#it's more about how WE can prevent horrible things from happening than god

[vamptastic]

every yom kippur i have a new, profound revelation about the meaning of the holiday and every yom kippur the following year i have a new, wildly different one.

#didn't go last year had a midterm 🙄 #year before i was like avinu malkeinu is a stern demand to god that in exchange for our worship suffering must end #and actually god isn't a man in the sky we all must respect but more of an alien being who also doesn't know what he's doing #and we as mortal beings must tell him whilst also respecting that he is something very different and in many ways greater than ourselves #and in relation to yom kippur that we must form a good example of how humans can be good and help each other #thus acts of great misery and destruction alà noahs flood are not necessary nor are tests of faith #but it is up to us to prove that #not just us but the world at large i suppose #this year... very different #this year i think god is the judge and we are placing our wrongdoings before him #sins for lack of a better word. although there is no punishment for commiting them #the crux being that. well it's right after rosh hashanah isn't it? #we are recognizing all that can go wrong in the coming year and evaluating what went wrong in the last one #so we are promising to do better while also informing god of such #it's more about how WE can prevent horrible things from happening than god #but god serves as the judge- the metric we use to determine if we have been doing right by others #thus the commandments the torah the judgements he's passed before #but also god is just the will of the universe so throw that in #it's. yeah. i don't know.

[windcarvedlyre]

Thinking about Venti's role as an archon and how he might be doing his job- as Celestia intended- better than we think.

Archons, in Gnosticism, rule over the material realm and prevent souls from leaving it. Barbatos, in the Ars Goetia, "reconciles disputes between friends and those who hold power".

Everything we know about Venti implies that he hates Celestia and opposes all forms of tyranny, but if their goal is to keep humanity from advancing, realising the truth of the world and taking actions that could threaten the status quo...

...isn't the best way to prevent rebellions and slow progress to make the people you rule content with what they have?

Venti is all about making his people's lives leisurely and seemingly free (I'll get to that in a second). It's in his gemstone quote, the thing which summarises his approach as an archon:

"Still, the winds change direction. "Someday, they will blow towards a brighter future… "Take my blessings and live leisurely from this day onward."

We see this reflected in Mondstadt's culture and economy. There are still hardworking individuals in the Knights of Favonius, the Church of Favonius and the Adventurer's Guild, but this attitude isn't universal even within those organisations and the rest of Mondstadt's people generally have a slow, relaxed approach to life relative to other nations. They haven't produced any internationally notable industries outside of alcohol, and why would they? They have everything they need, graciously provided by the anemo archon himself*, so why strive for more?

This has already left them vulnerable to the whims of more powerful nations, incapable of meaningfully opposing the Fatui without inviting consequences they can't handle.

*Also see Jean's story quest for a scaled-down version of this. Mondstadt's general population relies on her hard work a bit too much and she enables them.

We also see Mondstadt have a softening effect on outsiders multiple times in-game. There are at least three cases of people questioning their life choices because its people and/or scenery are that nice. Two are branches of hangout events, one is a soon-to-be-ex treasure hoarder chilling on Cider Lake's coast. I've joked that Mond is a lotus eater hotel scaled up to a nation based on this, but what if that's somewhat intentional?

But why would he do this?

It could be an unintended side effect of efforts to improve people's quality of life. He was allegedly naive enough not to forsee the aristocracy situation, after all. But at the same time... he's a god of freedom and hope in a world where his people have no hope of freedom.

-Harmost's Notes (II), Remuria.

He knows what happens to human civilisations that advance too far and attempt to rebel against this world. He likely knows a god much like him, themed around music and desperate to free his people from fate, tried and failed horribly. He lives in the shadow of a celestial needle. The Cataclysm would only reinforce this perceived futility of resistance. He still hopes for a brighter future, but he may be pinning all of his hopes on a descender taking pity on Teyvat's people and choosing to help them. To quote the description of Mondstadt Statues of the Seven:

A monumental stone statue that watches over Mondstadt. Legends say that it was sculpted in the image of the Anemo Archon. "Seeds brought by the wind will grow over time." The statue silently anticipates the arrival of a noble soul to arrive, while thousand winds of time will soon unfold a new story...

Apart from that, what else can he do besides be passive and complacent? Besides make his people comfortable and hope they don't rock the boat too much before liberation is actually possible?

And the thing about resolving disputes with those in power worries me. It could just translate into his pacifism, but it could also mean he's less willing to act against Celestia than we'd hope. Why did the Tsaritsa, the only archon named after a saint and willing to take a stand against Celestia, fall out with him? He has reasons to be pissed at her methods but I suspect that won't be the only factor.

All we can do is wait and see.

#this is throwing things at the wall; hope it's coherent #am i cooking with this #genshin #genshin lore #venti

[qqueenofhades]

I completely understand if you don’t feel comfortable answering this, but my mind is spiraling out of control and you’re the only person I know with the level of knowledge to where I can feel comfortable asking this without getting some form of “bla bla we live in a safe state don’t worry.”

I’m sincerely wondering if I need to be making plans to leave the country in the event of November bringing the most horrible of outcomes despite our best efforts (and yes I’m planning to vote blue in everything I can); as a AFAB in CA?

I know about project 2025. I’m terrified. Forgive my pop culture reference, but I feel like a version of Princess Zelda staring down a barrel of possible doom while everyone around me is like “nah that future you literally had a nightmare about where they made it illegal for a woman to have a bank account without a guy co-signing it and took the money from everyone who didn’t comply by a certain date isn’t even a possibility!”

I’m just confused about my life and am trying to take it day by day, and exercising every right while I still have it to prevent this outcome, but it feels weird making plans and retirement accounts and just general Setting Up Adult Life And Future Things™️……while wondering if I even have a future in this place at all and I’m just making it harder to escape if need be.

I’m sorry I’m rambling, and I guess I don’t know what I’m asking since no one has a crystal ball.

But I guess, it’s stuff like how much can the feds effect state’s policies? Is it possible for them to immediately block international travel for all women practically upon inauguration? How much time would I even have to gtfo if the worst begins?

Bc honestly this whole thing feels like the lead in to a very nasty chapter of a history book, and even though I have hope we’ll have another blue tsunami, it can be hard to try and figure things out when it feels like there’s barely any historical precedent for any of it.

Welp. Okay. First of all, I am giving you a comforting hug, I am walking with you to your favorite coffee shop, I am paying for your favorite beverage and also a baked goodie of your choice, and we are sitting down in a corner where we can talk honestly. So that's where I want you to imagine us having this conversation.

To start with, yes, I completely understand this feeling of utter, paralyzing doom, where I am trying to go about my daily life and make plans for my career and carry out daily tasks and Be Responsible while there's still just this total void beyond the end of the year, the utter impossibility of knowing if we will have dodged an absolutely massive bullet and finally be safe (since if Trump loses again he is 100% going to jail in the next four years) or, well. You know. That is a very hard way to live, when you're wondering if anything is going to matter and you can't see beyond that black cloud of fear on the horizon. It sucks you down and tells you that nothing is worth doing now in case it just gets so much worse. I am not going to tell you not to feel that. We all do. We are all scared. That in and of itself is a perfectly normal way to feel.

However, there are things you can do both now and if (I repeat, if) God absolutely forbid, the worst was to happen (again). First of all, we have already lived through a Trump presidency once. It was terrible and scary and awful and demoralizing as fuck, but we can do it again if we absolutely Goddamn fucking have to (once, again, God forbid). Second, you are currently about as safe as you could be in California. Newsom has proven himself to be smart, tough, able to run rings around Republicans, and unwilling to comply with their stupid performative-cruelty directives. He's not a saint or a magician, but you don't need that; you need a shrewd politician able to fight back, and he has proven himself willing and capable of doing that. So as long as he is governor, you're going to be more safe than not, and I'd also like to ask all the shrieking Online Leftists if, should the shit go down, they would rather live in a state with a Democratic governor who will fight Trump 2.0 every step of the way, or a Republican governor who will just roll over and obey. (But that would destroy their BOTH PARTIES ARE THE SAME talking point, so you know.)

Next of all, even if the Republicans are doing their best impression, America in 2024 isn't Germany in 1934. There are different tools, different ways to fight back, and different awarenesses/social media/visibility factors. I also need everyone to remember that just as Biden can't just sign an executive order and fix everything everywhere, Trump can't just sign an executive order and fuck everything everywhere, just like that with no more discussion ever. He tried that last time, it generally didn't work, and trust me, at least this time nobody is sleeping on the danger he poses. His candidacy in 2016 was dismissed as a long-shot joke that nobody took seriously until it was too late, and for better or worse, people aren't doing that this time. He will be sued instantly, incredibly, and repeatedly with everything his band of wannabe fascists try, and since we have had four years of Biden fixing the courts from where Trump trashed them, that does mean something. There is no scenario where even if he does issue some outrageous order against women, LGBTQ+ people, immigrants, etc (which to be clear, I'm sure he would try) it would just be carried out completely, immediately, and with no feasible way to stop it. Evil is evil, but it is also stupid, clueless, determined to hurt people just for the hell of it without any regard for what is possible or which will be allowed, and there's a lot more grey area in there than just "Trump says something terrible and it's instantly done, the end."

Once again, I'm not going to say that the worst-case scenario is not possible, but I don't think it's likely, and even if that does happen, there are ways for us to survive and fight back (again). Nobody wants it and it should not have to be asked of us due to the utter collapse of the social, civic, political, and intellectual fabric of this country thanks to the TrumpCult, but once again... these people are so loud and dangerous and cruel and stupid because they are in the minority. Etc. etc. polls are garbage, but we did just have an interesting piece of empirical data from the Iowa caucuses. Trump -- in one of the whitest, most rural, most conservative, most religious, most Trump-loving states in the country -- struggled to break 50%. Almost half of a rabid Republican fully-Trumpized electorate, among the diehards sufficiently motivated to get out and caucus in extreme freezing weather, voted for someone else (Haley and DeSantis took about 20% apiece). Now, no, we don't know how that will translate to the general election, and if registered Republicans will flock back to the nominee even if it's Trump, but as almost half of Haley voters said they would vote for Biden if it was a Biden-Trump matchup in the general, there is some sense that Trump is an aberration to their otherwise ironclad party loyalty. Now, Republicans are the fucking worst and nobody should be relying on them to save us; we still need to get out and vote for Democrats with all our might. But Trump is no longer barn-burningly popular even in core Trump heartland, and it'll be interesting to see how things go in future primaries.

My point is: I know the feeling that evil is awful and unstoppable and all-powerful, and will crush our lives and our futures no matter what we do to resist it. I really, really do. But Trump is a terrible candidate, he's running literally only to keep himself out of a long, long prison sentence, and if he had crushed the Iowa caucuses regardless, we might be having a different conversation. However, we need to remember that it is possible, again (God forbid) in the worst scenario, to resist, to live, and to win. Everyone who is motivated to work for a better world will still be here. Everyone who can help you and all of us will still be here. And there are more of us than there are of them. Yes, I do understand the feeling that we need to have contingency plans in place, I do absolutely know that it could get very bad, and all that (as you say, nobody has a crystal ball). But for now, I want you to take a deep breath, try to take this day by day, and remember that this is not a crushing and inevitable future that will sweep over you and destroy you without you (or any other person of good will) having a say in the matter. You still have agency, you still have the ability to protect yourself, and you still have others who will protect you in turn. You're not alone. The bad guys want you to think that, because when you're isolated and terrorized, you're easier to pick off and/or recruit into their cult. But you're not.

In conclusion: "What are we holding onto, Sam?"

#anonymous #ask #politics for ts #hang in there!

[animentality]

Wishing Gortash hadn’t massacred a room full of people couldn’t be me because the environmental storytelling of it is SO GOOD. You leave the great big coronation hall packed and lively, everyone cheering for their new archduke. You get back out into the city, track down Orin, get your hands on her netherstone. You return to the coronation hall, the room loads in, and wham. The entire hall strewn with blood and corpses. Dead silent. Cultists in full Banite regalia milling around openly, unconcerned. You realise that not a single one of those nobles left the hall after the coronation, after you did, because every single one is lying slaughtered where they were. And it is very very obvious that this is the work of the new archduke who you allied yourself with. For me, it was a moment of oh god, this guy is serious.

And like. You can find TONS and tons and tons of damning evidence for how horrible and corrupt and evil Gortash is all over the city, there is not a single corner of it untouched by him in some way. You have the families of an enslaved labour force imprisoned and tortured. You have that same enslaved labour force dressed up in shock collars! You have a scheme to distribute teddy bears stuffed with explosives, targeting refugee children, just for the sake of instilling more and more fear in the public. And you do get to understand pretty well that these things are all being done not by someone who just delights in violence and chaos the way Orin does, but as the utterly dispassionate, pragmatic ventures of a guy who genuinely does not see people as people (and rather as objects, tools, currency - shapes that might walk and talk but ultimately mean nothing).

But for me personally, even on top of ALL of that, no display of Gortash’s villainy made more of an impact than walking into that room as his ally.

Not because I give a shit about any of the actual nobles themselves, or think it’s technically worse than say giving explosive toys to refugee children, etc. But the slaughter of the patriars has such an impact for me because it’s not talked about. You can’t find a million clues about it or stop it from happening. Talk to any of the Banite guards and they simply tell you point blank what happened. It’s not abstract. It’s not preventable. It happens, and it’s a cold whack in the face for the unwitting player who may have earnestly allied with him. It’s the game saying “this is your ally, by the way, in case you weren’t aware. Even if you foiled his other little plots - found the undetonated teddy bears, freed the Gondians, etc - don’t think that was enough, because this is who he is.”

(And because we don’t SEE it happen, just the aftermath? You get to wonder. Did Gortash step out before this happened? Or did he stand back and watch? Did he find it messy, or did he smile as he watched his steel watchers rip people in half? Did it make him feel powerful? We can probably guess the answers to these questions.)

Anyway Gortash is SUCH a good character and I love him. And if Durge had all their faculties walking into that room and seeing all the murdered people would have brought a tear to their eye, they’d be so proud of him lol

OOOOOooooh absolutely brutally accurate description of Gortash, and YES.

That is the beauty of Gortash's evil. His pragmatism.

The way he tries to pretend he's different than you and Orin, but you can call him out, and say, you're just as bad as us.

And I would LOVE to know if he was there when he killed the patriars too.

He acts like he's so "above it all." Like he's not a Bhaalspawn, killing for pleasure...but sweetie, you are not any different just because you have a Steel Watcher crush a child rather than dissect one.

The people you try to save when you're at the Steel Watch Foundry? Those poor old people and children and families?

All of them are pretty fucking brutal. The Steel Watch are fucking awful. They're not benign robots. They are cruel and cold and emotionless, and they aren't there to protect, only subjugate.

And they're a lot like Gortash himself.

Frigid, with a black and white understanding of right and wrong, only it's flipped, and submitting to authority is the only "right" and any resistance is "wrong" and needs to be destroyed.

And just to go back to him believing he's so "above" the Chosens of Bhaal, or even everyone in general...even with Karlach, when she's enraged, and hurt, over being sold and enslaved, he says, well it was for your own good, my dear girl, let bygones be bygones - stop lying, Gort!

stop pretending you're so above everyone else, that you're this calm, logical man, whose endeavors are heroic, even noble.

They aren't.

You're getting back at a world that abandoned you.

Your entire life revolves around revenge, sadism, and wanton cruelty.

You are not saving anyone. You are dooming those who made you this way.

And that's why I like him.

He is just so...kickable. And evil.

And disgusting.

And I adore him.

He is built wrong, and I like it.

#enver gortash #its about cycles maaaaan #baldurs gate 3 #bg3

[cosmerelists]

Do the Cosmere Secret Projects Follow the Rules of the Cosmere?

[Big spoilers for Sanderson Secret Projects #1, #3, and #4!]

A while ago, I wrote a list proposing some Rules of the Cosmere--aka, trends or themes that tended to crop up in most Cosmere works. Now that I've read all of the Secret Projects, though, I had to wonder: do they also follow the definitely ironclad rules that I once proposed? Let's consider!

1. Don’t feed the children

Summary of Rule: If you try to feed a hungry child in a Cosmere book, something terrible will happen.

Off to a bad start! I don't think this rule came up at all. I don't recall any children being fed, really.

2. Once Marriage is On The Table, Breakups Don’t Really Happen

Summary of Rule: Once characters get to the point of marriage, be they engaged or in an arranged marriage or just solidly A Thing, it is rare for them to break up.

Yes, the secret projects did adhere to this rule, I think! The best example is from Tress--I remember how SHOCKED I was when word came that the Duke's son really had gotten married. I was like, "How is that possible? Sanderson would NEVER allow a couple like Tress and Charlie to be broken up by Charlie marrying someone else!" And then, of course, it wasn't Charlie at all. Charlie stayed single...until he could get back together with Tress. In Yumi and the Nightmare Painter, the romance was pretty much between Yumi and Painter--not even death could prevent that. Sigzil sadly did not have a lot of time for romance in The Sunlit Man, so the rule didn't really come into play there.

3. Your enemy will save you...if the sexual tension is high enough

Summary of Rule: An enemy with enough sexual tension will often sacrifice themself to save the other person.

Honestly, I don't think we really had this in any of the Cosmere Secret projects? The only fierce enemies I can think of would be Tress & Crow or Sigzil & the Ember King...but there wasn't any sacrifice-to-save-the-other going on there.

4. Your fave is (accidentally) queer

Summary of Rule: Sanderson loves to write characters who are deeply deeply queer without seeming to realize it.

Oh yes--this rule is eternal, and the Secret Projects did not disappoint. There's Yumi herself, Miss "Oh-my-god-I-just-saw-a-goddess," our (second?) favorite bisexual queen (does Sanderson know he made a lady bi again?). And then in the Sunlit Man, there's an exchange that I'm not sure is actually an accidental queering since it seemed so blatant, when Rebeke was asked if she was now "The Sunlit Woman" and replied "No, the Sunlit One." Is there a way to read that other than as nobinary/genderqueer?

5. Don’t trust the underling priest!

Summary of Rule: If betrayal is happening, it's probably the fault of the nearest underling priest.

Honestly, I think the only "priests" we had were in Yumi, and if anything, this was a deconstruction. The "head priestess" would be Liyun, I think, and she was horrible and abusive. The "underlings," Chaeyung and Hwanji were actually far more supportive and actually told Yumi some about what was really going on. So I guess in these books you should trust the underling priest(esses).

6. (per @twitcherpated) If there are same gender siblings, there will be a romantic triangle involving them.

Summary of Role: If there are two brothers and two sisters, they will inevitably be romantically linked to the same person.

I agree with this rule addition proposed by twitcherpated, which does crop up over and over again in the Cosmere. But in the Secret Projects, I think the only same-gender siblings we had were Rebeke and Elegy, and I don't think it works with them. Like, I suppose you could imagine a love triangle with Sigzil...but I don't really buy it. Rebeke was interested in Sigzil, but he didn't reciprocate, and Elegy was too busy loving the thrill of murder to have a romantic interest in Sigzil herself. I guess they both did want Sigzil to themselves, in a way. So maybe it does kinda work?

7. Hoid is there

Summary of Rule: Hoid likes to show up wherever plot is happening

Yes! The Secret Projects 100% adhere to this rule. Hoid is the narrator in Tress and Yumi, and he shows up briefly in The Sunlit Man. Hoid will not be stopped.

#cosmere #cosmerelists #ssp1 #ssp3 #ssp4 #ssp1 spoilers #ssp3 spoilers #ssp4 spoilers

[horizon-verizon]

Alysanne is treated awfully by her husband, who is never once confronted by the narrative for his horrible behaviour. Who would rather risk her dying in childbirth than take any steps to prevent pregnancy as she requests, forces her beloved and mentally disabled daughter to be married off despite the obvious risk to her life and refuses to take responsibility when Daella inevitable suffers an awful death, and who values people of Alysanne’s gender so little that he completely goes against Westerosi custom by passing over his own granddaughter.

If Alysanne, powerless apart from what Jaehaerys deigned to grant her, helpless to stop her daughters being out at risk or to decide for herself to see Saera again, is GRRM’s example of a good queen, it’s pretty sad.

I understand the frustration, since again we never get more queens exactly like Rhaenys or Visenya and even here we may comment on how un-feminist or anti woman it is to not have them as "ideal" queens when Rhaenys died in the violence of war (the eradication of women in fiction) while Visenya enables a tyrant to rule...but really F&B and the Targaryens' history was not really supposed to be a feminist tale BECAUSE the history--though not-- was meant to show the decline of royal female power & agency that happened due to the assimilation into Andal patriarchy for power and/or to get a foothold and unified state to fight against the Others if you think of the theory of Aegon having a dragon dream about this. Especially in connection to Dany's rise.

AND I will say I do agree to critique on how GRRM's writing sometimes inspires anti-women-ess through a paltry (thought we can't say nonexistent, there is a punishment against rape or sense of social taboo on rape in Westeros, but...) pushback or punishment for rape and violence against women [joannalannister]. I'm saying that GRRM's work is not meanT to be taken as actual feminist literature but a series that really sets out to dramatize already present/past truths and conditions and sometimes to the detriment of its female characters and the impression made on readers. GRRM is still a liberal-ist white man.

AT THE SAME TIME, SINCE THIS ISN'T A FEMINIST SERIES BUT A "LOOK WHAT CAN HAPPEN" SORT OF THING

I think that the whole point is that, yes, this is a sad and it stems from how limiting such a set up is AND Alysanne was a politically "good" queen. How she treats her own kids and is complicit in how they died or ran away should be a part of how "good" one is as a general sort of leader, yeah, but unlike Jaehaerys and the "good" he did Alysanne's "good" acts for the realm had much more of a necessary impact in the sociopolitical landscape of their subjects. and I mean towards more marginalized groups, esp women. It's like she made sure to "round up" those left behind in other aristocrat's projects.

la-pheacienne says this:

Whether that someone has been chosen by the people, or by the gods, or by destiny, or by circumstances, and regardless of the political system that allowed them to yield that power, the point is that someone has power ad hoc at any given time, and power equals responsibility. What do you do with it? How do you govern? How do you choose between two equally grievous alternatives? Who do you listen to? Who do you trust? How can you learn? What if everything you've been told was a lie? How do you move on from there? What if the promises you made contradict each other? What if you fail? How do you live with the guilt, how do you go on? How do you instigate a structural change? What if you try to do that and people die? What if you try to do that and it kills you? Was it worth it? How do you use th

On top of that, Alysanne was still a Consort, not a Regnant. (POST & POST) She had less power than Rhaenya or Visenya, who though were not exactly Regnants they also weren't just Aegon's wives but consummate and active politicians themselves, making deals in the open, riding dragons into wars, enacting laws, and creating institutions. Alysanne had to rely on her husband's power to have and hope to have her thoughts on legislation come to reality. It is just a fact that queen Consorts, unlike Queen regnants, had to depend on her royal husband's favor, regard, or perception of need of her to have any semblance of power because she is a woman and a Consort. It's part of the deal, the sociopolitical conditions. In reality and real history, it was such for MOST queen consorts. Yeah they had more power at court and influenced their husbands, but you are seeing in Alysanne something that looks like what that sort of power could have been like. Even Alysanne had more influence over Jaehaerys than some real queen Consorts and those that came after her! Think of Rhaella, Naerys, Myriah Martell, etc.

Were there female consorts in real history who practiced more influence, power, etc. than their officially ruling husband or were their active equals in terms of policy making while showing some power over their kids lives than just, of course! But this is not the rule of the land, but exceptions. nor the common experience of medieval/early mod pd women/female consorts precisely bc it was thought women didn't make good rulers. There is Empress Sisi, who couldn't even keep her own children close to her because royal children are not considered the Queen's but those "of the state", so the emperor and/or his mother could force them apart for any reason.

Juxtapose this to the Viserra situation. Alysanne actually was the one to arrange for the marriages she knew her husband wanted (esp after the whole deal with Daella refusing nearly every man/boy), and insisted to Viserra she had to marry Theomore Manderly. She had more power over her kids than you may think...it's not perfect because she is of course anticipating Jaehaerys' desires for the girls to be married off quick enough to build certain alliances or to just get rid of them, but she does not allow herself to really think the match bad and refuses to listen to her daughter. There was will here, from Alysanne not present in Sis, and again, she had more power than later Consorts...yet based in Jaehaerys because she is a Consort and a dragonrider (helps the impression and image to gain "respect").

So we're presented with another question this series inspires: when & how should someone lay blame or responsibility on marginalized groups, identities, etc. like women of aristocratic classes, men of lower classes, either of different "races" (fiction and reality), and with what evidence?

First, Alysanne married and stayed with Jaehaerys as his companion since she was 13. She saw him as the default king, the leader, and herself as a necessary ingredient to Westeros' prosperity. That they would work more together than other couples...She was both right and wrong, and I think she was sorely and quietly disappointed well before she observed Jaehaerys pass a girl over the 2nd time. So she acted the way she did at "home" towards her kids to feel more in control bc that si where Jaehaerys left her to act more.

Second, Daenerys is the example of a "perfect", ideal but also realistic "good queen", someone that realistically and optimistically chooses to do good with the power she has and has managed to find value and meaning to use said power for others other than herself despite all that she went through. Howe those things would likely have turned other women out and as compelled to be more self-oriented as Rhaenyra or Daena. She is purposefully different from her ancestors this way, but also similar to a lot of them, ion that particular strength that she has to reinforce her altruism. That doesn't mean that people who don't do it to her level are completely incapable, evil, or "bad queens".

Cersei? Hell yes, but even with Cersei we must acknowledge how she is how she is due to certain circumstances and most criticism against her in the fandom--or the loudest--are sexist or just unfair. Alysanne? She at least did something where most did nothing and went against the clear wishes of her husband, and within the timeline she still is a source of inspiration for people like Dany. That has to mean something or there really is less of a source to compare oneself and learn from or to be able to analyze thr good, bad, and how things developed the way they have.

This is a world where you are not encouraged to think outside of your own class, much less the principles and ideology about your gender. There are little to no thinkpieces or essays about how sexist some men and women are, how they ae, what gives them the feeling that the way they think is correct, etc. There was no and is no vocabulary for that; there is just experience and having to respond to your environment. You have to do the legwork yourself, fnd your group and support system, your own connections, and play the game. Soemtime, you will fall off and especially when you have been bested or someone has used their socially given advantage over you, as Jaehaerys has done to Alysanne a few times.

So, with this in mind, I think it's important to acknowledge that yes while GRRM did not supply more examples of ideally acting "good queens", he does provide a clear outlook on how women could, would, and did act in real life history and TODAY. Because those questions about how to be a good ruler or a good person or how to differentiate. But it's not GRRM's personal example, necessarily or what he thinks a woman is capable of in his idea of a what a good medieval queen cold be. Alysanne is a "good" queen in that she does try to think of her subjects' needs before aristocrats even with her behavior towards her daughters. To undermine that in our understanding that she did what did to her daughters is probably on GRRM.

Not even Jaehaerys was that sincerely altruistic: right of first night abolishment, the KL drinking water, her attempts to convince maesters of girls and women becoming maesters, etc. Again, It is Queen Consorts, unlike Queen regnants, had to depend on her royal husband's favor, regard, or perception of need of her to have any semblance of power because she is a woman and a Consort. I

I suppose I'm trying to say that in the process of understanding rather than being told what is right or logical, it's important to "good queens" from the context of which they come and take serious their conditions to understand the nuances of how truly "good" they were...even if we can say being a "good" queen needs to be an absolute in ther first place.

Does Alysanne need to be a perfect feminist to be a good Queen? What if she is also responding to the setbacks against her AS she is trying to rule better, these setbacks that are designed for a man, her husband, to have more power than her and even to stop inhibit her ability to address certain problems without fear of losing said power given to her in the first place bc of her connection to him and official subordination to his paternal rule?

Outside of how he writes sexual violence and general violence against women, the line b/t power of self vs power from men, present in women's authority (especially in pre-feminist movement history), must be studied with some more nuance than with men's power. On our part as readers.

I'd say that GRRM uses violence against women as too much of a "gotcha" or flagrantly uses it as a device of emphasis than it needs to be, which simultaneously converts it to something psychologically insubstantial, something we shouldn't pay as much mind to, yes. The specific events of violence or normalization of violence done to women in ASoIaF that doesn't match real historical realities for women is definitely a huge concern because of this, but to mistake the power dynamics b/t a Consort and her ruling husband and most women to men does not help matters.

#alysanne targaryen #asoiaf asks to me #westerosi queens #westerosi queen consorts #alysanne's characterization #grrm's writing #fire and blood writing #fire and blood characters #grrm critical #grrm #asoiaf and feminism

[strqyr]

Yknow sometimes I think about how Ozma was visibly horrified by the task Light gave him, so horrified he collapsed. The only reason he came back was for Salem and when they split he defaulted to the task, purely bc I think he felt like he had no other purpose. Granted he worked towards it when he was with her, but definitely more as a "Screw it, I'm here, may as well try" and he was questioning it.

Like. Oz has such a complicated relationship with the task. He's obviously given up on it, and likely hates it, but in the beginning I think he probably wanted to believe it Might be good. But then he gave up on it when he found out Salem can't he destroyed (which was likely a last resort option for him), and later came to the conclusion that the task doesn't matter at ALL. The Gods don't matter. Remnant doesn't need fixing because it was never broken, and to him, this is his freedom.

Honestly, I really wonder what Ozma was gonna say in response to "We could've had freedom." Was he gonna say "I thought we already were"? Or maybe a simpler "I'm sorry"? Gnawing at the bars of my enclosure. Salem sees Remnant as it is as a cage with the gate closed. Ozpin sees that the gate is open. They have such opposing views on freedom,,

one of the very first things we learn about ozma is that he had been ready to give his life for justice countless times before he met salem, finding someone worth saving it for. like, he was a legendary warrior and he was alone, and for that reason i think his reincarnation is the key to his character, bc what if light had just made him immortal or anything like that that didn't ensure he was never alone? after the fight with salem, he would not have had any connection to the world—"that world just isn't as dear to me without her." is what he said when he first refused the task—so in his darkest moments, when he saw no point in any of it, i think the chances of ozma bringing the relics together just to end it would have been much, much higher than they ever were due to reincarnating, because then he wasn't alone, and each of his hosts had some kind of connection to remnant as it was.

there's also, like. yeah, he kinda worked towards the task with salem, but once salem went "let's kill the non-believers", it ended right there. that's not what the god of light asked of him; humanity was meant to live in harmony and set aside their differences, not fight amongst themselves. and while the general angle with the whole judgment deal is yikes, asking for peace isn't like. horrible thing to ask for lol of course ozma would be like "yeah, that sounds great!"—it's the "...or everyone dies" that's the problem; there's no second chances, he has to get it right the first time, and that's terrifying.

what that also meant for ozma is that once the split happened, him and salem were opposite forces; she wouldn't accept the gods return and thus would work to prevent it from happening, so in ozma's mind he needs to destroy salem to have any chance in favorable outcome. . . and then jinn tells him "lol nope" and that's that.

what else can he do? he's gone through two attempts at his task and both ended poorly; one went into a direction he wasn't comfortable with—he was a legendary hero who fought only for righteousness, this was never going to go well with him—and with the other he didn't even get properly started before it ended.

he found himself in a dead end, but over the years he's found peace in other things; the world is fine as it is. humanity does not need to be made whole again. ozpin made a collection of fairy tales that included stories like a man getting into a staring contest with the sun (and wins, but at the cost of becoming blind) and one of humans breaking the sun with their demands only to make a new sun, the old one becoming the moon, even going as far in his notes as to make it evidently clear the sun is a celestial gift from the god of light.

like. there isn't even need to read between the lines, oz has made it abundantly clear that he believes in this world's and it's peoples' right to exist as they are.

as for what he was going to say, i'm definitely leaning towards "i'm sorry" simply bc i like the idea that in that moment, ozma. . . he had been warned by light that he would not find comfort but only pain, but he didn't let that stop him. he still went to salem, but that's what's on his mind, and he's sorry, because it didn't have to end this way.

#rwby #ozma #salem #nightmare-foundation #ask.strqyr

[niuniente]

When speaking about the fact that we don’t know everything yet and science is constantly evolving, my favorite example are European witch hunts. Not as “people went crazy” but as how law and medical science treated people who were accused as witches.

Some examples of a book I’m reading now (in Finnish), which is based on mid-17th century (1650′s-1680′s) witch trial court record from Stockholm, Sweden. Mind you that compared to other witch ridden countries, Sweden and Stockholm had a much more skeptical approach to witches and children’s testimonies - and yet these things happened.

It was a scientific fact in the 17th century that witches exist. Point blank serious thing and 100% real. As real as all scientific facts, which we believe in now and now about, in year 2023. To battle this problem, Sweden made multiple jury groups from most scientifically educated people containing lawyers, priests, doctors and heads of the Swedish law system. Some complains were sent to the king, who also took a legal stance to help Sweden to deal with these horrible crimes.

Now, it was also a scientific and a legal fact that if there are enough people testifying against you, you are a witch. If you have 2 neighbors, 10 random children and your own 2 daughters telling in the court that you’re a witch, then you are a witch. Point blank. If you say that you don’t know what they are talking about and you are not a witch, then it means the Devil is preventing you from telling the truth. In fact, many of the people testifying against you are screaming that they see The Devil sitting on your throat and preventing you from telling the truth of you being a witch. The jury will press you to confess for the name of God, as it’s scientifically and legally a completely clear case that you are a witch by this point. If you testify, you will be executed before your body is burnt. If not, you might be considered such a vile criminal for the downfall of the whole society that you’re burned alive.

No matter what you say to protect yourself and tell you’re innocent will not work, because it is a scientific fact that the devil is causing this lying. Has he promised you eternal salvation after death? Is he choking you as we speak? Why don’t you confess, we know you did it.

It’s also a scientific fact that some people don’t remember witches taking them to Blåkulla (the place where witches go to party with the Devil). Some people don’t even remember that they are, in fact, witches themselves. It is scientifically proven than these memories can surface when someone else says that they saw you in Blåkulla or how you took children there.

While some scientists ponder if some of the visions people have are just illusions caused by the Devil, when so many people testify about you being a witch, it can’t be delusion. Children can’t make up stories, as it’s scientifically proven thing that children are innocent and can’t lie.

It’s also scientifically proven fact that visits to Blåkulla might leave marks on your body, or on the victims body. If someone accusing you being a witch says that you whipped them on the hand with snaked in Blåkulla, and indeed wounds or red marks are found on their arm, then it’s a scientific proof that you are a witch.

What is remarkable is that the law system, the scientists, the most educated people of the time, took these seriously and constantly made sure that they are following laws and won’t overdo anything. They didn’t want to judge innocent people or sentence wrong people to die. They did their best to prevent these wrong-doings from happening. And yet, this all happened.

Based on all this made-up nonsense, which we now understand not being possible at all, keeps my mind humble and thirsty for more scientific findings. It makes me wonder what people will see in our current time as same kind of (dangerous) nonsense as people during Witch Craze saw as the unshakable truth.

#history #witch hunt

[esther-dot]

It's just weird that how many times it occurs in Brienne chapters about how Sansa will no longer remain maid or being raped. I just hope that Grrm spared Sansa from getting involved in any kind of unwanted sexual encounters. I mean if he can save Brienne from getting raped at last moment he could have Sansa spared from it. I am actually wary of how he will deal with Sansa sexuality considering time gap he scrapped.

I think that Martin has had Sansa endure these assaults not as a prelude to her getting raped, but rather, to make her escape from them all the more remarkable. If a horrible fate doesn’t seem possible or imminent, the fact that it doesn’t happen wont hit with the same weight. To me, when the Hound holds the knife to her throat and nearly rapes her, the idea isn’t that he never would, but that he was this close to following through, and Sansa’s compassion was the only thing that stopped him.

I mentioned to someone in the comments on a recent post that the Hound brags he’s a butcher and women and children only meat, but Sansa’s kindness to him, her compassion for his suffering, prevents him from seeing her that way, changes how he views himself. It’s an awful moment, I don’t like reading about Sansa getting perved on and assaulted, but I can understand why Martin included some of it, to show the power of something other than brute force, to show her power over villains. That’s not to deny that the accumulative affect of it all by now is a lot. It is. We pretty routinely bemoan it!

I’ve been pretty confident that book Sansa will not be raped or killed for some time. Before I’ve pointed to the “virgin” trope in medieval lit (I know) as a potential reason why it never seemed like part of her story:

Telling the hero what God has in store for them is The Virgin’s primary job. She tires to keep the hero on their quest. She is often described as beautiful, graceful. Though still generally a secondary or even tertiary character in Medieval literature, The Virgin is still important to the plot. She is respected and protected in some way throughout the story. Even when she is in trouble, the author doesn’t do any physical damage to her, often just putting her to sleep or locking her somewhere until the hero can save her. (link)

(talked about this some more over here)

and I also think, as much as Martin writes a lot of sexual violence/threats of sexual violence, this isn’t something he’d do to Sansa thoughtlessly. I found this quote on his old blog some time ago, and it is reassuring to me that he takes the threat of rape against his characters seriously (poor guy wrote this before GoT premiered--I can only imagine what he thought after s5):

I have sometimes allowed other writers to play with my children.  In Wild Cards, for instance, which is a shared world.  Lohengrin, Hoodoo Mama, Popinjay, the Turtle, and all my other WC creations have been written by other writers, and I have written their characters.  But I submit, this is NOT at all the same thing.  A shared world is a tightly controlled environment.  In the case of Wild Cards, it's controlled by me.  I decide who gets to borrow my creations, and I review their stories, and approve or disapproval what is done with them.  "No, Popinjay would say it this way," I say, or "Sorry, the Turtle would never do that," or, more importantly (this has never come up in Wild Cards, but it did in some other shared worlds), "No, absolutely not, your character may not rape my character, I don't give a fuck how powerful you think it would be." And that's Wild Cards.  A world and characters created to be shared.  It's not at all the same with Ice & Fire.  No one gets to abuse the people of Westeros but me. (link)

Rape, even though he includes far more sexual violence than we may want, is something he takes seriously. He isn't going to have Sansa raped so that it trends on twitter/sparks countless articles, ups viewership, unlike how GoT used it. It would only happen in ASOIAF if Sansa's story demanded it, and since we have a prophecy of Sansa killing a giant in Winterfell rather than being harmed by one, I believe that Sansa will go North and be empowered, not further victimized.

As for a general wariness about how he is going to handle Sansa's sexuality, it depends on how you read the foreshadowing, but I do tend to think she will have a romantic relationship on the page, so I guess it isn't all good news for you, anon! 😅

#sansa stark #anti the hound #anti sansan #dot chat #<<< for filtering

[forgiveness-in-the-misery]

I do want to post about the concept of a soul in BTVS because the show sort of fucked itself into a corner immediately with season one by introducing it as a big running theme.

Angel was a crappy human who then became a vampire and as a vampire he was beyond evil but then he was cursed with having a soul again and forced to feel guilt for all his crimes.

Which okay fine that works. If you are incapable of empathy then suddenly can feel it one day then yes every bad thing you did would make you feel horrible. Then he lives as a vampire with a soul for many many years….until he has sex with Buffy and loses his soul all over again.

Which is now where things become mildly complicated.

Angel no longer possessing a soul goes right back into being the world’s shittiest white guy. Admittedly I prefer Angelus cause Angel within this series is just a prop most times, while in his own spinoff show where they often tease the fact he is broody and weird only for him to admit he’s just immensely socially awkward.

Of course once Angel gets his soul back he goes back to being a good person.

Which is kind of a problem for me? We already before this were introduced to Spike as a new villain character in the show and he isn’t like other vampires. Spike despite being a soulless monster “stinks of humanity” according to another demon. Spike loves intensely, Spike is poetic and gentle with Dru, Spike mourns often, he can be depressed or anxious. He protects Dawn fiercely, he genuinely adores and loves Joyce, he mourns Buffy when she dies. There is the point of Spike having a chip preventing him from killing but that is literally all it does, it prevents him from killing. There is nothing about the chip making him be gentle or caring or showcase empathy constantly.

So after living quite a few years cursed with a soul wouldn’t Angel change overall? Does it solely depend on who sired you? Is Angel a lunatic asshole because he was sired by one? While Dru is more empathetic but even her own empathy is immensely short and we have seen how easily she can drop Spike over his own genuine humanity. So siring doesn’t seem completely in line.

Is Angel just a fucking crappy person with a weird white guilt thing going on? The dudebro who goes around apologizing for what he is but lowkey enjoys the privilege that comes with it?

Even outside of vampires there are some incredibly shitty humans in the show. We see plenty of human characters do things as horrifying as vampires and other demons.

So what is a soul?

A soul through Angel just seems to be a vehicle to make you depressed and never want to do a bad thing and the same happens for a time when Spike acquires a soul. For a short period he goes insane with guilt. But then Spike goes back to normal, a soul made no real difference in him as a character other than costuming changing his appearance so he looks more “trustworthy” which I personally find shady and dumb but that’s me.

I know over all it could all be just fantasy rules played fast and loose, but the show repeatedly makes a fucking point of souls. Souls seem to be the key of being an insanely good person despite the main characters being humans doing grossly shitty things, human villains doing repulsive things and random characters again doing and saying gross horrible things.

I wish the narrative had either not done the soul thing at all or at least had gone about it completely differently. Because if Angel losing his soul and becoming a monster then regaining it and being harmless again that should have been questioned in the narrative way more other than the characters just having some trauma they needed to get over and accept Angel again.

The issue of souls is why season seven for me is my fall of season because seeing Spike suddenly redeemed by becoming Catholic guilt man just put me off…and Kennedy. God dear God I hate her.

#buffy the vampire slayer

[kittyandco]

am i just in different spaces than a lot of people or have i legit never seen anyone earnestly being like "this character was justified for doing bad things because they had a rough background"? i feel like that's a complete fabrication at this point. more than likely it's just a lot of people don't seem to understand sympathizing and/or empathizing with someone while simultaneously disagreeing with their actions. you can (and should more often) do that! it's a good exercise in empathy (as an aside, it's important to understand why bad things are the way they are, and how they came to be, so they can possibly be prevented later).

fictional characters (and real people but this isn't the blog for that. just treat people with respect.) who do bad things aren't suddenly zapped of their humanity, feelings, relationships, or experiences that led them to this point. and it's fun, cathartic, and interesting at the very least to explore these aspects... and even, god forbid, feel for them and cast them in a sympathetic light in certain contexts.

they still feel pain and clearly they didn't deal with that pain constructively given that we're talking about Bad Guys here. so i will continue to talk about them in this way, especially because i perpetually commit the grave sin of connecting with characters like this... because we have similar experiences or outlooks on certain parts of life. and just because we may have perspectives that align in some ways, that doesn't mean i'm just as evil or "excuse it," because their thoughts don't solely revolve around EVIL TERROR BADWRONG CRIME MURDER KILL.

there are many influences on a person that come from all over. even the guys with the most one-track-mind think about other things and approach multiple facets of their lives based on their general life outlook. WHY do they want to do the bad things they do? why did they (possibly) once do good things? who or what is important to them and why? why do they see themselves as above others? what do they think about their autonomy, and the autonomy of others? did they once feel powerless, and what do they do about it when they feel that powerlessness now? what happened to them?

why aren't we allowed to acknowledge the potential suffering they went through and why/how they're here now, doing the things they do? why are we only allowed to do that when it's a Good Guy?

if i dare to connect with Bad Guy and want to explore their justifications and commit the horrible crime of feeling for them, i guess that means i condone all the crimes ever. at this point, yeah!!! fine!!! if that's what it takes! fine, yes, they suffered and that means they can do whatever they want now. go forth, babe, be terrible. you have my seal of approval. i do not see it 😪 but if i did, let's say hypothetically i did, just know it was hot

#it's so hard to engage with so many characters i like on here because of this; WHO ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT!!! it's a boogeyman #okay to rb #if you're just as DONE as i am ihskjsdkjsdkj #this isn't about hans this time but it could be #txt

[teamfortresstwo]

So. Eurylochus, symbolic of Odysseus’s doubt along his journey?

He questions his every move, from the sheep to the wind god. And, unlike Odysseus, Polites dying sends him even further into the “ruthlessness is mercy upon ourselves!” Mindset which directly parallels him. However, in his worry during ‘Luck Runs Out’, we see someone who cares more about the lives of the crew than Odysseus himself does. Because Odysseus, by ignoring his doubt and concerns and only leaning towards pacifism, is getting his crew killed. (Sure the wind god thing worked out, didn’t mean it couldn’t have gone horribly wrong imo.)

Now, in the situation with Circe. He tells Odysseus not to save his men. At this point, Odysseus has yet to get the Molly, and Eurylochus has no way to know that he will. (One thing you have to remember is that in the entire musical, Eurylochus doesn’t interact with a god once. He has none of Odysseus’s fondness of them or idealism towards how they’ll react.)

Then, the underworld, and more importantly: Mutiny.

I think that at the beginning of the story, Eurylochus really was just following Poseidon’s idealogy and forgetting why he started doing that. But then he sees Odysseus, rescuing every man he can. And he remembers, he started this because it was mercy upon them. Again, he has the exact opposite change of heart as Odysseus and it happens at very similar times.

And Odysseus wants so badly to save his men. Eurylochus does as well, of course he does! Right now, he’s symbolizing Odysseus’s guilt and doubt at his own abilities-both as a captain and to get home. And they fight.

And Odysseus kill Eurylochus because he’s preventing him from getting home. From this point onwards, Odysseus is far more sure of himself. In mutiny, Odysseus effectively kills his own doubt.

#epic: the musical #is this anything? I just woke up from one of my worst sleeps #Also this isn’t at all Eurylochus bashing I love my boy so so much. And I think this purpose is actually really interesting. #especially since a lot of the time he’s completely justified and Odysseus is just batshit insane #epic the musical Eurylochus

[sincerely-sofie]

hello! i apologize for adding to the list of religion related asks in your inbox and, as this is another form of criticism you can ignore it, im mostly an enjoyer of your work and ive merely found a discrepancy.

i just think its important to point out that the people you end up surrounding yourself with and the people that a community deems to be one of their own, IF this is your experience which i am not Assuming but rather Pointing To as a debate starter of sorts, is not in fact the group at large.

its factual that many, Many people have been abused by the church, inside and ouside of it, by many people and in many ways, and the number of people harassed by christians, especially ones in positions of power in churches but also the commonfolk, is incredibly high. much higher than it would be if it were just a vocal minority, because then its doubtful that it would be so widespread, but especially that it would be so Personal, crimes done to people by people in particular they thought they could trust.

i am not telling you to disbelieve yourself or that there are hidden horrors in your community, but trying to bring a possible unawareness to light. if this is unwarranted or undesired and you dont wish to make any public response you can delete this ask, absolutely 0 hard feelings i wont say anything else.

love your work, have a nice day, bring more joy into the universe as you try to

Hey, thanks for this ask! Discrepancies and blind spots are a difficult thing for people to rid themselves of alone, so your reaching out to help with something you were worried about is appreciated. This is all a fair bit stressful and new for me— I've never really talked about my faith before now— but once again, I figured a public response is better than the alternative. Thanks for saying you enjoy my work. I appreciate your well wishes. And your English is absolutely wonderful, don't worry about it!

For context, I've previously said that the vast majority of Christians are loving people and that there's an unfortunate vocal minority of cruel individuals. First off: people absolutely have suffered abuse at the hands of Christians, especially Christians in positions of authority, and their suffering should never be diminished or dismissed. My church takes a pretty intense stance on abuse— anyone who misuses their influence over someone is going to answer to God for it, church leaders are to report any abuse they learn of to the proper authorities and help protect against future abuse, and the general membership are expected to do everything we can to prevent abuse and to defend and help the victims. 

I'm of the opinion that Christianity (or at least my specific denomination— I'm not educated enough to speak with authority on the state of each individual branch of Christianity, and I think that some churches are, to put it lightly, more prone to hateful behavior than others) is largely populated by kind and loving people. Again, that isn't to diminish the experiences of those who have suffered abuse— they've gone through horrible things that truly happened and shouldn't be brushed aside. My belief in abuse being done by a minority is mainly rooted in the vastness of the Christian population and my belief that people have an inherent goodness rooted in them. 

Pulling from some statistics I found on Google (which may be inaccurate, so don't quote me on this!), there are about 2.3 billion Christians out of the 8 billion people in the world. For a majority of Christians to be cruel and abusive, I would need to believe (forgive my bad math here, I'm not the best with this stuff) that at least 1 person out of every 8 people I meet is cruel and abusive. I don't think that's how the world works, and haven't seen any research to change my mind, so I don't believe that. 

What I do believe is that people who want to hurt people will find ways to hurt people, especially when they can find ways to excuse their injustice with religion, being a senior member of a family, or similar garbage— and that with such a great population of the world being Christian, you'll hear a lot of instances of abuse being done by Christians. Like I said previously— certain denominations are prone to abusive behavior. This is absolutely undeniable. But my lived experience as well as personal research has indicated to me that they and the individual bad actors don't make up the majority of Christians, even if they make the most appearances on the news. 

Thanks again for the ask and your concern. This is my personal understanding of things, and if you disagree, you're fully in your rights to! I've definitely skimmed over things here— no person is 100% good or 100% evil, and my efforts to be brief definitely haven't helped the subtlety that needs to go into discussions of morality in groups. But I wanted to explain my perspective. It really comes down to the math of things for me. I don't think that even 1 in 10 people is remotely unkind, let alone over 1 in 8 being willing to abuse others. I hope that I've made myself clear in a polite way— it's hard to have these kinds of discussions in writing! I've tried my best though, and I hope it comes across in this.

#I am once again running on very little sleep and I desperately hope this makes sense #I tried my best! Though I certainly don't have any Herculean abilities when it comes to communicating #*sweats and recalls the time I thought my dad was talking about cooking when he was discussing fireworks* #sofie answers asks

[gnbrkrs]

A belated post on the Pandaemonium finale, several days after I cleared it.

Obvious 6.4 spoilers under the cut.

I actually kind of liked the finale of Pandaemonium. The goodbye with Themis was good, as were the lore additions. We finally got an explanation on what the Heart of Sabik is, and I kind of wonder if it may serve as a future plot hook at some point. That being said, I kind of wish they elaborated more on certain things. First, I wish the story touched more on the themes of piety and trying to deeming oneself as above anything morally bad, and how it can potentially be just as destructive and lead one to do just the exact things they are trying to disavow. We see it both in Athena, who sought to eliminate perceived flaws of the Ancients by becoming a God (which was further amplified by the auracite), and in Lahabrea, who outright cut out a part of himself related to her, deeming it immoral and dirty while trying to distance himself from it. And yet, most of the characters just go "oh she's so evil" as she reveals her motivations without any reflection upon where such ideas came from and how the Ancient's strife to perfection also made them vulnerable in a way. There is an underlying subtext in the whole storyline about committing heinous acts while distancing oneself from the idea of being morally wrong. Even Lahabrea admits that he would still commit the crimes he did after you tell him about the future, despite trying to distance himself from what he deemed to be morally wrong in the past. Yet the realization of that same message never occurs, and even him merging back with Hephaistos is justified by him not being powerful enough to prevent such threat anymore. I feel like it would have made sense either shortly before or shortly after it, with a conclusion that humanity is flawed and prone to error by it's nature, and that to deem yourself righteous and above all the horrible things it is capable of because you are one of the "good ones" is not moral strength, but hubris. But alas... A part of me wonders if the reason for that is because they didn't want any possibility of the Ancients changing because of their stance of "the Ancients as a society were beyond saving" in the previous interviews. Or the storyline was just rushed for some reason. But I did feel like this is the one thing that was missing from it. I also wonder what will happen, now that the Heart of Sabik is in Sharlayan's hands, a nation that is extremely proficient with magic and also was tasked with a righteous task of carrying Hydaelyn's will in the past. Surely the auracite wouldn't end up in the hands of a righteous mage who believes themselves to know better than anyone does once again... Right? And while Claudien seems like a safe person to guard it right now, a lot of things can happen that could either cause him to lose it, or to fall under it's influence himself... After all, if there is anything that this game teaches, it is that just because one is a good/ bad person today doesn't mean they are the same tomorrow.

#ffxiv #pandaemonium #final fantasy xiv #lahabrea #ffxiv 6.4 spoilers #6.4 spoilers #ffxiv spoilers #final fantasy xiv spoilers #patch 6.4 spoilers #patch 6.4 #ffxiv 6.4

[mx-lamour]

Well go on, how are you gonna lore your Argynvostholt? oO

You're right, I should have followed this up. Get some water and strap yourselves in, ok? I saved my initial brainstormy post in my drafts, so... I guess I'm prepared for this. Are you? (dun dun dun...)

First thing: I want to use I, Strahd as the Tome, as-is, full stop. And I want it to be accurate (accurate to what Strahd thinks/believes happened, anyway--not propaganda, not a mislead). This has been my biggest hurdle, re: Argynvostholt.

I, Strahd sets up the von Zarovich army and the valley it conquers as incredibly low-magic. There is magic, yes. However:

The majority of people are suitably spooked by it. The Ba'al Verzi dagger having weird runes on it and the idea that it must draw blood before it can be sheathed are very freaky. When Strahd stands stoic in the face of this weird cult object and reenacts the rite of binding himself to the land again, everybody present (even Alek, "the least pious and most hedonistic of the lot") make signs of the faith. Which of the elements in that event are even by-definition actual magic or just mundane ritual and superstition is mostly left up to interpretation. Strahd did discern some arcane power in the dagger.

Aside from the use of this particular item, the only people who ever perform what seems to be by-the-book, honest-to-god Magic is Ilona (a high-ranking cleric), and Strahd himself (who admits to having limited ability when he's still human, and describes the use of material components in a legit spell almost fifty years thereafter). Leo Dilisnya also uses a number of magical protections that he's scrounged together over the same fifty years, but his use of magic seems to be limited to the traps he had lain for Strahd (which were really solid, but ultimately not enough to defeat a vampire).

Ilona was pretty high up there as far as clerics go. The one cleric more powerful than her was their high preist Kir. The book doesn't say what his abilities were, but we know some of Ilona's abilities. She can tell if someone is telling the truth (Zone of Truth or good insight?). She can Speak With Dead, but she can't always successfully prevent someone from dying or bring them back. There's no way to tell for sure how strong she really is, or what level of life-giving necromacy she could have attempted--especially because she has an army to look out for and might be spreading her resources a little thin at any given time--but from my experiences having played clerics, I'd cast my suspicions around 6th level.

Which is nothing to sneeze at. But. If she is the most powerful spellcaster in Strahd's army (and one of, presumably, very few)...

Would they have defeated a dragon?

Sure, Strahd's army could take out a dragon. I have no doubt. It's probably a pretty sizeable force. Strahd is an effective general. Would there be a lot of casualties? Yes. It is war. That's a thing.

But it would be kind of weird if no one ever referenced the dragon. There again, whatever, I, Strahd is from Strahd's point of view, during a time immediately after the wars are over, and he is not exactly the kind of person who would boast about his victory against a dragon. It probably doesn't even phase him that much. He's probably just like, yes, of course my army subdued a dragon. It is expected. I do not fail.

But what about the revenants?

The module has this very actiony little blurb about how Strahd's army fought the Order of the Silver Dragon and the knights died horribly, and Vladimir was so enraged that he got back up as a revenant and brought a lot of other knights back with him. It's cinematic. It's cool.

But this is where it gets dicey, in relation to I, Strahd. Would Strahd's soldiers have thought twice about fighting an opposing force that will just keep getting back up again? They don't have anything for this, aside from possibly whatever Ilona was prepared for. Even ignoring the argument about which force the army fears more--their fierce human general or the walking dead--would Strahd's army have been able to win?

Against undead? Okay, sure, why not. Maybe Strahd's soldiers don't even realize they are undead, since the bodies are so fresh at that point and covered in armor anyway. Maybe they just don't notice they're fighting the same guys again. They simply don't register that as a possibility; they're just trying to stay alive in the fight. Ilona, who could probably have sensed they were undead, wouldn't have gotten close enough to them to discover it.

Okay, so Strahd's forces could possibly take down Argynvost. They could unwittingly fight a bunch of the recently-undeceased. Fine. That solves my conundrum about the setting's descrepancies in the frequency of magic and supernatural forces.

That's about where I had left it when I was going to ask ye other Curse of Strahd DMs for ideas.

I've encountered more conundrums since then.

Point One being: I think I read that revenants usually have a one-year timer on their revenge before their spirit passes on, heedless of success. But if I'm using I, Strahd as gospel, there would have been at least three years between the Fall of Argynvostholt and the start of the curse. Which means... no revenants in cursed Barovia. Their souls would only have been trapped there in perpetuity if they had still been around when the mists closed in. If they had become revenants at the initial battle, their timers would have long run out already.

I also realized that, if they had turned at the initial battle and kept fighting... Strahd's army would have just killed them again. Like.

I tried to give them the benefit of the doubt. If they don't die again, what do the revenants do? Strahd's not just going to let these guys wander around, right? And it's pretty vital to the plot that Strahd's army did, in fact, win. They could not be locked in combat forever.

Do they play dead? That seems absurd for a revenant bent on revenge. If nothing else, the consensus on medieval battles seems to be that the living would loot the field of anything valuable (armor, weapens, clothing, even the raw metal of broken eqipment) and then pile the bodies into a large burial pit. I could not be convinced that a revenant would just lay down through all that.

So this is what I came up with for them, because I read that thing about the burial pit and went OH MY GOD...

It took about 24 hours for Strahd to fully become a vampire (you could say it took that long because he hadn't killed Sergei yet, but he had already been spared from death by consuming Alek's blood and was already well on his way to full-fledged vampirism by the time he enacted that part of the plan).

If we use that as a precedent for the turning process, revenants could take that long (or longer; as long as we need it to) to return to their bodies and become fully-realized revenants. It could take a long time for their spirits to be shunted toward the astral plane, break free, and return to animate their corpses.

Anyway. Do you see where I'm going with this? It's not good.

Argynvost has fallen. The knights of the Order are dead. Vladimir's vengeful spirit rages against the natural forces pulling him toward the Astral Plane, and he finally breaks free with such a force that other knights are able to follow him back through the tear in the veil to return to their bodies.

But in the meantime, the battlefield has been stripped. Equipment and other valuables gone. Half-dressed bodies thrown into a deep pit, tangled together, tens deep, heavy earth piled atop them. Rain beating it down into mud, packed tight into the crevices between them.

The revenants awake in this mass grave.

They have to dig themselves out. Gather new resources. Make plans.

Having fudged how long it takes for them to become revenants, and possibly when the timer on their revenge actually begins (after they finally claw their way to the surface?)—and maybe they're a fringe case anyway, I realized later, due to either dragon magic or shenanigans from being so near to the Amber Temple or some combination thereof?—and maybe the one-year thing doesn't even matter? Throw it out the window; I just need them to not get slaughtered by Strahd's guys before—By the time they are ready, the mists have finally closed around Barovia, three years after the Fall.

Madam Eva (who I have other ideas for, too—why? why make her Strahd's half-sister? what is that? stop giving him more siblings) meets the Order on their long-awaited march toward Castle Ravenloft, and tells them that Strahd is now trapped in a hell of his own making. Satisfied that Strahd will suffer in his new situation, Vladimir is determined to keep Strahd alive to experience all of the worst this new domain has to offer.

So. That's what I have.

TL;DR - It's the same but different.

#curse of strahd #campaign notes #continuity editing #argynvostholt #dm problems #ravenloft #order of the silver dragon #revenants #i maybe thought too hard about this #it's fine #lamour dms cos

[marlowe1-blog]

The Book of Job, chapters 4-5

Eliphaz the Temanite is a stupid C-nt

Before fullying analyzing these two chapters where Eliphaz ventures to argue with his friend Job about Job's really dark viewpoint, the quote that really gets me is "See how happy is the man whom G-d reproves, Do not reject the discipline of the Almighty" which is something that you can sew into a pillow and give to Grandma and it sounds nice. (5: 17-18 if you really want to do that) but the fact that it comes from the Book of Job should tell you that it's a perilous venture to quote it out of context.

Actually quoting the Bible out of context is a bullshit exercise that people should fucking stop. But I guess I'm howling in the wind since they are calling Bible Thumpers, not Bible Readers.

This is actually a shitty thing to say to anyone. If someone is relatively happy and their life is going well, then you are basically saying that they aren't truly happy until their wife leaves them and they lose their job. But to say it to someone going throught trauma? Fuck you. It's the ancient equivalent of "G-d doesn't give you more than you can handle" or "Everything happens for a reason". It's a stupid fucking thing to say to anyone who is going through a rough patch.

It's fucking evil to say it to a guy whose children just died as he lost all of his money and his health is failing. So that's Eliphaz in a nutshell. Eliphaz is all full of cute little aphorisms and well meaning phrases that help no one but Eliphaz. He sure feels better about himself.

So let's review Eliphaz's rejoinder to Job anger over being born (and over the Leviahan not being let loose to prevent such a horrible moment in his life).

Chapter 4 (remember these are Christian standards but sometimes the Christians can make things easier) starts with Eliphaz claiming that he's reluctant to talk but then upbraids Job for being so helpful to other people in their suffering and now that Job is suffering he's inconsolable? This is rather dickish, but Eliphaz isn't your standard "well I guess all of your comforting words don't work" jerk. He's actually trying to get Job to summon all the strength that Job doesn't have and then goes "what innocent man has ever perished?" which seems perilously close to the Christian beliefs that we are all damned and wicked and awful. He then talks about lions being humbled and what comes around goes around.

So he's saying that Job is somehow guilty.

The rest of the chapter seems like the Christian doctrine where Eliphaz claims to have heard a word, a rumor, something on the wind that told him that no one really measurs up to G-d so of course everyone dies.

The fifth chapter is a ramping up of this belief. Vexation kills a fool. Eliphaz once saw a fool and cursed him. Also foolishness and mischief are man made. And why is Job so smug as to want to judge God who makes rains and saves the needy.

Which brings us back to the shitty quote where Eliphaz says that G-d is justly punishing him and that this is a good thing. Then Eliphaz promises that G-d will make certain that Job is protected. He will save you from the sword; he will protect you from famine and you'll be old and happy.

Just like G-d did with Job's sons. You stupid fuck.

Note that Eliphaz is hitting on the ultimate speech of G-d about how much G-d has to do and how little Job gets of it, but then Eliphaz goes and says that Job deserved and it and that it's cool because that's just punishment and now G-d will totally make things right for Job.

Fuck you Eliphaz.

#The book of Job #Eliphaz the Tenanbnite #toxic positivity #Job #suffering #bullshit #open a winder #close a door open a window #superficial #punishment #sins #you sinned #grief counseling #bad friends #Tim Lieder #mourning #aphorisms #pillows #Eliphaz the Temanite #The Bible #Religion #Christianity #Judaism #philosophical novels