“”I’ll bring you another ball soon,” Annabeth promised faintly. “Would you like that?”
“The monster whimpered. I didn’t need to speak dog to know Cerberus was still waiting for the ball.
“Good dog. I’ll come visit you soon. I—I promise.” Annabeth turned to us. “Let’s go.””
“ I pretended not to see Annabeth wipe a tear from her cheek as she listened to the mournful keening of Cerberus in the distance, longing for his new friend.”
They have my whole heart
188 notes
·
View notes
How evil is arlecchino and what is she cooking
As of 4.2, I’m really curious what they’re planning with Arlecchino as a character, especially as a villain/antagonist/morally dubious character, and how far/which direction they may go with that
Intuitively my impression is we’ll see her do something way more “villainous” than she presents herself as being for majority of Fontaine’s AQ in front of us right—(which isn’t a surprise given that, you know, Arlecchino nor the House of Hearth have never been presented as 110% ethical LOL) but I find myself not being in complete agreement with most analysis or speculation threads I see about Arlecchino’s morality and the like, level of sinister people seem to ascribe to her.
Idk how to put it, especially in regards to her children I do agree they are not a wholesome found family, that Arlecchino is not above pulling strings or using them for her own ulterior motives, but I kind of hesitate on the idea she only cares about the Hearth children as a means to the end/things she can control and there’s nothing else going on with her characterization wise there. I’m not saying that impression seems remotely unreasonable or unfounded, but just that it feels there’s something intentionally missing in how we are supposed to conceptualize her as a person
My main reasoning for this hunch is the fact they have not elaborated on Arlecchino and the previous Knave—who Arlecchino is stated to have taken over the position from by force. The extra tidbits I think about are that 1) Arlecchino was previously an orphan in the Hearth 2) the previous Knave is described as way, way crueler to the children of than Heart than Arlecchino was from when she took control of the House
Often, people’s major indicators that the House of the Hearth is kind of super fucked up are the NPCs we meet in world quests who are part of it and clearly suffering. But one thing I haven’t ever seen people mention w this that i think is a very interesting detail is, in The Very Special Fortune Slip Inazuma worldquest, where we stop this House of Hearth guy (Efim Snezhevich) from manufacturing tension between Watasumi/the Shogunate to restart the war with his other Hearth subordinates, at the end of the quest we get this dialogue that reveals he had been acting under the previous Knave’s directives:
It’s also mentioned he’s employing this plan in an attempt to “rebuild the prestige of the Knave” following Signora’s death, iirc? Now, see, the dialogue itself says that this is “assuming our captive is telling the truth” so who knows what’s really going on, but I find this a really odd/interesting thing to highlight. I’m a bit fuzzy on other world quests with Hearth members, and am not saying none of them were acting and subsequently being treated poorly by our Arlecchino, but like, this gives me a lot of questions especially when paired with implications this previous Knave seemed to be way worse
Like, what drove Arlecchino to take over? How unexpected and controversial was this within the House? Assuming the above information is all true it definitely says something this guy went rogue and acted on what the previous Knave would want and didn’t think our Arlecchino would greenlight it, which does feel consistent with the previous Knave being described as basically worse & crueler than our Arlecchino. It also makes me question how much house of hearth things we’ve seen outside the main story are the work of our Arlecchino or if there’s a bigger divide of loyalty. Heck, I could be wrong but it doesn’t even seem like we know if the previous Knave is dead or not
This isn’t me saying Arlecchino couldn’t possibly be treating hearth children worse than she wants us to know, especially ones who aren’t her “favorites” the way the fontaine trio seem to be, but I really don’t feel sure about making a solid conclusion of her exact level of malice the way ppl r generally understanding it rn when it feels there’s going to be more about her. Just the idea of she, as a Hearth child, clashed with the previous leader who was known for being cruel, overtook their position and took on less harsh methods of leading that made at least some members with more power/possible closer proximity to the previous Knave go rogue and try to commit atrocities in the previous Knave’s name…I feel this leaves a lot of room to suggest there’s more going on with how Arlecchino is as a person
I don’t mind if she’s just very evil and deceptive bc if she totally had me fall for thinking she was less evil than she actually was that’s fun tbh. But I feel people suggest that’s all her character could be with no degree of like, “sympatheticness” or deep grey morality and that if her character did go there it would be automatically poor writing and genshin walking back on making a truly evil woman when IDK. I feel you can claim at this point they have left it open ended and it’s never been completely confirmed she’s pure evil. Also sometimes I just get a hunch and feel cautiously confident in Genshin executing certain characters well. Not all characters, just certain ones. Especially given Fontaine’s character writing being very good and a character like Lyney feeling very solid to me when any development with Arlecchino would likely involve him and his siblings as well, I honestly feel open to the idea of Arlecchino being satisfyingly written to be both villainous/morally dubious but “sympathetic/likable as a person” in ways outside of just her ruthlessness if that makes sense
If I’m wrong/they drop the ball with it more than I anticipate I’ll eat my hat but I am pretty excited about her character and which way they decide to go with it. I will say the only potential impression I have of where they’ll go with her has been wondering if it will go in a “cycles of abuse” direction—I’d be surprised if they ever elaborated on Arlecchino’s character especially in how she feels about things and her also growing up as an exploited child of the hearth wasn’t relevant
70 notes
·
View notes
wanderer as nahida's right-hand is perfect. they both have a history of abandonment, neglect, and exploitation, plus for similar reasons.
nahida was imprisoned in the sanctuary of surasthana for centuries, left to wither as a failed god her people chased the shadow of a 'better' ideal: greater lord rukkhadevata.
wanderer was abandoned by his mother in shakkei pavilion because he was the failed prototype for her ideal ruler of eternity: a puppet who could execute the lightning's will without regret, whom she intended to create after having makoto die in her arms.
the people involved in wanderer and nahida's pasts - both, in a sense, have convinced themselves that their actions were for the greater good. the sages don't even see nahida is a god, much less a human - to them, all she is is the reminder of what sumeru once had and never could again.
raiden ei abandoned kunikuzushi because she saw him cry, and, knowing he could never be the shogun she needed, left him to his own devices. it's been stated in canon that ei believed she was setting kunikuzushi free. and maybe she was, during those dark days after inazuma's first archon died. but, perhaps, what drove kunikuzushi to assign her actions as 'abandonment' was the fact that he was, in a sense, a lesser god. that he was created for reasons he didn't know. the first thing kunikuzushi did upon creation was cry - in the same way that a baby's first instinct is to cry, because their first impulse is to seek help. from this perspective, the thing kunikuzushi needed the most was guidance and acceptance from his creator (because he knew he was created by someone), while the thing ei thought he needed the most was solitude. miscommunication in the delivery room, am i right.
raiden ei's motives were not the same as the sages - you could argue that she really did believe she was doing it for kuni's benefit. i think she did. but what stands is that both these acts feature a theme of abandonment and neglect. they were carried out by people in the aftermath of grief, executed as neglect upon the people they were done to. and these acts catalyzed nahida and wanderer's development into the characters they are now.
they are not the same as the other archons.
venti's arc is focused around mending the wounds of the past, though it could be implied that he is re-assessing what "freedom" means for his nation. zhongli stepped back as yanwang dijun to allow liyue to move forward on its own while he could re-integrate as one of their common folk. ei is brought forward to re-evaluate her decisions as inazuma's absentee god.
good or bad, they all have experience with being a god.
nahida doesn't. she was intentionally kept from fulfilling her duties as archon for hundreds of years. anything she learns now, once free, is the first time she's learning it as kusanali.
wanderer can't. he tried. he took the electro gnosis and tried to transplant it into his own body - but, at the moment as we know it, gods technically can't be artificially created. the closest dottore could get was a mimicry.
so you have this unique circumstance, where nahida and wanderer both have no idea of what being a god really entails. but they don't need to know what being a god is like, do they? they just need to know how to be an archon: how to protect, how to decide, how to execute.
nahida is very forgiving. in my opinion, she's too forgiving (only because i hate the sages and would've called cps on them if i could). she sees the best in humanity. she works to engage with her people. she tries to listen to their hopes and dreams while moving towards a collective vision for the nation.
wanderer is cynical. he's been betrayed three times, in his words, and been taken advantage of far more than thrice. wanderer has seen the worst of humanity, and he continues to carry this critical eye. he's not afraid to do what nahida can't do (go undercover + beat up people) and he's not afraid to confront people when their motives stray towards the worse.
wanderer can demonstrate the things that define the worst of humans, while nahida can show wanderer the things that make humanity worth preserving. wanderer can execute orders with precision and make decisions on the fly (ha), but nahida is here to level his head and point out clues, motives, or implications that perhaps were not considered before.
and, isn't it a fitting conclusion to the sumeru archon quests? two former puppets, both alike in dignity, in sumeru where we lay our scene. together, they can reconcile the pains of their past - and together, they can build a better, kinder future together...the kind that both must have, at their worst, dreamed of living.
103 notes
·
View notes