#necromancy discourse

[nudityandnerdery]

Necromancy is unethical, but not because of the stealing bodies or whatever. It's because when wizards use Animate Dead, it's probably AI doing the art. I don't see any artists getting hired for this animation. They aren't paying for art. You can't trust wizards.

[aeide-thea]

like i guess re pronouns i think also like. many of us (trans/gnc/~gender-diverse~ people) are going to feel differently from one another and that diversity of thought is both inevitable and important

but there is a way in which, as with the question of whether you can group nonbinary people into 'people functionally includable in lesbian attraction' and 'people functionally includable in gay male attraction,' there's this process where like. there's an attempt to expand beyond the traditional framing and create more space for people, and then when that attempt runs up against cissexism and gets gummed up in some of the ways that article describes, you get people going, 'you know what, actually the really queer thing is to stop trying to expand mainstream culture into something that can accommodate queerness and just exist in a totally unspoken way,' and like. it's not that i don't get where that reaction is coming from, or that i totally disagree with it—as my one transfem ex said, the best days are the ones where you don't have to actively make a case for, or even really think about, your own gender!—but like. funny how that approach in certain ways ends up looking (and more to the point feeling) pretty indistinguishable from just. subsiding right back into the underbelly of the cistem…

[gothtransandroid]

Contemplating: Holy Undead

The divine or sacred undead is not an uncommon trope in fantasy. Sometimes like with Dungeons and Dragons we have draws on folklore about revenants, undead who merely exist with a physical form that do as they please, and those become the servants of the god of death to enact some revenge or to punish those who would distort the natural order.

More commonly seen are the redeemed undead, like a soul returning to something like a vampire - see Joss Whedon's Buffy/Angel shows - or a zombie of some sort having self-awareness such as the show and comic iZombie. A recent curiosity was seen in the card game Magic the Gathering a few years back when an egypt inspired set, Amonket, stated that Mummified Undead were sacred from their card typing, which tracks when you consider how much ritual and care mummification takes.

An ideal concept of mine is a christ-like figure as a necromancer who brings people back who had violent deaths and lets those people live out the natural course of their lives before ending the spell and then letting them move on to the next life. A grey area that would give them some wiggle room to do as they want and they would only bring the people back, never give orders or force them against their own will. This could be further skirted by bringing back mercenaries and while not commanding them they can still pay for protection and the gratefulness of the resurrected would be a bonus.

A key thing to remember in these kinds of stories is the redemptive or rehabilitive factors of the nature of their undeath. Its not just that they get a new chance at life, but that this new unlife gives them more reason to be better, lay old grudges down and grow as an individual. And ask how the magic is affected by this. Will redemption weaken the spell, with full closure cleansing the undeath? Are they becoming more complex of an undead as they accept their new form and all of its short-comings? Are they fighting the metaphors for addiction/vengeance that are their hungers/vulnerabilities?

[larval-tear]

discourse: Necromancy may be legal in Cyrodiil, but few will admit to practicing it now that the Mages Guild has banned it!

normal guy: I don't know you, and I don't care to know you.

[caughtthedarkness93]

Ok, I guess I gotta talk about that one scene in Dragon Age: The Veilguard eventually because I've heard about discourse regarding it and it's driving me up a wall with how some of the criticism ignores key context from the rest of the story that informs how it's written. Spoilers for Taash's storyline follow below the cut.

So I mainly have seen this referenced on TV Tropes because I am not on the hellscape that is Twitter, but people, it seems, have been criticizing the scene where Taash comes out as nonbinary to their mom for how they get pissed at how their mom takes it. Often this is used to frame Taash as being unreasonable as their mom is struggling to understand what that means.

And I feel like that criticism kind of misses a big part of what that scene is actually about. Because Taash's relationship with their mom is complicated. This is something that their storyline stresses repeatedly. Taash has fond memories of growing up with their mom and knows that she basically gave up her whole culture to ensure that Taash wouldn't be forced into a soldier's life. It's clear that their mom is still very attached to Qunari culture and she outright expresses a couple times that she feels like being a Qunari scholar equipped her extremely poorly to actually raise a child. That checks out - under the Qun, that would be someone else's job entirely.

So this informs a lot of Taash's relationship with her - Taash recognizes that she gave up a very privileged position with the Qunari for their sake. Because she wanted a better life for them than what they'd get there. That's a huge sacrifice.

However, you watch how they interact, you can see that Taash's mom is also very critical of them and very controlling. She doesn't care much for Taash's privacy, tries to make a lot of their decisions for them without putting a lot of thought into what they actually want, and she is extremely critical of them sometimes about things that don't really matter.

So we get to that scene late in their storyline - the Lighthouse dinner. I think the critical mistake a lot of people make when looking at this scene is thinking that it's about how she reacts to Taash's gender identity.

Which that informs it, sure, but there's more to it. When Taash yells that nothing they do is good enough for their mom, it's not a reaction to how she responds to their identity, it's a reaction to the way their whole relationship has been built up throughout the game. It's the straw that broke the camel's back. And it's true to Taash's character.

One of the things that I like about Taash is that they're someone who likes a straightforward, direct solution to most problems. Thing in your way? Break it. Big scary monster? Kill it. They like to be able to take the most simple, direct path through a problem, preferably one that involves slaying a big monster, and Veilguard constantly puts them in situations where that isn't an option. And in those situations, they struggle a lot. Taash struggles to get along with Emmerich because that involves overcoming internalized prejudices (and understandable ones too - necromancy is something that would probably make a lot of people uncomfortable irl and for a culture where cremation is the norm and undead can be a legit issue, that would go, like, quadruple - of course they're uncomfortable with Emmerich). That's not an easy thing to do because it involves a lot of introspection and interrupting thoughts that you've been trained to think. Taash questions their gender identity. Definitely no easy, straightforward way to solve that. They angst a lot over being afraid they're broken somehow for feeling these things. A fraught, complicated relationship with a parent who sacrificed everything so that you would have a better life, but can't seem to bring herself to let you actually live it the way you want? Can't hit that with an axe.

And ultimately, that's what's happening in this scene - the whole game, we've seen Taash struggle with this really complex, nuanced relationship, this mother who clearly loves them and wants the best life possible for them, but struggles to understand what their child really needs and often says or does things that are hurtful. In this scene, this bubbling, brewing resentment, definitely exacerbated by Taash being outside their mom's orbit and with a team that has more faith in their skills and abilities, finally comes to a head.

The scene is only about Taash's identity on the most surface of levels. Yeah, that's what sparks the argument, but it's not what the argument is about.

[jaal-ama-daravv]

I saw this and thought of you. Thoughts?

https://www.tumblr.com/chantrytears/767433095927463939?source=share

Link to Post - Courtesy of @chantrytears

Harding & Emmrich - Moving Too Fast Banter Dissection

Love you for thinking of me and tagging me in this because this banter is VITAL to Emmrich x Rook's dynamic.

The jist of the dialogue banter being discussed is as follows:

Emmrich gave Harding an item that didn't work, Emmrich states that he has been distracted. Harding: "What with you and Rook becoming..." Emmrich: "You noticed..?" Harding: "I'm sure you two getting together is... only Rook's kind of, younger...so" Emmrich: "It's not - What are you getting at harding?" Harding: "You two are sort of moving quickly.." Emmrich: "May we change topics?"

To initially answer this in relation to the OP post, I believe the 'moving quickly' is in relation to their infatuation and connection to eachother. This is particularly noticeable with a Mourn Watch Rook, however, it's still noticeable in another Rook. I note that with a MW Rook, Harding is privy to one of the very first conversations you can have with Emmrich in the Lighthouse. Where all three discuss Necromancy and the burial process, and Harding states that Rook sounds 'fancier' when discussing these topics (linked). This, for me, was Harding's first observation at the type of connection MW Rook and Emmrich share - a deep and unbridabled passion. Possibly leading to Hardings disposition on their eventual relationship.

Back to the moving quickly context, codex entries, letters, or bits of pieces of eachother's belongings in eachothers rooms would've been a lovely addition. However, I will work with what is provided. By the time this conversation from Harding is triggered, Emmrich and Rook have shown an interest in eachother and have opened up to one another. They share a bond, a great bond. And if you've read my dissections, you'll know that this bond reaches beyond the veil to other worlds.

Let us keep in mind that Emmrich has yearned for this type of love since he was a child. It manifested into craving affection, then enduring love, then marriage throughout his life. However, he never found it. So he gave up. He gave up and went in search of another purpose - Lichdom. Although this post focuses on the mortal path - Lichdom was always apart of Emmrich's plan. It is only that he has found either the love of his life with Rook or found the family he so desperately craved with the Veilguard - that he would be willing to let go of his dream of lichdom, for his other dream of untold love. Backed by a banter dialogue with Davrin, here.

Additionally, with that information - Emmrich is of course absoloutley infatuated and obsessed with Rook. Not only by who they are, but what they represent, to him. Love, enduring affection, companionship, potential marriage. Everything that Emmrich has dreamed of. Marriage was also a topic of discussion between Harding and Emmrich, find it here.

These two were most likely sneaking kisses, and holding hands in his library and the balcony throughout our travels during Veilguard. They are very much *heart eyes* at eachother, and that is obvious from the first quest of Emmrichs. I'm not surprised that the discourse of them moving too fast came up, because to others, they most likely were very affectionate, fast. And quite frankly, I'm a fan of it. I love two insane, soul bound, in love freaks who just go for it because they recognise eachothers souls. The two are made for eachother.

In saying that, let's think back to the argument scene, and his reaction, Rook's reaction. The reaction of two people, so scared to lose eachother, lose their future, their plans, their sought after love. After only just finding eachother. Emmrich is torn apart on the inside because what if he loses his dream? The two of them, are in love, almost immediately. Hence, moving fast.

Additinally, Emmrich does not want the conversation to continue. He's straight up, doesn't want someone's opinion. What would they know?

Don't worry - I have more, because there is more. This is actually a 3 part banter dialogue. [LINK HERE] Lets continue -

Harding: "Emmrich, about earlier...when I brought up you and Rook being together Emmrich: "Yes..?" Harding: "Look, you were in a crypt with all your dusty books and suddenly Rook bursts into your own life and.." Emmrich: "I keep my books pristine!" Harding: "I get it. Rook's, Rook. Wild and eager. Just whisking you away and now it's all candles and showers of ghost petals! It's great, but, you've also been kind of pre-occupied, ya know...mopey." Emmrich: "Mopey?!"

Emmrich has a tendency to be very short and aloof when he is defensive. Harding calls Emmrich mopey after Rook entering his life and they get close.

Now, part 3 -

Emmrich: "I am not, mopey, Harding." (annoyed) Harding: "Uh, yeah you are. You're so mopey you misalign the spirit ether- what's it, twice this week, and your skull thing is crooked! Emmrich: "My collar pin is perfectly straight." Emmrich: "Ohh (deep sigh), I do worry sometimes about what people might think about Rook and myself. Given our ages. Not to mention the spectre of acting like a besotted fool." Harding: "You're not...that bad. My Ma always says, it's fun to go at full gallop, but you still have to keep your eyes open, tree branches and stuff." Emmrich: "I will, thank you Lace."

Emmrich, is in love. A distracted, can't stop thinking about the love of my life, in love man. There is no other way to put it. He calls him self a besotted fool because he is a FOOL in love - at his age, he likely feels some shame around it. A 50 year old man, acting like a teenage boy in love. Hence, and as @chantrytears and I have stated, his cool, calm, confident exterior is a front. He doesn't want to come accross as a besotted fool, and because we play as Rook, we won't see it from our perspective until he starts to crack during the argument and afterwards.

His besotedness is evident in the banter dialogue throughout the game, (which is mainly with Harding where you find out about most of his 'endearment' past). He reveals he wanted to be married when he was younger, he gave up, 'until rook' with whom he now consider close family. The crooked skelton pin. Forgetting to align items correctly. Hell I know I've thought about fictional men and at times people where I forget to do thins, or do things wrong, because you're well, obsessed.

All in all. Yeah they may of moved fast, but not in our realities sense, in the emotional sense. and honestly? I love them for it. Still not a fan of any of Harding's dialogue here, but grateful we get to see Emmrich call himself a fool for being in love.

*drops mic*

[apoloadonisandnarcissus]

The audience reception and discourse around “Nosferatu” (2024) is a warning to creators and artists: having your work misinterpreted is the price for going mainstream. And it’s hilarious seeing so many folks actually believing Robert Eggers’ intention with his ending is for his Ellen to “defeat” and take revenge on Orlok, when this is the second film he makes where the destructive and perceived evil Pagan force symbolizes his lead female character empowerment, vengeance and liberation from oppressive and patriarchal Christian society who shames and ostracizes her. Both which end with the protagonist selling her soul to said evil, as they join him in an eternity of “deliciousness” and pleasure, after he kills almost everyone around them. The OST for Ellen and Orlok’s “wicked sacred marriage” and death scene is called “Bound”; no covenant was broken here.

If you really think Eggers has any intention of glorifying Christianity in his “Nosferatu”, you clearly know nothing of his work, because every single one of his films are deeply anti-Christian, and this no different. And he said it himself: “My influences are all very clear, and Nosferatu is a remake, after all,” Eggers says, yet he plays with the canon, with expectations and clichés – “hopefully subverting them to do something unexpected.” Most of you fell for his trap, and only saw the cliché. He didn’t even want to include that last look between Thomas and Ellen, he probably had to because of studio pressure, or to mess with your heads even further.

Robert Eggers said it countless times, his “Nosferatu” is a “demon lover story”, and a Gothic Romance based on Catherine and Heathcliff from “Wuthering Heights”. In his “Nosferatu” his Ellen wants Orlok, and they end up together, for all eternity. She’s not letting anyone put a “spike of cold iron” through her demon lover, sending him somewhere she cannot reach him, and that’s when she accepts him.

Ellen and Orlok’s obsessive and all-consuming passion is not only self-destructive for them, but everyone around them, and only stops when they are both dead in the physical world and reunited in the spiritual realm. Ellen calls out for Orlok the entire film, she’s a dark character (like every Gothic female character), she’s selfish, complex and nuanced. She plays both Orlok and Thomas and weaponizes them against each other (exactly like Cathy with Heathcliff and Edgar), she wants to fuck around with Orlok/Heathcliff while being married to socially acceptable Thomas/Edgar. She says one thing and does the opposite; she’s been summoning Orlok to Wisburg, and when he’s there she claims to hate him, which causes Orlok to threaten to kill Thomas in return. They are both toxic (it’s not just Orlok). And Thomas is the “damsel in distress” here, caught up in the middle of something he doesn’t know nor understands, and gets his entire life wrecked as a result of both Ellen and Orlok’s actions (like Edgar himself).

Most don’t see this because they think of Ellen as this cardboard victimized character with no agency whatsoever or some nonexistent “Christ-like Madonna” when she’s the embodiment of a dual-natured Pagan spirit, like Orlok himself. She’s the “enchantress”, he’s the “black enchanter”. She starts this film performing black magic (necromancy), when she resurrects Orlok; and ends it with a Şolomonari Sex Magick ritual to break the curse of Nosferatu (which is the whole point of her willing sacrifice). They are the witch/wizard archetypes.

[crazysodomite]

necromancers DNI. it has to be said the graverobbing discourse is insane. please don't act like a coy little law-abiding conjurer when you come into the tavern to play devil's advocate on NECROMANCY???? we all know what you're doing. and please don't even start accusing me of hating on all conjurers. not what i'm talking about. i'm sure most conjurers do not, in fact, practice necromancy. which makes it so much more suspicious when a mage starts saying that "adventurers taking shit from tombs is basically on the same level as necromancy". it's different. it's literally different. i mean, i don't condone it either but you know. great grandpa isn't gonna care if i take his enchanted dagger. he doesn't need it! and if it's a skilled thief doing it then the damn spirits aren't gonna know a thing! this world is tough and we all gotta do what we gotta do. but what we are not going to be doing is trying to justify necromancy. no. absolutely not. enough of this ridiculousness.

[weirdly-specific-but-ok]

pt II our flag means death but I've never watched it

HELLO OFMD FANDOM! It's the Good Omens Mascot and Resident Dumbass, back again for part II. First, let's clear the air of all controversy!

Some of you lovely maggots were kind enough to warn me about certain discourse about a salad spoon and also about a certain gentleman named Izzy. I was warned not to make assumptions and not to take sides, and I hear some members had to leave the fandom for a while because it got toxic. Maggots. All the rest of you. Worry not about me. I'm here to unite the OFMD fandom! How, you ask? By being so undeniably stupid in my own opinions that you all will have to unite to disagree with me. You underestimate the power of my dumbassery. Well, let's not dilly dally and dawdle, here's the updated summary:

I have been informed there is cannibalism on this ship but it is not real. Someone pretends to eat someone and then their wife helps them fake their death while they run away from the ship though their lover wanted them to run to China.

There are BDSM lesbians, which is honestly such a slay, Pinterest has let me down by not informing me of that when I made Part I. I will no longer be using Pinterest a reliable source in future academic essays.

Mermaid Stede performs necromancy while a song called Kate Bush plays (I don't know who this is, a politician? Idk whether of US or UK).

Gravy Basket is a destination and Buttons is a sea witch and there is educational stabbing. Buttons is then a bird because of the BDSM lesbians.

There is a lady who is extremely beautiful and intimidating and powerful and she has twenty husbands and I assumed incorrectly that you were all talking about a Jack Russel terrier.

Let's start with the controversy! Izzy. Secondary protagonist or antagonist? Good or bad? Kindly father figure or homoerotically charged friend? Necessary death or not? No no no. Behold:

I present a new question, a hot take sizzling from the pan: Did Izzy really exist?

Personally, I firmly believe that no, he did not. I believe that the rum on the ship was spiked with hallucinogens.

Izzy was simply the manifestation of Ed's Freudian subconscious, taking the shape of a human being, vaguely resembling a humanoid potato Ed was forced to boil as a kid. I was a psychology student with a final grade of 99% and I accept only destructive criticism on my posts thank you. Feel free to discuss whether he boiled the potato in a fit of rage or whether he was forced to.

There are assorted Ned's, Mary's and an uncertain number of Jeff's on ship.

One of the Jeff's is an accountant, and there is a nonbinary talking sword named Jim. Actually I'm not sure if they talk.

Love you all, rooting for the show to be renewed.

REMINDERS. Be polite to each other in the reblogs, on tumblr reblogs spread posts and not likes (which don't do anything for visibility) unlike other social media sites, but MOST IMPORTANTLY.

I ACCEPT ONLY DESTRUCTIVE CRITICISM, THIS BLOG IS A GODLESS, LAWLESS LAND, AND ALL RAGE AT EACH OTHER MUST BE REDIRECTED AT ME. UNDERSTOOD? YAY.

[flowersforthemachines]

inspired by this post by @thewardenisonthecase. I haven't introduced any of these OCs on the blog except for Ghilasara and the tiny bit of Cerastes, and I think that's a great way to go through all of them at once. encouraging everyone to do the same with their OCs as well

* Specifically the part where he counts on her killing him and gets her kicked out of her home. Doesn't actually care about the church as a building.

* Comes clean during the lock-in scene.

[mythcreantsblog]

We were noodling on magic system discourse the other day, as you do, and a thought occurred to us: pretty much all magic system controversy is, in some way, reacting to the works of Brandon Sanderson. Overzealous fans demand that everyone design magic like he does, while critics decry the entire idea of magic systems, seeing them as taking over fantasy. 

And yet, Sanderson’s stories seem to be a major outlier in the genre. A very lucrative and successful outlier, to be sure, but practically no one else writes magic like he does. Specifically, Sanderson’s stories (at least some of them) share an unusual combination: magic that is both highly systematized and explained while also having super loose theming. 

What do we mean by that? In Mistborn, we learn detailed specifics of magic powers granted by various metals, but the links between each metal and its corresponding power are weak at best. Iron and steel giving magnetism-type powers feels right, but why does pewter give super strength? Feels like that should go with titanium or another metal famous for its strength. And what does tin have to do with enhanced senses? We could probably find links if we looked hard enough, but they aren’t apparent. 

In Stormlight, we have a similar situation. There’s a lot of detail on what the eponymous stormlight does, but those effects are scattered all over the place. Sometimes stormlight gives super strength, other times it powers transmutation devices, or it manipulates gravity. This grab bag of powers isn’t helped by some of them being named things like “double basic lashing.” 

Both series give us magic with consistent rules that can be learned, but also magic where the effects feel like they were randomly drawn out of a hat. Plenty of stories have one quality or the other, but rarely both. 

It’s easy to find fantasy stories where the magic feels random and unthemed. Strange and Norrell has magic that can do basically anything at any time, whether it comes from Norrell’s books or Strange’s imagination. Wheel of Time starts with a five element system and then expands into so many different weaves that not even a hefty fan wiki can keep track of them all. Much as we would prefer not to mention Harry Potter, it’s probably the most famous example of magic that is all over the place. 

Likewise, many fantasy series have magic rules that can be learned, but they are almost always more focused and better themed. Avatar has elemental martial arts, Broken Earth has geology magic, and The Bone Shard Daughter has necromancy that works like computer programming. These are systematized to the point that you can predict new uses of magic from what you already know, but none of them feel random or mismatched. 

It seems like when most authors set out to create highly systematized magic, they also do a lot of work to make their powers feel cohesive and natural. Sanderson, at least in Mistborn and Stormlight, does not do this. We can’t think of any other successful author who has put in the effort to have a robust magic system while letting its themes and aesthetics run out of control like that.

If anyone does know of such an author, please let us know about them. Just be sure this is someone who’s actually sold a decent number of books. No need to pick on some self published newbie with three Goodreads ratings. 

Otherwise, it might be time to acknowledge that Sanderson isn’t the huge influence on fictional magic that is often assumed. His books are everywhere, it’s true, but they don’t seem to have inspired a wave of imitators. At least, not that we’ve seen.   

[nocifer]

How is ancient dark magic different from modern dark magic? Is dark magic forbidden?

"Dark magic? Profane, divine, arcane, nonsense all. Like children we've been taught to reject what is dark and unknown, to tremble like lambs when we were meant to soar like griffins. Abandon this notion of forbidden magic, reserve it for the cowards and fools it suits best."

Dark magic has always been a contentious topic. What even constitutes dark magic is often subjective, a matter of law and tradition more than a thin but definite line to cross.

Although the Grey Tower outlaws the use of dark magic, it does not have the power to enforce such a law beyond direct reprisal against those who transgress. The most fervent abhorrers of dark magic are unsurprisingly among the holy orders, Paladins in their time have conducted many a purge against users of dark magic, but the Templar Knights and Inquisitors have taken up that torch despite their differences.

What many now consider dark magic used to be just another tool for the survival of the people of old, that have perhaps grown wicked as they developed, though some would argue not any more than any other form of magic. Ancient mages used necromancy to stave off death, to glean wisdom from the dead, to raise the dead in defense of their homes, the shamans of old made no difference between two forms of magic that allowed them to protect and guide their own.

The first time the concept of dark magic appeared in the conscious collective was aeons ago when the Harbingers, the servants of the elder gods who channeled the power of the abyss to bring about their liberation, were at the peak of their power. The harbingers' legacy has forever stained the arts they passed down as vile and maleficent.

However these more global bans on dark magic are actually fairly recent, it was the Shattered's wake that allowed these laws and principles to be codified. Before then, dark magic was reviled on principle, as a matter of course, and those who sought to extinguish it and its knowledge for good were for the most part only the most extremist and dedicated groups.

People like the Shattered have carried on research on dark magic openly and with means few could have had access to. And made something truly world-changing of it. Which also had the adverse effect of creating a lot of negative discourse about dark magic again.

The major difference between modern and ancient dark magic is that modern dark magic has regained a form of legitimacy as a field of study that it had lost because of the way its users were vilified. Until people like the Shattered, warlock cabals and witch covens had been relying mostly on traditional forms of dark magic, research never stops but there's only so much headway you can make when the better part of valor serves you best and your kind is in constant conflict. True and meaningful discoveries were few and far between.

A new approach to dark magic has allowed new ways of using that kind of magic to emerge, what exactly the Shattered created that was so revolutionary... well, that's something you'll have to discover for yourself.

[lostbrazilian]

Ok so, i've finished SotE a few days ago and i fucking LOVED IT and i need to talk about it, particularly about Miquella. Because the thing is, i really like what From has done with his character but also i've seen a lot of discourse about it and i need to get my 2 cents in before i explode

So uh, long ass essay and spoilers below

First things first:

Character assassination my ASS

Fromsoft actually did fucking character necromancy the way they added depth to otherwise one-note characters. Even if unexpected, what we learn in the dlc makes a disturbing amount of sense and ultimately elevates the game's lore in my "humble but objectively correct" opinion. That being said, while Miquella is undoubtedly a irredemable villain by the time we fight him, his character is also much more than just the "gay evil twink" ppl make him out to be

Elden Ring's demigods, while powerful and often monstrous, are also very clearly people: they have feelings, ambitions, ideals and tragic elements about them, which is why many of them are very likeable or at least compelling characters. And Miquella is a prime example of this, because the driving force behind his character, and ultimately the reason of his downfall, is his compassion

Miquella saw the flaws of the Golden Order from a young age, mainly how it oppressed others and was powerless to help his sister. And everything he has done since has been in an attempt to bring about a better, more compassionate world for all. And while the way he manipulates others and removes their free weill is a clearly nefarious aspect of his plans, that doesn't mean his kindness wasn't genuine, for two main reasons:

First, many of Miquella's followers go on to stand with him even after their charm has been broken, which makes clear that many are koyal to Miquella not just because of brainwashing, but also because they genuinely believe in his end goals. And while we'll never have confirmation of this, i don't think the denizens of the Haligtree, or Malenia for that matter, are all under Miquella's spell. At the very least the majority of them must've willingly chosen to remain loyal to him (plus, his charming powers must have a limit of some kind, otherwise he wouldn't need to become a god to rule the lands between)

Secondly, St Trina's very existence proves that Miquella's love and compassion is not only genuine, it's strong enough to manifest as a whole ass second being, which in turn makes her abandonment all the more tragic. It's possible that Miquella himself was always driven by ambition, and that he saw his other half as a "weakness" to be expunged; Or perhaps casting Trina away was a necessary evil, a selfless sacrifice in the name of a greater good. Regardless of the reason (i tend towards the latter), the end result is clear: It was grave mistake

For without love, there can be no Compassion. Miquella's Age of Compassion would be doomed to become an era of subjugation and endless war, where those who resist Miquella's charm would not be allowed to exist. It's an end result that Miquella himself would definitely NOT want, but it's the one he uwittingly locks himself into after he casts away his humanity. Hence why St Trina begs us to kill Miquella, as she understands his ascension would essentially result in a fate worse than death for him

So, TL;DR: I think Miquella genuinely wanted to create a better world, but in his quest to do so not only did he forcefully take away the free will of others, he also wound up becoming a heartless monster that, if unchecked, would bring about great suffering to the world and himself. It's classic "good intentions, bad outcome" tragic writing and ultimately it makes Miquella a very memorable and compelling character, even if he is ultimately a villain

[doctorwhoisadhd]

[ID: reply from @seveneyesoup: "okay i'll bite what the hell is blaseball (i looked it up on wikipedia i have a general idea of if but it doesn't like, tell me what it was like following the game at all) /end ID]

this is such a good question that the answer gets its own entire post!!!!! im gonna try to distill it for u as best i can here goes

very much colored by what team u were a fan of if u were like me and in maincord. because a) teams had different cultures / lore / players / etc and b) they also had different stuff happen to them. however everyone did experience the same plot

it was something you could open any hour of the day :) like if i was bored at 3am i could just open blaseball (provided games were running)

you ALWAYS had questions. there were not answers for 75% of them. sometimes it was because the question was never designed to be answered in the first place. other times it was because we just LITERALLY did not know. also, out of the 25% of the questions we DID have answers for, 10 of those percents required you to make a spreadsheet to answer it, and 5 of those percents required you to seek out a specific guy who can answer it for u. the rest could mostly be answered by going into maincord and asking. but crucially the only way to determine which of these a question was was asking anyway.

it was basically like if fantasy football was both. an arg and massively multiplayer and also fucking insane. we were making choices having no idea what anything did and i cannot tell you how many monkeys paw situations there were. we were straight guessing up in that bitch

bits were everything in the discord. goku got incinerated once. there was a bee wedding. my team (the fridays) suckered the mods into giving us a second emoji once. bits got beaten like winnie hess after season 24 day 3 (a dead horse). it was incredible

so many fucking spreadsheets. awesome

THE FAN MUSIC SCENE WAS THE BEST THING EVER. like i think blaseball was probably the SINGLE best fan culture in terms of fan music ever created. it was really, really, really absurdly popular, moreso i would say than fanfic

loring players was so fun everyones ideas were so different and cool. most players were queer it was super fun. VERY VERY queer space and very awesome. it was fantastic in that regard

anything you could imagine probably happened in blaseball.

when in doubt, its a pun. or some kind of wordplay (chances were if u were theorizing, if it was a pun then you were at least close)

the discourse was so bad sometimes though (like. necromancy discourse sucked so bad. like please stop taking it so seriously necromancy is inherently funny!!! also oh GOD yorkcourse that was the WORST. basically ppl were mad that the fridays lored our favorite player as an 8 year old boy considering players die in this game)

[mageknife]

listen mullein is losing the poll and he hasn’t really technically done anything “wrong” unless you count turning to necromancy to cope with his family’s deaths or telling arum and anders about the tranquility cure behind cassandra’s back but he would summon discourse out of nothing just by existing as an effeminate gay white twink who’s 5 feet tall and a sub bottom. kaelyn gets me

[the-elder-polls]

I’m kinda over all this martin discourse so i’ll say this instead

I haven’t gone to necrom so i’ve yet to meet Sharp-as-Night, but you describing him as Garrus if he were worse has got me *intrigued*

like

to the point it’s been plaguing my mind for hours, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN

PPPPPLLLEEAAAASE i love himmmm

the short answer: he has garrus' VA and sounds identical to garrus, rasp and all

the long answer: ;]