations, and accepts every single person the way they are. He's inclusive af, and tolerant of everything. He's the guy who's closest include a deaf elf, a Muslim valkyrie, and a black dwarf, and he's dating a genderfluid person. Yes he's brave, and he's kinda smart, and he's ambitious, BUT none of those qualities overpower his Hufflepuff nature.

Piper: Kinda debated whether Gryffindor or Ravenclaw fits more, but in the end I went with Ravenclaw. Even though she isn't a fighter, she's very very brave, yet her bravery isn't compared to her wits. Like others in the PJOverse, she wins her fights by outsmarting her opponents, but unlike others that's one of her strongest traits. She's witty and creative and a little on the negative side, she really struggled to work in a group rather than by herself. On another note, she's able to keep calm in crazy situations and come up with the craziest most unthinkable solutions (I'm talking borderline ridiculous) that always somehow work. She's not booksmart, but she knows so much about everything, and she's lifesmart you know?

Reyna: Why are some of these so hard? Deeply debating whether she'd be Ravenclaw or Slytherin. In the end I'd go more for Ravenclaw though. Reyna's smart as hell, she's strong and sharp, and she always sees the best way out of a situation. She's witty and observant, being able to keep her cool in battle and lead others in the best direction. She's always looking to grow, and she prefers to do things on her own, but she's a great leader. She has some Slytherin qualities, and she's not learning as learning oriented as others, but she's definitely Ravenclaw.

Sam: Let's face it, Sam has the only active neurons in all of MCGA, she's definitely Ravenclaw. I'm gonna be honest though, I've only read MCGA once, so I can't remember much of their personalities, but Sam is witty and clever, pretty much the only one who can come up with competent plans, while the others rely mostly on luck and whatever plan they can cook up in 5 seconds. She's loyal and true to who she is, and she's extremely courageous and proud of who she is, but her sharpness is what she stands out for me, which is why I put her in Ravenclaw.

Annabeth: I know the obvious option is Ravenclaw, but I genuinely think she's also Slytherin. Yes she is booksmart and wise like Ravenclaw, but her personality matches Slytherins' ambitious, cunning and resourceful nature. She's smart as fuck, but she's calculative, she always finds a way to end up winning, and while she does so by outsmarting her opponents, she wouldn't need to outsmart them if she weren't so competitive. I feel like there's this 40/60 odds on Slytherin rather than Ravenclaw, but it's that small difference that counts. Plus her leadership skills are so powerful that people don't ask, they just know she's the boss.

(Also just picture the sweet and loyal Hufflepuff boy with the strong and cunning Slytherin girl, like it should be as opposite as it is with Poseidon and Athena, but they're so cute)

Leo: Idk what you can expect that's not Slytherin. This boy is the embodiment of ambition and determination. Reminder that not all Slytherins are bad btw (I'm slytherin myself), but like he's life smart and cunning, and he can analyze situations faster than anyone else. He's charismatic and talented, and there's no one to stop him from triumphing. I don't have much to say, I just know he'd be in Slytherin.

Rachel: She's kinda a difficult one, and I struggle between Gryffindor and Slytherin, and tbh I'm still not sure. But I think I'd place her in Slytherin, because even if she's brave af (especially since she was a mortal fighting in a war out of her power), her main trait is her determination. When she's set on something, she gets it done. You can't tell her she can't do something, because she will find a way to do it. She's kind, and she's only a mortal, but she still has incredible power unlike any other. I don't think I can really name it, but I think she'd be put on Slytherin with much difficulty from the Sorting Hat.

Luke: Where else could Luke possibly go? On the meaner side Slytherins have created themselves, Luke would be part of those misled by who preceded them, by those who want to take advantage of their mistreatment (bc let's face it, Slytherins are mistreated by both students and Hogwarts staff), and turn them cold and bitter. Luke is ambitious and manipulative, being manipulated himself, and it comes easily because of his natural charisma and talent. He's very freaking determined and cunning too. He'd fit right into Slytherin, but he'd be viewed as one of the rotten lot.

Thalia: I don't have much to say about this, but Thalia is the girl whose fatal flaw is their desire for power (or smth along those lines), just like most Slytherins. She's ambitious, she's smart, she's truly talented, she stands out between the rest, and she knows it, and she actually kinda likes it.

(Also I put Annabeth, Thalia and Luke in the same house because they're all kinda similar, even if their beliefs and postures are different.

Frank: Ngl I'm having more difficulty with Frank than anyone else. I'm kinda torn between Gryffindor, Hufflepuff and Ravenclaw. I literally can't choose. He'd fit perfectly in any of them lmao, I just can't decide where he'd go. You decide this one yourself.

Please keep in mind, this is my personal opinion and my take on the characters, and not all of you will agree, and that's fine! You can let me know what you think (kindly please, don't come at me), and if you want to, send me an ask on a character you want me to do the same as these (as long as it's not TKC, I'M SORRY I haven't read those) go ahead, don't be shy!

[stitchieau-the-actual-one]

Fuck what or where can I vent about this...

WARNING: IF YOU DON’T LIKE OTHER PEOPLES OPINIONS OR HAVING A THOUGHTFUL DISCUSSION, THEN THIS POST AIN’T FOR YOU! MOVE ON!

we good?

Are the Radicals gone?

yes?

good.

Honestly, America has gone to shit since Biden came into office. Actually no... It’s been shit since Obama’s administration. just a constant shit show, an awful comedy of errors.

I legit no longer feel safe or comfortable in my own country. 

I feel like I am not being heard as a US citizen, and how I vote or what I say no longer matters because some rich Democrat or rich Republican decided it just doesn’t. I feel like nothing I say or do matters anymore and that if I speak at all, people are either going to label me as a “Bigot.” or “TERF.” on one end or “Snowflake.” “SJW.” on the other. Or just flat out be told to “pick a side.” when both are shit. 

One is spray painted gold.

The other is covered in literal gold.

And I hate it, I hate every single second of it. the fact I have to constantly pick the lesser of two evils and that if I vote “wrong” or “Wrong think” people are just going to silence me. In a country of free speech. It’s ass backwards but its true. 

so here’s some stuff that may or may not ruffle your jimmies:

1) The Riots are and ALWAYS will be unwarranted and should DEFINITELY be stopped:

I feel like it should go without saying, but apparently this is a controversial statement... which it shouldn’t be. Look, you were taught as a kid that stealing, breaking, arson, assault, battery, destruction of private and public property is bad and unacceptable. So why do you think that suddenly changes when you’re an adult? You still got spanked and/or sent into timeout didn’t you? You got disciplined (not punished there IS a difference) for it right? Well as an adult, news flash! It’s the government instead of your parents who discipline your shitty behavior. (Also furthermore: ACAB just helps the rich since their the only people who can AFFORD personal protection, so Defunding police would just help criminals find victims and get away with a variety of crimes. Since there’s no longer any scruples to prevent this.)

Do I believe that the national guard and riot police should’ve been called in:

Yes.

Do I believe that EVERYONE involved was being shitty?

No.  

Do I believe that in cases like these Potentially fatal force is nessecary to control a growingly restless and violent crowd?

AbsoFUCKINlutely!

Do I believe children should be at large protests?

No.

Do I believe the entire situation could’ve been avoided if people ignored Social Media?

Fuck, Yes.

But sadly I and the rest of us do not live in a perfect vacuum of morale and decency, which brings me to another point.

Can we please stop the whole Marxism/Communism trend? Please?

Tldr of my opinion on this issue: If it doesn’t work the first time it won’t work for the *insert whatever number it is* time either. just let this fantasy die already PLEASE!

my actual explanation on how I feel about it:

 So Marxism is a type of Communism. Which if you didn’t know, Communism is the extreme of Socialism... and the Extreme/Radicalized version of literal ANYTHING! ISN’T GOOD! FULL STOP! 

I honestly feel like the current education system fails to teach kids the issue as to WHY Communism and more accurately Marxism just... doesn’t work. Like at all, not even a little bit. But in order to talk about Marxism and why it just fails in a spectacular way we need to take a Rrrrreally old piece of text into consideration.

Plato’s utopia.

Plato based his utopian world off of a fantasy, a morale void, a perfect vacuum that was the foundation to a squeaky clean world. Of rainbows, gumdrops and candy cane frogs. where everyone was a productive and virtuous citizen that strived to better mankind.

however it suffers a major flaw.

that’s just not how Humanity let alone how the universe works in general. We don’t live in that perfect virtuous vacuum Plato so desperately wanted us too. 

Humans are by default, infallible, selfish, self centered, bratty, judgmental pricks who no matter how virtuous have dark and destructive tendencies. Whether it’s aimed towards ones self or their community, it doesn’t matter. Humans are just naturally assholes and if you don’t believe me go sit down, pick any point in history and just listen. History is filled to the brim with examples of why we don’t live in a perfect vacuum of virtue. Even with the best of intentions people still make one another miserable whether they know it or not. People are greedy, selfish, self serving and otherwise shitty one way or another. so ultimately even if its intent if founded in the purest, kindest, sweetest whatever have yous. It won’t work. 

Similar to how Plato’s utopian society doesn’t work, neither does Marxism nor Communism. it realize to heavily on that Vacuum that just doesn’t exist.

if you don’t believe me, just ask anyone from a Communist/Marxist country or if you’d rather read instead. Go read “Animal Farm” and come back, its okay I’ll wait.   

On the other hand this absolutely DOES NOT mean I am okay or fine with Facism or really ANY radicalism in general. if it isn’t clear already. 

not that brings me to the most controversial opinion I have and one not a lot of people (yourselves included) won’t like me for (most likely)

My stance on BLM:

I.

Don’t

Like.

Supremacy.

Of.

ANY. 

Kind.

And you know what, that’s just how I feel. If your movement involves challenging something by doing more of the same thing by design but just a different coat of paint. then no. I don’t like your thoughts or your movement because that’s just toxic and literally detrimental to everyone around you. 

if you feel like the only way to fight “White supremacy” is with “Black supremacy” then expect me to think your a horrible (closeted) racist. The people who bang the table the loudest about an issue, are usually the people causing it in the first place. So how do we solve the issue of racism, the same way you deal with terrorists actually. By making fun of them and mocking their awful opinions. 

Everyone is special and one of a kind, and even considering the notion of it not and taking it seriously is beyond the scope of any sane logic one should have. Treating racism with even a monikerum, a snibblie of seriousness is only feeding into and perpetuating the said issue.

if you make fun of it, like how we make fun of outdated ideals like Sexism and Terrorism. laugh at the people who do toxic shit, they fucking HATE being mocked or laughed at since they honestly want you to be a misreble as they are. So don’t let them. Also education is good, ignorance bad.

anyways may write a part 2 later, my second dose of the covid shot (moderna) kicked in and I am suffering...

[recentanimenews]

FEATURE: Who We Think Should Win Employee of the Month from Heaven's Design Team

  Earth is full of strange and interesting creatures, and in the world of Heaven's Design Team, those creatures are invented by a team of imaginative individuals hired directly by God. Throughout the course of the show, God brings many requests to this team, ranging from the specific to the abstract to the outright bizarre. Each designer takes a crack at these assignments in their own unique way, but today I want to find out who the most successful designer in Heaven's Design Team is. Let's determine the Heaven’s Design Team Employee of the Month by counting the number of approved designs each character came up with over the course of the show!

    First, some rules:

  1) Each design counts for 1 point.

  2) Because design is often a collaborative effort, everyone who contributes to a design gets a point here. Very often in the show (and in real life), someone will come up with a good idea that has a fatal flaw they didn't consider and someone else will help by coming up with a solution to that problem. So many designs just wouldn't exist without people putting their heads together, so it only seems fair to credit everyone involved.

  3) I won't be counting flat-out rejected designs against anyone unless they break a tie.

  4) There are 11 instances where either no one, in particular, was credited, or essentially everyone was credited as they were doing a full collaboration. No one is getting points for any of them. For the record, though, they are the two Hell designs, seven whale and dolphin designs in Episode 2, the elephant in Episode 3, and the camel in Episode 13.

  With that out of the way, let's get to the results.

    Honorable Mentions: Kenta, Mars, Random Insect Department Guy (1 Approved Design each)

  Kenta is the curious grandson of Saturn, known for forcing the designers to stretch their imaginations with his ideas and the Insect Department is filled with unnamed characters who do research on insects — both minor characters, but each managed to design something that got approved along the way. Mars is a mainstay in the series, as the reliable engineer who tests the designs her coworkers come up with to see if they would actually hold up on Earth. While not a designer herself, she still secured a point along the way.

    6th Place: Saturn (4 Approved Designs)

  Saturn is an old man whose claim to fame is designing the horse. While every designer has a "masterpiece" that they are known for, Saturn's love of the horse goes above and beyond. He is constantly trying to recapture the beauty and elegance of his most beloved creation; this single-minded dedication proves to be a detriment to his design efforts, as horses are very particular creatures, and trying to apply their traits to other things tends to have horrible side effects. He's even had one design outright rejected. It's no wonder, then, that he ends up at the bottom of the list, with only a few designs having found their way to Earth, but he is proud of all of them.

    5th Place: Jupiter (9 Approved Designs)

  As expected from the designer of the cow, Jupiter's main priority in design is how good they taste. He is so curious about the cuisine possibilities of the animals that he will even go out of his way to taste test ones designed by his friends — and at one point accidentally corrupts the design of one of Neptune's otters by getting it addicted to seafood when its teeth were not properly set up to handle eating that kind of food long-term. While many are surely thankful for Jupiter's gluttony, his single-mindedness leaves him near the bottom of the ranks.

    4th Place: Venus (9 Approved Designs)

  Always looking her best, Venus is a designer with a singular focus like Jupiter, except her priority is beauty. Her masterpiece is the bird, an elegant yet versatile design that allows for lots of variation without losing its functionality. Unfortunately, not all beautiful concepts are practical, which is often Venus' roadblock. She ends up tied with Jupiter in approvals but places one slot above him as she was only rejected once in the series, while Jupiter was rejected twice.

    3rd Place: Mercury (10 Approved Designs)

  Mercury is a man of simple means, dressing and eating plainly. His approach to design is similar, finding elegant solutions to problems. This can be seen in the simple but effective design of his masterpiece, the snake. This problem-solving mindset allows him to rack up many points by solving major issues with prototypes from other designers — while everyone else has one or two assists, Mercury pulls ahead with a massive four, proving himself to be the best team player in the group. He proves that while it's nice to get fancy, sometimes the best solution is to just solve the problem right in front of you.

    2nd Place: Pluto (11 Approved Designs)

  Looks can be deceiving, as the smallest but deadliest member of the group Pluto proves with her frightening designs. Much like Venus' focus on beauty, Pluto's obsession is with all things cute, but her sense of cute is a bit warped. Her designs are often outwardly grotesque, with a predilection toward the outright dangerous. It's no wonder that her most notorious design is the poisonous frog. Luckily for Pluto, the joy she finds in the morbid sparks inspiration over and over again. Anything is fair game for her, up to and including cannibalism.  This leads her to be the second most prolific designer in the show — even if her designs are often misunderstood by her peers, her sheer output is hard to deny.

    Employee of the Month: Neptune (13 Approved Designs)

  The biggest, kindest member of the design team is also the most successful. Neptune's designs just can't be matched. Neptune's masterpiece, the sea otter, is a perfect encapsulation of his design sensibilities: cute, soft, lovable creatures that can creatively adapt to their surroundings to ensure their survival. His preference toward cuddly designs comes with an appropriate desire to protect them, and he often focuses on how to keep them safe. This sometimes leads to some outlandish designs — in order to keep Jupiter's snakes from eating up all his squirrels, he designed ones that fight them back! But his willingness to keep revising his ideas until they work pays off, averaging one approved design per episode. Keep it up, Neptune!

    Those are the results of tabulating all the finished animals in Heaven's Designs Team. Beyond just proving Neptune's prowess as a designer, this goes to show there is great value in being curious and expanding your horizons when stretching your creative muscles. While none of the designers truly sacrificed their preferences, the most successful ones were willing to look outside their comfort zones for inspiration, and just like the animals they design, are adaptable in tough situations. Hopefully, you can find inspiration in that yourself as you encounter things you don't expect, in design and in life!

  Did the results surprise you? Whose designs do you like the most? Let us know in the comments below!

      David Lynn can be found obsessing over Fate/Grand Order on Twitter @navycherub.

  Do you love writing? Do you love anime? If you have an idea for a features story, pitch it to Crunchyroll Features!

By: David Lynn

[ramblings-of-a-mad-cat]

Fawley Family - History, Head-canons, and other stuff

I’ve been delaying this post for far too long, so let’s talk about the Fawleys. This will not be canon to Remembrance, (Though I might mention spoilers from the fic, so be warned.) as I’m working on a Ravenclaw AU for Luca (Spelled “Luka” in this timeline.)  that is as of yet going to remain unfinished because I want to know the full story of HPHM before I finish it - Mainly concerning Rakepick and R.

Politics 

So, The Fawleys are part of the Sacred Twenty-Eight. I’m inclined to think they don’t really care about their status in the Pureblood Directory, even though it’s an inherently racist document. As opposed to the Malfoys, who pride themselves on their inclusion, and the Weasleys, who can’t stand that they were put in. The Fawleys have never properly declared for one side of history or another. They never supported the Death Eaters, but they also didn’t join the Order of the Phoenix. They’ve never been hostile or dismissive to muggles, but they also mingle with the more racist pure-blood families. They keep their options open, and as a result, most people tend to enjoy their company, but don’t fully trust them. It helped that they were usually sorted into Ravenclaw or Hufflepuff, and were therefore able to keep out of the school-age rivalry between the Lions and the Snakes.

Reputation

Of course, The Fawleys aren’t entirely popular either. People tend to avoid them in general, particularly if they’re superstitious and believe in things like the Grimm. This is because, for countless generations, The Fawley Family has been...well, there’s no simpler way to put it, than horribly unlucky. Misfortune seems to follow them wherever they go. It doesn’t usually affect those close to them too directly, although it can. Fawleys are known for madness, as a great number of them go off the deep end over time, even if there were no warnings signs. Far too many have committed suicide. The history of this family is a trail of blood and tears. People have noticed over time, and rumors grew that the family is cursed...and they actually are not wrong. A curse does indeed live in the blood of the Fawleys, and is unfortunately passed down genetically. It doesn’t strictly cause bad luck or anything, but the rumors are still true. 

Lineage

Being one of the oldest pure-blood families in the U.K, they can trace their heritage back hundreds of years. The oldest notes about the family tree suggest that the children of Merlin and Morgan Le Fay, were in fact the Fawley’s original ancestors. There is no way to verify this, of course, and unlike some of the more pompous Wizarding families, they see no need to parade it or make any claims. If it’s true, great. If not, whatever. (In my head, this rumor is definitely true, but it doesn’t change much about them either way. It’s just fun to think about.) On the other hand, it seems to be fact that many generations of the Fawleys were hunters who lived in the woodland and caught their food, sometimes doing odd jobs for hire - this is where the name Fawley (roughly translating to “fowl”) comes from. 

Signature

Several pure-blood families have some kind of motto or sigil. The Malfoys and the Blacks both have a crest, and the Fawleys do too. You might be expecting a bird, but this is not the case. During the War of the Roses, the Yorkshire muggles received some unexpected help from mysterious advisors, who became infamous for their abilities to control people and arrange the deaths of enemy soldiers before they even set foot in battle. Many were grateful for the aid, others voiced doubt, fearing and mistrusting the advisors. They seemed to vanish after the wars ended, having earned the nickname, “The Black Roses.” Sometimes derisively, sometimes approvingly, depending upon who was asked. Within the Wizarding community, however, the Fawleys never hid that they and some of their closest friends had been the Black Roses. It became their symbol.

Darkness 

As stated, the Fawleys have never been Anti-Muggle, not have they favored blood supremacy. But whether or not they stand against the Dark Arts tends to vary between the generations - the Black Roses definitely used dark magic in their efforts, for example. Rarely do any of them go full-out and cross to the dark side. Most of them favor unicorn wands. Rarely do any of them turn completely evil. But a wizard who can employ both light and dark magic is a versatile one, which is advantageous in multiple ways, particularly when it comes to exploring magic itself. What is consistent across centuries of the family is that they like to experiment, they push the study of magic to it’s limits. Some of them became spell inventors. Others travel all over the world in pursuit of greater powers and secrets. More than once, a Fawley has gone off the grid and simply disappeared, never to be heard from again. 

Friendships

The Sacred Twenty-Eight is composed of the core families that often inter-marry, either due to coincidence or to intentionally keep the blood pure. In the Fawleys case, it was the former. There was no rule about avoiding marriages to Half-bloods and Muggles, and sometimes these would even happen - but the number of premature deaths that occurred in this family unfortunately cut off any branches that might have formed. Most consistently, the Fawleys seemed to associate with the Burkes, the Greengrass’s, and especially the Blacks. They had a consistent, ongoing friendship and occasional rivalry with the Black family. They would explore the boundaries of magic together. Sometimes they would be mortal enemies, at others they would protect each other. Many Fawley-Black marriages occurred, and present day, Tonks is distantly related to Luka and Gail. 

Abilities 

The Fawleys have frequently become Healers and either worked at St. Mungos or started smaller practices and apothecaries of their own. Some say this tendency to heal is born of the anguish the family regularly faces. After all, many say the kindest people are those who have suffered the most. Others say that learning these skills became a necessity with how many tragedies there were. But regardless, they usually have talent in the Healing Arts. Typically a Fawley will be gifted in either Charms, Potions, Herbology, or some combination of the three. They are also natural fliers, despite having little interest in Quidditch itself, most of them know their way around a broom. On an unrelated note, I like to imagine the Fawleys, ever-neutral, generally keep themselves out of Quidditch culture, but would be fans of the Montrose Magpies. Finally, we know from canon that MC and Jacob are Legilimens’, so I’d say natural talent toward this magic runs in the family.

Home 

In the Remembrance timeline, the Fawleys live in a small cottage off the coast of a place called Dulcimer Beach, always cloudy and with black sands. However, I like to imagine that at least one branch of the Fawley family grew up in Godric’s Hollow, perhaps just outside the cemetery. I don’t know, there’s something about growing up literally next to a graveyard, that kinda suits them in my opinion. Plus. the whole idea of them being nearby when James and Lily died, even if they weren’t at all connected to it. Not sure where I’ll put the twins in the AU, I might have each of them in one of these two places. All I know is, they have a garden with a bed of black roses, that have magical properties and are used in their potion making. 

The Curse

If the Fawleys have one fatal flaw, that is consistent across the vast majority of them...it’s curiosity. This is why they’re usually in Ravenclaw. It’s why Jacob went after the vaults.They don’t thirst for knowledge but when presented with the idea of a secret they don’t know...they want to know it. This family has done terrible things over the years in their journey to learn the darkest secrets imaginable. They don’t crave power, they just want to see how powerful they can actually become. While they often use that power for good...it always comes with a price. The Curse...was their own doing. Despite spreading rumors that it was the Fault of the Blacks, the Fawleys placed the curse in their blood on themselves, centuries ago. Present day, the current inheritors of the curse don’t even know this to be true. 

Heirlooms 

Just one. A set of thick, fur-lined robes that are white and lined with black, as well as having a black rose emblazoned on the side, usually concealed when the robes are bundled up. Supposedly, these belonged to one of the “Black Roses” but there’s no way to know if that’s true. They could have been made years later, as a simple reference. But Luka’s father Arik had them, and his father before him. Other than that...I suppose there is the Wizard’s Chess set that they have? But it’s only a couple of generations old. 

The Cabal

I’ll get straight to the point. No matter what R winds up being, no matter who they are or what they want, my personal theory or head-canon is that MC’s family has been connected to them, or at least to the Cursed Vaults, for longer than we initially thought. That Jacob and MC being sought out by them was no accident or coincidence. I believe the Fawleys are deeply involved with the Cabal, and have been all along, perhaps going back many generations. Perhaps Dumbledore or the Aurors already know this, and simply keep it from MC. This could also play in to how they never sided with the Death Eaters or The Order - they already had a faction they had pledged loyalty to. 

Miscellaneous 

I’ve always pictured them as Iranian, at least for the past several generations. I also think having twins is not unusual for them, since it seems to happen more consistently in certain families. However, still-born babies and miscarriages, not to mention infertility, are all the more common. As for family traits, I see the Fawleys typically having large dark brown eyes, thicker, longer hair, and smaller, button-like noses. Luka is lactose intolerant, Gail is dyslexic. As I alluded to, they love Wizard’s Chess and probably don’t like Gobstones very much. They generally don’t believe in superstitions and many will claim the Fawley Curse is a hoax, even if they know this not to be true. I also have always imagined them as being Jewish, and if I ever write a reboot fanfic of the Ravenclaw AU, I’d like to incorporate that into the story more. 

Damn if you actually read all of my nonsense you deserve a cookie ☺️ If there are any questions about the Fawleys or head-canons for your own OC's family, please share them!

[masterskywalkers]

So here’s the thing.

Greedfall is full of hidden meanings and symbolism, and it’s overarching message is colonialism is bad. That it doesn’t matter how well your intentions are, you are still destroying and dismantling a whole other culture and way of life. Those good intentions are still disguised by acts and desires of selfishness and a lack of wanting to embrace and understand that which is different. You see it all over the place in the game, and the game is literally slapping you in the face and telling you ‘this is bad’. The merging of villages, the act of ignoring the truth of a religions origins because it doesn’t fit the narrative your land built on that, the experimentations, the killing.

You go through this entire game as De Sardet seeing and witnessing these injustices, all of which are committed by the other factions you’re trying to ally with. I’d honestly say the best of the factions for not trying to take and interfere with the natives are the nauts, but even they’re not exempt due to their history of the first visit to the island (and later in the history, the taking of natives to the continent which is basically human trafficking by today’s standings).

While this is happening De Sardet is still searching for a cure and also learning about the true roots of his heritage. You start to see more of the injustice the more they discover who they are, and unless you’re playing in a way that is indifferent to what’s going on you see even further how the tremors of the underlying tone and message of the game.

Just because something is new and unexplored for one party, doesn’t mean it isn’t already home and a way of life to another. It deserves to be as undisturbed as any other way of life does, and just because one does not understand does not mean that they are suddenly better than what they see as inferior. The natives have a society, a religion, a system that they live by, and it is just as valid as anything else.

Now, on to how Constantin fits into this.

Constantin is - at least before his madness - the least threatening to this way of life. Is he still a disturbance to it? Absolutely, all the new factions on the island are an invading force. But as far as we know, he is the most caring in his governance. There is no zealous religion burning the natives gods and people, there is no hidden experimentation carried out by doctors unlike that of the Bridge Alliance. I say as far as we know because both Thélème and the Bridge Alliance had these actions happening in the background of their governments for the most part, and in the case of things happening in the shadows beneath Constantin’s governance we only really know of the Coin Guard’s rebellion.

The game is a tragedy however, no matter what ending you take. The kindest governor becomes sick with the very illness his cousin is searching desperately for a cure for - and it is a sickness born from the experimentation of those in the Bridge Alliance and their desire to know ‘what will happen if...’. Constantin, as young and as full of live as he is fears his inevitable death, and he begs his cousin help him ‘before the madness takes him’.

The madness is key here - because although Constantin does eventually ‘get better’, he isn’t really himself anymore. My interpretation always was that he fell into that madness anyway through various reasons; the inevitably of his supposed fate, the illness itself, and also the power he feels from the ritual used to save him.

Constantin was fated to die, and die he did. Because the Constantin that was born from his madness, fear and taste of power is not the Constantin that we’ve known up until now. Constantin even says at one point ‘I’ve never hurt anybody, never taken anybody,’ and he hasn’t - until he has a taste for power and yearns for more.

He becomes a threat due to his circumstances, and the madness and yearning for more twists him to the point he does become a threat ... and there is where he becomes the embodiment of the game’s main theme. That colonialism is bad, and wrong, and that even those with the best hearts can grow to yearn for more in a dangerous way.

Constantin is not a bad person. And that’s the tragedy. De Sardet and those who have travelled with the two cousins know this, which is why it’s such a shock and such a difficult thing to face him at the end. Because they know he has to be stopped before that order and balance is disturbed forever, plunging the world into disarray.

But the way I always played it for Caleb at least, is that Caleb also saw that Constantin is a pawn as much as everyone else is. None of what happened to him would have happened had it not been for a desire to prove himself to the people who thought he was a waste of space, or worthless - and again, the game is a tragedy, because Constantin ultimately fails in this too.

Greedfall to me had another theme running through it too, and that was how far would you go for someone you loved? A member of your family - by blood or found - that you have known your whole life and who has always been a constant. When you see them fall down a dark path, what do you do? The good ending is called a good ending because you’re killing what Constantin stands for metaphorically, whereas the bad ending you’re embracing those bad themes. But the game is absolutely brilliant in its writing because it makes you question that decision. You know killing Constantin is the best thing, the right thing to do, but you’ve had enough time to know and understand this character as well as the bonds he has built with people, and you’ve seen the downfall for yourself. There is no option to save him from his fate, but because you’ve grown to know and hurt for this character you’re suddenly thinking if you will kill him. He’s as much a victim of his circumstances, despite now being the main ‘evil’ you face.

I had Caleb save Constantin not because I didn’t like the other ending, or because I saw a ‘cute, blond character and he became a child that must be protected’ because he absolutely does need to answer for his actions! He was wrong. I had Caleb save Constantin because, at the end of the day, I had been playing and building Caleb’s story up until that point as a man who deeply loved his cousin, who was as dependant on him as Constantin was to him. Who couldn’t imagine living in a world without the one constant he’s always had, because Caleb was terribly frightened he would never survive in a world without Constantin. That the weight of essentially murdering one of the people he loved the most would be enough to kill him too. I was playing with the intent of thinking both these cousins had a fatal flaw, and in the end it cost greatly.

The themes are there, and that is so very obvious. And I really hope that people understand that a choice to save Constantin is not a big ‘I see your colonialism themes, but fuck that’ because it isn’t. I fell in love with Greedfall as a game and a piece of writing because of the levels it has in it in terms of meaning and choice. And while I know there are those out there who did save Constantin simply because he was ‘fav boi, best boi’, there are also those who, like me, saved him in a playthrough for numerous other reasons, including that of being a complex character, the way they roleplayed or saw the connection he and his cousin share, or for other reasons and interpretations people saw.

[giftofshewbread]

Fatal Flaw ( Original Sin )

Fatal Flaw  :: By Robert Fleischmann Published on:

September 26, 2017

The tenets of evolution and creation conflict on many points but none as significantly as on the reality of original sin. Original sin can be defined as: “The guilt and sinfulness inherited by all people as a result of Adam’s fall into sin.”

We also call this the “sinful nature” of human beings. Scripture describes it this way:

The LORD smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: “Never again will I curse the ground because of humans, even though every inclination of the human heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done. (Genesis 8:21)

Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me. (Psalm 51:5)

For it is from within, out of a person’s heart, that evil thoughts come—sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and defile a person.” (Mark 7:21–23)

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned (Romans 5:12)

For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it. So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me. (Romans 7:18–21)

The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. (Romans 8:7)

All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our flesh and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature deserving of wrath. (Ephesians 2:3)

In contemporary parlance, we speak of the sinful nature as if it is a state of morality. We talk about the kind and good as “moral” and excessively sinful as “immoral.” The way we speak implies there are levels of morality – presupposing no one is (or was) truly, fully, and completely immoral or fully and completely moral.

Within the theory of evolution is the idea that as we physically evolve from a lower to a higher species we also socially and morally evolve from lower to higher. In The Descent of Man, Charles Darwin wrote: “I fully subscribe to the judgment of those writers who maintain that of all the differences between man and the lower animals, the moral sense or conscience is by far the most important.”

Many suggest that in time we breed immorality out of the human species.  As our physical bodies continue to evolve to a higher level our sense of morality would also evolve to a higher level, just as a higher sense of morality is apparent in human beings than with their presumed lower evolved cousins in the animal world.

While many disciples of evolution presume a moral evolution that coincides with a physical evolution, Scripture speaks quite the contrary. Jesus warned, “Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold” (Matthew 24:12).

This passage suggests that wickedness increases with time and, correspondingly, so does the chilling of love. That is not evolution but “devolution.” There is a moral decline that occurs when the sinful nature, left unchecked, brings increased immorality.

The solution for many is to redefine immorality. Offensive practices rejected a century or generation ago are now embraced as our new morality. Scripture says:

Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter. (Isaiah 5:20)

For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. (2 Timothy 4:3–4)

By embracing the tenets of evolution, we ignore the original sin in all of us. We already hear it in our utopian descriptions of human beings as being fundamentally good. We talk about how people who seem bad on the outside, “deep down are good.” Nonsense.

There is no evidence that humanity is becoming increasingly moral and pure. In fact, the evidence speaks clearly to the contrary. Stories of great cruelty are often quickly dismissed as anecdotal and anomalies in what is otherwise a “good” culture. In reality, history up to the present time, tells of entire groups of people embracing practices that presently or formerly were considered immoral.

The greatest concern with this evolutionistic view of morality is that by ignoring our sinful natures, and our inclinations to go bad when given the opportunity, we naively overlook immoral or questionable bioethical experimentation as dangerous. We think the adaption of CRISPR technology to cure defects should be pursued because we would never cave into the minority voices that would abuse the power. We think experimentation in transhumanism to repair defective, disabled, or removed limbs and body parts can only help people and that only a few would use it wrongfully – and we can protect against that.

Consider for a moment the early promotion of birth control to help families control the number of children they had. The target audience was families because any sexual activity outside of marriage was deemed immoral both by Scripture and society. Today we use tax money to provide birth control for sexual activity between unmarried and same-sex people.

We looked to in-vitro fertilization as a way to help the infertile bear children. In time the technology was used to selectively choose “good” embryos and destroy “bad” embryos. And in removing any conscience pangs over the destruction of life at conception (remember Psalm 51:5), scientists redefined conception to no longer mean fertilization but implantation.

Advocates promoted legal abortion to benefit relatively few women who faced an unplanned pregnancy. Advocates claimed the number of abortions would likely not change drastically from the levels in the early 1970s.  Today we are nearing 60 million abortions since its legalization in 1973.  And today, something like 45% of all abortions are performed on women who already had at least one previous abortion.  For them, it has become a form of birth control.

At every turn, an opportunity to do a presumed good becomes perverted into an evil abuse. Do you think a technology that might obliterate a disability on the genetic level would never be used to enhance some abilities for nefarious reasons? Do you think we settle for normalcy when the technology permits us to go further?

I do not fear technology. In fact, I embrace it with excitement. I am always aware of original sin, however. Given the opportunity, much of the technology we all have access to can be used for evil, and many use it that way. Our computers that help us work faster and more accurately also now provide great temptations for the users and becomes instruments of evil for those who hack them.

You see it going on now with payment technology. Credit cards which reduced the content of cash in one’s wallet can be hacked at ATMs and gas pumps.

My point is that for every advancement made in technology and biotechnology for the good of people, an imaginative culture can take it and use it for evil. We know this not just from experience but divine revelation. All of us have a sinful nature. The capability to do evil does not evolve out of existence. Instead, our love and commitment to others become calloused over time.

Operating in a vacuum that ignores original sin invites trouble.  No one is exempt.  Because of original sin even the kindest and most moral of people has the propensity to do evil. Knowing this, plan accordingly. We must regulate most technology and biotechnology because its potential for harm is great. We might even need to forbid that which seems possible because we lack the moral strength to use it correctly.

It is naïve to pursue technology and biotechnology with the flawed notion that we morally improve. We need this kind of acknowledgment about the nature of human beings to protect ourselves from our evil inclinations. We must regulate and in some cases outlaw those things which permit immorality. We must adhere to the objective standard of morality, namely, Scripture, so we don’t find ourselves making it up as we go.