#ramblings of an arrow

[theredjenny]

Also like it wouldn't have been that difficult to make the Templars sympathetic. You'd just have to come at it from a different angle than "both sides have a point". Like... the Templars and the Mages could (and do) have a common enemy! The Chantry is abusing both the Templars and the Mages! The deadly lyrium addiction, the fact that some kids are straight up raised in the chantry to become Templars without getting a choice in the matter.

Like this doesn’t excuse the abuses they heap on the mages or remove their culpability in the human rights abuses they've been complicit in. But it does add another layer to things. Like there could have been solidarity there. They could have realized that perhaps they have a common enemy. Maybe they're both being used.

Which is of course why keeping the templars so paranoid and terrified of the mages is important. Because if they did ever put two and two together and attempt to ally with the mages... well that would topple the whole chantry then wouldn't it?

[littlefankingdom]

This man (Bruce) is so abnormal about parenthood and so intense about his love for Dick. "He's not my son, he's more than that" Son is not a strong enough word for what Dick is to him. And the last panel being Oliver with Roy, which is later, implying that Oliver finally understood wtf was Bruce talking about when he got Roy, being like "wtf does his weird bs make sense?!?"

But also, a part of it may come from how Dick wasn't comfortable with becoming Bruce's son, so Bruce got used to immediately correcting people when they called him his father or Dick his son because he doesn't want Dick to overhear it and be hurt (a lot of people in the fandom seems to forget that it was Dick who did not want to be adopted and who was against Bruce being his father. Of course, that changed with time, but Bruce respecting that is great and not "bad parenting". A foster parent should never force a kid to accept them as their father/mother)

[frownyalfred]

something something, Ollie and all the Arrow heroes have a rivalry with the Batfamily that secretly hinges on their distaste for close quarter combat and preference for long-range engagement (snipers, shooting from a perch, stake outs, etc) and the Batfamily’s preference (and excellence at) close quarter combat (taught by Bruce as a necessity; Nightwing gets so close quarters it makes Ollie’s teeth ache sometimes watching, like it’s a game to step into someone’s block, slip under their guard, and flip them forward using their own momentum (it is) (they learned it all from Bruce, king of “I don’t care how close I have to get if you go down and hurt after”))

[hopefully-helpful-daemon]

I'm always on my Bruce acted like Damian when younger shit, but I'm also on my Oliver was eerily similar to Cass when young bullshit

Look, that man might have been stranded on an island for a year(s) but no other person would get into that situation and decide that the most reasonable choice was to dismantle the drug ring on the island with nothing but a bow and barely any training.

So I like to think that Ollie was always a little fucked, just uncomfortably wrong in a way that most people wouldn't understand. that actually being why Bruce likes him when they first meet.

Him being unnaturally quiet, not when speaking of course, it's Oliver Queen, no one can get him to be quiet when speaking unless he wanted to, but quiet in the way of being able to sneak up on people without even trying. Just appearing in a room and scaring everybody, even when someone is keeping an eye on him, he'll inevitably slip away and reappear a few hours later in a place that he's not supposed to be.

when Bruce and Ollie first met, Bruce liked him because he kinda scared the shit out of him, there was a look to him that just set off of the warning signs in Bruce's head and of course that means that he needed to friends with Ollie immediately.

And later, when Bruce's mouth inevitably got him into trouble, he never had to worry about what would happen after he won because Oliver would always jump in first. people learned very quickly that you can't fuck with one of them without the other being there too.

in the first few months of Oliver being the GA, Batman comes to Starling for something and tries to slip away after being spotted, but Oliver is able to hunt him through the city. No matter what Bruce tries, GA is always two steps behind and getting closer. finally Bruce is able to lose him at the edge of town (Oliver doesn't lose him, he just knows that Batman is leaving and sees no reason to keep going after him) and decides right then that the Green Arrow is never allowed within Gotham, that no other vigilante is allowed in Gotham.

Years down the line, after the JL is up and both of them are in it, Bruce questions whether he should tell Ollie that he's the Bat, but Oliver already knows, has know since the first time that they fought side by side, because no one has fit so perfectly beside him since those days in school. the days that he was the blinding sunlight in front, the fist that everyone paid attention to, so no one noticed the dark shape in the shadows Oliver had cast, the knife that you didn't even realizes was there until it was being pulled out of your ribs. of course Oliver knew that Bruce was Batman, he would have shot him with an arrow on that first mission if he hadn't.

[spiritsglade]

Jason Todd & Critiques of Child Vigilantes

I've always found it interesting that as early as Bruce's opening monologue in Batman #428 - before he even finds Jason's body - DC had already started victim blaming Jason for his death.

Admittedly, I'm cherry-picking a bit here. There rest of the monologue does involve Bruce blaming himself as well, for all the choices he made in raising Jason that led up to this. In The New Titans #55, Dick makes a similar claim - this is Bruce's fault, for letting Jason be Robin before he was ready.

Except then Tim Drake picks up the mantle.

And the victim blaming settles in as the narrative DC's pushing. Jason was reckless, he was angry, he was impulsive. He jumped into this situation without thinking, and that's what got him killed.

And it's obvious why, right? Because Jason Todd dying, Robin dying, is about as effective an argument against child vigilantes as you can get. Because if it isn't Jason's own intrinsic failure, then the blame turns to Bruce. It's Bruce's fault for putting a kid in a costume, for putting Jason in a position where the Joker had cause to kill him.

(Sheila only sold Jason out because he was Robin. Joker only set the bomb because he wanted to avoid Batman's retaliation.)

Because if we really start critically thinking about the implications of child vigilantes in this world, it starts unraveling at the seams. And the first obvious loose thread is Bruce letting Tim pick up the Robin mantle, after the last one died.

Anyway, this post isn't about how blame is shifted onto Jaybin post-death to avoid criticizing child vigilantes. This is about the Red Hood and how he does the same damn thing.

Jason, after his resurrection, has a habit of harassing various heroes and monologuing a whole lot in the ensuing fight. Relevant to the conversation here are the arcs with Tim Drake and Mia Dearden.

It's worth noting that Jason is projecting in both cases, specifically taking his own relationship with Bruce and assuming that the same is true of Tim & Bruce and Mia & Ollie. This is obviously not the case, but it is relevant because it gives us insight into how Jason views Bruce, and where he feels the blame lies.

Life and Death - Teen Titans (2003) #29

TT #29 is the comic featuring Jason Todd's infamous attack on Titan's Tower, in which he fights Tim Drake for 8 pages. While we're here: no Jason wasn't trying to kill Tim, it was a fair fight not a one-sided torture fest, no throats were slit, and while that Robin costume may have been homemade I refuse to believe it was cheap. Jason is not wearing a cheap Halloween costume that thing is fully functional as a vigilante costume I will fucking FIGHT YOU -

Jason repeatedly brings up Bruce during this fight (emphasis mine):

"[Bruce] let you find him. And I bet he said the same thing to you that he said to me, didn't he? That you had the talent to make a difference in Gotham. That he needed someone he could trust in his war on crime. That you're one of a kind. The light to his darkness. Robin, the Boy Wonder. Now... let me show you what the Joker did to me." "Still. You do realize, the whole idea of training a teenager to fight against something he'll never eradicate is a mistake. It didn't surprise anyone when I died. When I failed."

This is Jason criticizing Bruce. This is Jason calling out Bruce for his failings as a parents, for the fundamental wrongness that is a child vigilante. Jason specifically frames it in the context of his own life. This is how he views Bruce's influence on him - his death is something that could have been predicted.

Except: This is DC. Child vigilantes are a genre convention, are a foundational part of how the world is built, and cannot be criticized.

So let's take a look at everything else Jason says:

"You can't be that good." "Now… let me show you what the Joker did to me. And let's find out how tough you really are." "I failed--but I'm still beating you. Do you think you're that good now?! Do you really, Tim?"

It's not about Bruce at all. Bruce is not the one in the wrong, here. It's about Tim. Does Tim have what it takes? Is Tim good enough to deserve this mantle? Jason looks at Tim and says: I was not good enough. What makes you think you are?

"I had to convince Batman to let me try this. All because he'll never stop blaming himself for what happened to you," Tim says. Tim implies that Bruce is wrong to blame himself. Jason's death? That was all on Jason. If Tim gets hurt, if Tim dies? Then it's all on Tim.

Jason also spends some time talking about how no one remembered him. However, this part of the conversation is initiated while they're in the Titan's Memorial Hall, which did not have a statue for Jason. I'm interpreting it as a comment fueled by the environment, and thus not part of the core arguments Jason's trying to make.

Seeing Red - Green Arrow (2001) #69-72

GA #72 is the comic featuring Jason kidnapping Mia Dearden, fighting her in her school's gym before blowing it up. While we're here: Jason was not trying to kill Mia, Jason was not bringing up Mia's trauma to throw call her disgusting or throw it in her face, and Mia was not horrifically traumatized by that encounter.

Let's look at what Jason has to say about Ollie and Bruce, first:

"Is that why you find it so hard to kill? Do you think life is so precious? Or do you have to emulate your new flawed 'Daddy'?" "My surrogate dad comes from the same damned pampered upbringing as your self-righteous mentor." "And I know that sometimes very bad things have to be done to do a great right. I don't think either one of our 'fathers' will ever understand that."

Yes, I'm reaching a bit here. However, there's the same pattern here of calling out Bruce for a specific way he failed Jason - by believing and pushing a specific moral code that he expected Jason to follow.

Even today, Jason killing is far more controversial than it is when other heroes do it, both in or out of universe. This is due to his relationship to Bruce. That expectation that he should align with Bruce's moral code, because he grew up alongside it. This is something specific to child vigilantes - other superhero team-ups where they're around the same age would not expect them to share the same code beat for beat.

It's not... a particularly strong argument, but if we run with it. Once again, Jason shifts the onus of responsibility from Ollie (Bruce) to Mia (himself).

It's a lot harder to find specific quotations where Jason says this, because a lot of it is implied, but throughout the fight Jason is trying to goad Mia into going for the killing shot.

"You're going to keep shooting your lawn darts at me but avoiding every killing wound. You know how easy this is when you limit your options. You're working the same thirty-three. Thirty-three angles, points--thirty-three shots. None of which will be a fatal blow. When that quiver is empty, you know I'm going to come for you!"

(He does not come for her. He gives her a pair of swords and makes her fight him again.) Jason compares himself to her ("You're a lot like me.") and then, after the previous quotation about how Ollie and Bruce will never get that sometimes you have to do the bad thing [kill], he says, "But you do."

Once again, it's not about Ollie. It's not about Bruce. It's about Mia, and what Mia chooses to do. It's Jason saying: Are you going to mindlessly follow what your mentor says? Or will you do what you know is right?

It's the same twist, again. It's not about what morals said mentor/father figures are selling, it's about the child's duty not to listen.

Conclusion

I've referenced a couple of times that DC can't have criticism against child vigilantes. I'm sure others have explained this better than I can, but the general reasoning is because child vigilantes are objectively bad. If you apply any real scrutiny, any level of realism, and you realize that having them is harmful. Harmful to the kids, and it is absolutely the fault of every single one of their mentors for letting this happen.

The kid sidekick is a genre convention. It's part of the landscape of superhero comics. This is the part of the story where you suspend your disbelief, you pretend that letting children fight crime is fine actually, and you enjoy the story that comes out of here. If we acknowledge in universe that letting kids fight crime is bad, you break that universe.

And that's exactly what Jason Todd does.

That's what he did as Robin, and DC responded with the victim-blaming narrative as damage control. It shifted the responsibility for his death from Bruce to Jason.

This trend continues into Jason as Red Hood. His very existence is an argument against child vigilantes. And so he brings it up, and in projecting on other characters he again underscores just how culpable Bruce is for his death. But we can't have that, so even as Jason brings up these points, he undermines them by shifting the focus to what the child is doing. After all, he's confronting Tim and Mia, not Bruce and Ollie.

(And in his actual confrontation with Bruce: "I forgive you for not saving me." Many have pointed out that this is not the same as it wasn't your fault.)

If you're a child vigilante or a kid sidekick, and you get hurt, if you die, that's not your mentor/parent's fault. It's on you. It's always been your own fault.

That's how it has to be.

[ashoss]

"jean paul valley saw jason todd in heaven" is OLD NEWS... OLIVER QUEEN SAW JASON IN HEAVEN.....

[kalpeavaris]

Solver Marks - a MD headcanon

I think some peeps have seen it before on my art, but I absolutely love adding arrow markings on some of my OCs and even fan-interpretations of canon characters, and I really wanna share this headcanon with other peeps!

I've seen similar concepts/markings before and it's such a cool design aspect that I wanna spread it some more (pun intended)! :]

-

What are Solver Marks exactly? Solver Marks, or Solver Arrows, are a visual representation of a Solver infection in Drones. While a host or user (non-host) already have some visual differences indicating their status as infected, such as wings, tail, the emblem for the eye and/or eyes & LEDs changing to yellow during hosting the AS, the marks/arrows stick around as a semi-permanent sign of an infection. Similar to a scar or stretchmark these markings never fully fade, even if the Solver is exorcised from a Drone's OS, and they can appear at random all over its User's body.

-

Do these marks have any special abilities? By themselves, the marks don't have special abilities that enhance or strenghten a user's Solver abilities, but they do have some traits, such as 1.) Glowing when in use (usually the marking itself glows white, while the surrounding sheen corresponds to the LED color(s) of a Drone). 2.) Growing/branching off in number corresponding to the user's strenght / ability usage. Some of these branched arrows may fade/disappear fully again after the Solver powers stop being used, but the main markings won't fade out.

-

What do they look like? Solver Marks come in many varities and can appear anywhere on the body, though some of the placements may correspond to certain traits in the host/user. Placements such as the upper body, arms & legs are quite common, while facial marks or those on the back are less common and can range into "rare" territory.

The markings often "snake" around limbs such as the arms and legs, creating spirals and bands on these limbs. Inactive marks appear in a dark color, but can also be lighter - but they're never too light as to vanish against the drone's body colors. Marks on dark/black areas however will turn white when inactive, so they're always visible in most cases. Some marks may also be fully colored corresponding to the Drone's LED color, though these cases aren't that common.

Solver Marks are always in resemblance of arrows, but their shape is never 100% the same and differs slightly from Drone to Drone due to it's organic nature. They're sort of like tattoos and therefore aren't 100% similar, even if their code appears the same when viewed.

-

How does the "rarity" system work? Usually the amount & placement of markings and why they're "common" or "rare" has to do with both the age of the drone and the amount of time they had their powers/infection, as well as the general strenght of their infection. Not every solver-infected Drone has the same or similar power level.

A freshly infected drone may have none to very little markings which usually show up on the upper body or arm/hands, while drones who'd been infected for much longer (e.g 5-10 years and above) are often times in possession of quite a lot of markings that extend into the facial & back area.

Children of solver-infected drones who inherit the Solver code may also already have a certain amount of markings when their OS gets transitioned to their final body, with some rare cases already having these markings in the UNN form (pill babys). Placements may also be inherited from the infected parent(s).

One of the rarest placements is the black visor part, where the code for these markings glitches and has the visor display an LED marking next to the eyes. This happens when the Solver code executing these physical changes misjudges the placement, gets "confused" and adapts (mutates) the code into working as LED generated symbol, similar to the eyes.

The code for the Solver Marks is very unique in nature as in: It mutates & learns, in order to not trigger the anti-virus of the Drone's OS and possibly get interferred with. Solver Marks play a vital role in the Solver infection in this headcanon, so if the marking code gets messed up by the anti-virus the Solver Infection might become incredibly unstable and cause issues over time.

-

Can these markings become dangerous to the affected drone? Usually, the markings do not cause any damage or discomfort to the affected drone, though rare cases may occur in which the markings cause pain due to either a corrupted piece of coding or general issues with controlling the Solver infection itself. Sometimes the markings will cause physical harm due to these corrupted pieces, causing them to actually turn into scarring and causing injuries, which can be healed though if the corrupted piece of code is either removed from the Drone's OS or the Solver itself corrects the mistake (depending on the Drone's power level).

Since the markings are semi-sentient and can move / evolve on their own, their goal is not to cause harm or mutate, but rather to preserve the Solver infection and making it harder to be removed from a Drone's OS since the code for the marks also stores backups for the Solver itself, causing it to regenerate if these bits of backups aren't removed alongside the OG Solver code itself.

[rooniearts]

THAT LOOKS SO AWESOME!!! Taking a guess here ... Is it perhaps Dr. Starline?? 👀

LMAOOO damn yall clocked that immediately!!! Yes, it's intended to be Dr. Starline :'D

[tagarilaghost]

I SWEAR CELEBI'S THINGY IS COMING SOON BUT I REALLY WANTED TO POST THIS ALRIGHT

yeaah... future trio got me too...

and Darkrai is there too, because of course he is.

hey look i drew a cute Drifloon :D

...ignore the rest

whatever started at Darkrai doodles ended in brainrot of future trio + darkrai and I'm blaming @scribz-ag24 for this

[theredjenny]

Sitting here like it is an entirely different genre of game with a completely different playstyle so actually this is nothing at all.

But also I think people who get really into Dragon Age Worldbuilding and Lore and Politics and really enjoy the codex entries and all that jazz should play Dishonored.

Like. I think it might scratch that itch for you. And also I think that for the most part the writers of Dishonored did tend to put more thought into things than the DA writers did. (Not saying it is perfect just that it is better in some ways than DA... but anyways....)

I think everyone who gets really into the Chantry Lore and Implications and etc. etc. Would have a fucking Field Day with the Overseers.

Anyways please play Dishonored.

[littlefankingdom]

~ Batman: Universe

Listen, if you haven't read Batman: Universe, this is a sign that you should.

Look at Bruce and Oliver being friends and bullying Riddler together.

[frownyalfred]

the cape to non-cape ratio in the JL is interesting to me because you'll see people who are always wearing a cape (Batman, Superman, etc) people who sometimes wear a cape (Diana, J'onn) people who never wear a cape but are probably open to it (Arthur, Victor wore a really long hoodie once that probably counted) and then people who will never wear a cape and it's very obvious that that's a major part of their identity (Hal, Ollie even though he wears a 'hood') and on top of that, people who would probably wear a cape if it didn't get in their way (Barry, Shayera, Dinah)

[candycornfieldcookie]

hello and welcome to the “I am annoyed about something that really doesn’t matter and I’m going to yell about it on here because I can” show. This episode is called:

“Which Random CRK Intern Made This Graphic And Where Can I Find Them (I Just Want To Talk)”

For context, in case you’re a normal well-adjusted human, the image on the left was posted to the OFFICIAL ENG. CRK TWITTER ACCOUNT on Sept 30th last year. And just yesterday, I saw it for the first time and proceeded to yell over discord with my friend @cunt-removal about how stunningly, amazingly WRONG it is.

I’m aware this was probably slapped together by a social media team, based on vibes and nothing else, but fuck it I’m tearing it apart anyway. Because I can, and if you’re reading this voluntarily then it’s what you signed up for!

The image on the right summarises all my grievances with it, but if you want my more specific and detailed Thoughts™️, read on! (My version of this alignment chart is at the end)

Okay so starting with the most egregious one to me - WHAT exactly is Golden Cheese doing in Neutral?

She’s Good. SHE’S GOOD. PUT HER IN GOOD, YOU COWARDS. If Mr “Life’s Greatest Regret” over here gets to be a step down from Cookie Jesus himself (and believe me, we’ll get to you, CACAO) then Goldie should be ABOVE that. I won’t deny she’s Chaotic - her heroism and personal code is very unconventional, based on traits like greed and vanity which are often regarded as inherently bad, but which she uses for good. Plus she’s impulsive, willing to disregard safety and sensibility for what she believes is right. She’s Chaotic Good all the way.

A Neutral would not give Smoked Cheese a second chance after the shit he pulled (tbh HE’S the Chaotic Neutral one between them). A Neutral wouldn’t wake him up and immediately give him a responsibility to protect two other people’s lives. And - the one that really seals it for me - a Neutral would not THROW THE FIGHT AGAINST BURNING SPICE to protect the life of one singular random child she’d just met. Goldie is Chaotic Good and I will hear no argument.

And I especially resent the implication that Dark Cacao is morally better than her??? DARK CACAO?? Are you joking???

Listen I don’t want you to get the wrong idea, I love that sad old man so much. Probably too much. And as such I feel qualified to say that HIS ASS IS NOT NEUTRAL GOOD. HE’S NEITHER OF THOSE THINGS.

He has a solid and immovable moral code, and he abides by it without flinching. And he’s a good person, more than capable of change for the better, but his flaws land him squarely in Neutral for me. And if we’re using Goldie as our metric, he’s definitely a step below her in terms of morality.

Let me put it like this.

If Goldie had a child, and that child grew up to betray her like Dark Choco did, she would never in a MILLION YEARS even DREAM of telling that child - to their face - that they are her life’s greatest regret. Not even on the spur of the moment, not even after being hurt the way Cacao was. No matter the context. (In fact I have a headcanon that she deeply disapproves of how Cacao handled that situation, even holding a bit of a grudge despite them being friends, but that’s a story for later.) Bottom line - if Goldie is in Good, Cacao’s in Neutral.

Put him in Lawful Neutral where he belongs, and then get my girl Caramel Arrow out of there because are you seriously telling me SHE’S Neutral? The same Carrow who’s willing to do anything, even lay down her life, to protect her King and her home? The Carrow who remained outspoken and just during Affogato’s takeover to the point of getting herself banished - and STILL not losing faith in Cacao? Somehow? She’s the one who should be in Neutral Good. Maybe even Lawful Good.

Hollyberry and Pitaya’s placements are… fine. I can see them as accurate. (Maybe I’m just not as in-depth about Pitaya’s character as some people, though, so if any Pitaya fans have a problem with their placement as True Neutral then lmk I would genuinely love to hear ur thoughts.)

Anyway, let’s talk about Affogato. Because… ehh? Maybe he’s Neutral Evil? I guess I could see it, but at the same time he strikes me as Lawful in the sense that he uses the structure of society to his advantage in order to ascend within it, manipulating people and situations to his advantage without technically breaking any laws - he feels much more Lawful Evil to me.

At the very least he’s more Lawful than MYSTIC FLOUR. Because whose bright idea was it to put her in that spot? What law is she following, exactly? I think it should be pretty common sense that NONE of the Beasts are Lawful, because of. you know. their entire existence as Beasts breaking the rules upon which they were created. Mystic’s ass isn’t Lawful, girl is Neutral Evil if there’s ever been one. Switch her with Affogato NOW.

So, long story short:

^my version

[que3rduckling]

(Green Arrow 2001 #2 & #3)

Stanley Dover is officially my new favourite character guys oh my gosh

[seaside-hysteria]

Someone get cissie an uber home RIGHT NOW

[june-rambles]

they're all married btw