A Set If Hp Bookmarks I’ll Have For Melbourne Supanova Next Weekend! One (1) Boy For Each Book 

Have I already reposted this idk and idc

game of thrones | text posts

|| Support me on Ko-fi ||

Pros to having the wildemount gays all live together: 

Gardening buddies

Empire sibs collectively dying from queer exposure

wlw mlm solidarity

xhorhass gays get to welcome empire sibs home after a long workday and honestly, i think we all need this

collective couch snuggles probably.

THERE ARE LIKE TEN CATS AND DOGS COMBINED HOW CAN YOU NOT LOVE THIS CONSEPT I’M-

Cons:

There are none.

Everything is as it should be. UwU<3

Why Fenris could Never Cameo in Dragon Age: The Veilguard

In the run up to Dragon age: The Veilguard, I was almost certain that Fenris would be our main legacy character from previous games. Not only has he been central in the comics released between DAI and DATV, he is an escaped Tevinter slave who's plot revolved around magisters, magic and the structural prejudices surrounding elves in Thedas. Not only that, but he's canonically in Tevinter killing slavers currently so he's geographically in the right place for us to meet him.

About halfway through the game though, it was clear to me: Fenris could never cameo in The Veilguard. Because he'd break it.

How the Veilguard treats Thedas is...odd to me, to say the least. I will be writing another post about how much I adored the expanded big lore in this game (the titans, ancient elves were spirits, where the blight came from etc.) and yet while these large lore expansions worked for me, the actual culture of modern Thedas is entirely softened, its sharp edges filed down until it's a sanitised fantasy world devoid of what made the franchise so vibrant and compelling in the first place.

So let's start with Fenris and slavery. In all three games, the reality of slavery is pushing at the corners of the world. In DAO Loghain allows Tevinter Magisters to enslave elves in order to raise money for his war effort. In DA2 Fenris is fighting to be free from slavers who will not leave him be, let alone the reminders that the city was built by slaves which are everywhere. In DAI one of the two possible mini-bosses is Calpurnia who was a slave, and characters such as Gatt and Dorian both show us how much slavery is tied into Tevinters culture and success.

But DATV the first game actually set in Tevinter where we get to see the famed Minrathous...it's like the game purposefully wants to avoid the issue. I can feel it tilting the camera away to not allow me to see. Slavery is mentioned, but never talked about in depth or as a specifically ELVEN problem in Tevinter. This might have been done to be less problematic, it feels ignored.

We are in DOCK TOWN. We are at the DOCKS. You would think that slaves from all over Thedas who are being smuggled and bought by various groups would be everywhere. You would think that the injustice in dock town would be partly built on the back of ships we've seen in the comics crammed with elves in chains. This is the world Dragon age set up for us. And yet...nothing. zilch. A tiny easily skippable side quest where we free a couple of venatori slaves, but only one of whom is an elf.

None of our Tevinter characters seem to have been influenced by their culture even a little bit when it comes to how they view elves; there is no moment when Neve fucks up and says something prejudiced, no moment when Bellara or Davrin are distrustful of her for being a Tevinter mage.

The same goes for Zevran; a character who epitomised the issues with the crows. The crows have consistently been characterised as very morally dubious assassins who kill for the highest bidder and who buy children on the slave market and torture them as they grow in order to assure that they reach maturity able to withstand torture without giving away a client's name. Zevran is very explicit about the fact that if you fail a contract your life is forefit.

Nobody responds particularly to you if you're an elf. Nobody trusts rook less for it in Tevinter. Nobody treats Rook any differently. Even DAI had better mechanics for this; with nobles in Orlais less likely to trust you as an elf.

Considering one of the main plot points of this game and what makes Solas sympathetic is the fact that he was fighting against the slavery of ancient elves...you'd think the game might want to mirror that in modern Thedas. It might want to show us how characters fighting to end slavery in Tevinter are similar to Solas and how the society Solas fought against was similar to the one that characters we love such as Fenris have fought against in modern Thedas. Maybe we'd want to explore how in a world of slavery like this, how could the answer NOT be to tear it all down? Maybe we should have that option at the end of the game so it really can chose whether we agree with Solas and his plans or not.

Adding Fenris to this game would entirely break the game because Fenris refuses to allow you to look away from this horror. He is a sympathetic character who had to learn to trust mages again because of course he didn't trust them. Of course he didn't. Fenris wouldn't allow the camera to shift focus because he's literally covered in the lyrium scars that show how slaves are used as experiments in Tevinter. Fenris WOULD question Neve on how she feels about elves and slaves. Fenris WOULD have things to say about Lucanis and the crows (let alone the fact Lucanis is an abomonation). So he could never be in this game; he'd drop a bomb on it's carefully constructed blinders to the very society its supposed to be set in.

And yet, in DATV, the crows are presented as...a found family of misfits and orphans? The politician who opposes the crows having absolute power in Antiva is framed as a comically evil idiot who doesn't understand that the crows are ontologically good. Yet...they're NOT. Crows in this game act more like a secret rebel group than an assassin organisation. We see no crow taking contracts with the VERY RICH venatori magisters despite being hired killers. We see crows just refuse to kill people despite having a contract because 'its crueler to leave them alive'. The crows don't feel like the crows here, they feel like a softened version of a cool assassin group who are cool because they wear black and purple.

Our pirate group are also sanitised; the Lords of Fortune are good pirates who only steal treasure that's not culturally significant. Theyve clearly read the modern critiques of the British Museum and have decided to explicitly stop anyone levelling similar critiques at them. There is no faction of the Lords of Fortune who aren't like this, no internal arguments about it. Everyone just. Agrees. And is able to accurately tell what a cultural artifact is vs. what treasure that you can have yourself is. Rather than showing us why a pirate stealing cultural artifacts might be bad (like in da2 where such a situation literally causes a coup and a war) it just tells us it's bad. But also pirates are cool so we still want them in our world.

This issue seaps into Thedas and drains it of any of the interesting complexity and ability to SAY anything that this franchise had before this game. It becomes a game about telling and not showing rather than the other way around. The games have ALWAYS asked questions about oppressive structural systems and their interplay with society, religion and culture and how these things can affect even the most well meaning character. Dragon age at its best IS a game about society and how society functions both for and against it's characters and what happens to societies built on cruelty and indifference. The best bad guys dragon age has given us are those who are bad because they embody these systems or have been shaped by them. Our main characters have had to wrestle with questions surrounding how to exist in these systems, fight against them, learn and grow.

Yet every group you come across in DATV is sanitised and cleaned up to the point of being as non problematic as humanly possible. None of our cast of characters have to wrestle with where they came from or the world that shaped them. None of them have to confront their own biases. They start the game perfectly non-problematic and end it that way too.

And this just...isn't what Dragon Age has been in the past. It isn't why I love the franchise. The whole game just felt, in a way, hollow. And this was a CHOICE and it is why the legacy characters are few and far between. Too many dragon age characters are just too...angry and complex for this game. You can feel them pulling their punches on this one. I have to imagine they did this because they didn't want to be criticised or have too much controversy? But I think it honestly goes far too much in the other direction and just makes it bland.

I can't imagine what I say here will be unique, but it is the basis for a LOT of my other thoughts on this game so I wanted to get it out of the way first. The softened Thedas and characters make this game by far the weakest in the franchise.

Veilguard in many ways is reductive while being the most directly moralizing of the Dragon Age games, which makes it impossible to play a character with politics, ideas, or morals different from those the game espouses.

The game continuously tries to convince the player that these options do exist, hints at the fact that you will need to make sacrifices in order to win the war against the Evanuris, and ultimately, to stop Solas. But it fails to actually deliver on any of those promises by providing only three major choices, and a handful of minor choices. Not to mention that most of the dialogue options won't allow you to be authoritarian with a sole focus on defeating the Evanuris.

In my mind our three major decisions are:

The City you choose to send other people to defend, resulting in it being Blighted and captured by the villains already vying for power.

The person you choose to lead the other group when attempting to kill Ghilan'nain.

Whether to provide Solas closure & redemption, trick him, or fight him.

My issue with the first decision is that it does not go far enough. In a game that is ostensibly about hard choices, the fact both cities come out of it still standing, even if one survives in very bad shape and under totalitarian rule, doesn't make sense to me. The city you help should barely survive thanks to your presence, and the one you leave others to defend should be blighted and uninhabitable.

Additionally, you should be able to give a reason to your companions, in game, as to why you chose one city and not the other. For example, my Grey Warden Rook chose to help Treviso because they knew Minrathous' history with Blights and thought they might be able to handle it without them. But there are other Rooks who will save Minrathous because they hate The Crows. There are Rooks who will flip a coin and follow its lead. There are Rooks who think Minrathous does not deserve to be saved.

But this game does not, textually, allow Rook that kind of anger. It does allow Rook to say anything at all about the choice, other than that they had to make it, and that they are sorry. The game tells us we must feel bad for not being able to save everyone. But why?

Part of my issue with the second choice lies with Lucanis, and the fact the game does not allow you to dismiss any of your companions. He fails to strike when it counts most, and Rook and the whole team seem understanding if frustrated by it, but are willing to give him a second chance. But why? Because it is the morally right thing to do? Because he needs a shot at redemption?

Those are not good enough reasons for my Rook. But the game does not allow Rook to dismiss him after a catastrophic failure. It insists he remain, despite it being more than reasonable to kick out the guy who had one shot and missed.

Which relates to my real gripe with this choice: you should be able to choose any of your companions to lead the group, resulting in any of their deaths. And they should be the one to strike the final blow, not Lucanis, unless he is the person that is chosen. This, to me, is far more narratively satisfying, and puts the choice back into Rook and the player's hand.

The final decision is the one I feel is the most well done, but I still have issues with it.

The Inquisitor, romanced or not, and Morrigan, should be there in all endings. Morrigan should always help you defeat Solas, and the Inquisitor, based upon decisions they made in the prior game and not solely relying on whether or not they romanced him, should either fight with or against you. If they meet that criteria in the ending where you trick Solas, they should be the final boss. Additionally, the Inquisitor should get to choose whether or not to go with Solas if they have high enough friendship or romance in the redeemed ending.

My frustrations with Veilguard overall are the way it tells you it is doing something, without ever showing you, the severe limitations it imposes on actually roleplaying, and the way it glosses over previously established cultural issues and flaws within its narrative. It reduces the Venatori and Antaam to shells of their former nuanced selves. References to slavery within Tevinter culture are almost entirely removed. The Crows have morphed into an illusion to an Italian Mafia rather than a brutal group of spies who take part in child slavery and kill those who do not live up to their expectations. I cannot be a dalish elf, or a city elf, in a way that at all reflects the culturally distinct upbringings those two groups have. I cannot make Rook into anything more than they already are. I cannot make a Rook that falls outside of what the game deems as acceptable.

This game sanitizes the aspects of Dragon Age that were most interesting to me personally, trying to tie up all lore questions in a nice little bow, in aim to appeal to the widest audience possible. But it fails to do that, because in doing so, it lost the identity that makes it appealing.

I have said this before, and I will say it again: All art is inherently political because art is both a reflection of and the means by which culture is facilitated. And the illusion of choice in this game, the illusion that you can make hard decisions or play a character that's antagonistic or authoritarian, feels very inline with what capitalism presents to those who live under it. The choices we are presented with are a facade. The representation we are given is surface level and largely unsatisfying. We must act, even in our fantasies, in a way that corporations deem acceptable. We must maintain the status quo.

Situation: Solas tears down the Veil, elves across Thedas slowly gain their magic and immortality. Guess who would not like that development.

also this in an excuse to draw a long-haired fenris helping refugees or escaped slaves

bonus

‘Come on, Ginny’s not bad,’ said George fairly, sitting down next to Fred. ‘Actually, I dunno how she got so good, seeing how we never let her play with us.’ 'She’s been breaking into your broom shed in the garden since the age of six and taking each of your brooms out in turn when you weren’t looking,’ said Hermione from behind her tottering pile of Ancient Rune books. 'Oh,’ said George, looking mildly impressed. 'Well, that’d explain it.' 

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix

Anything is possible if you’ve got enough nerve.

[instagram @potterbyblvnk] 

Do you ever think how much of an impact having the major leaders of the post-war era be intimately close friends would affect politics in ATLA. The Gaang traveled together for months, living in close quarters, seeing each other at their bravest and their most vulnerable; it affects how you see and act around each other.

They touch each other so casually, so easily it unnerves most nobles. Master Bei Fong throws her feet into Counselor Sokka’s lap at any given opportunity. Fire Lord Zuko absentmindedly straightens out Avatar Aang’s sacred robes that are entangled from some airbending move. Master Katara throws an arm around the shoulder or waist of her compatriots, keeping them safe and within her reach and none of the others so much as blink. 

Members snap at each other, vicious little barbs said with crooked smiles. The master waterbender taunts the lord of the Fire Nation about his honor. In the past such a person would have been burned to a crisp for such a slight but this Fire Lord merely rolls his eyes and retorts about some waterbending scroll. Lady Bei Fong pops out of nowhere and launches the most powerful bender into a wall and the spirit of the world just laughs and then throws some rocks back at her. 

It scares the hell out of politicians how they communicate so easily with little to no words. Avatar Aang and Counselor Sokka can hold entire, detailed conversations with just their eyebrows and mouth expressions. Master Katara can walk into a room and sense with uncanny accuracy, before anything that happened, that her fellows are up to no good. The group, full of various world leaders and master benders will babble on for minutes, the Fire Lord listening attentively before turning to his stunned and confused audience and translating without a hint of shame. It simply is how it is when the young men and women shaping the world grew up alongside each other in the darkest of days and now can stand together, as one family of four nations, in the light.

The distinctive and memorable Thailand-only covers for the Harry Potter novels.

Zevran was my first bioware romance. I think this tells you why

Zevran: I am hardly the person to lecture on the worthier points of human nature, but surely this is a fine time to display the oft-lauded virtue known as mercy?

Zevran: I deserved to die, and you spared me. Why are you so quick to condemn these mages?

Warden: You’re a lot better-looking than most of the mages.

Zevran: Why, thank you. Flattery would normally distract me, but not today. Inconvenient, no?

Warden: You’re saying I made a mistake sparing you?

Zevran: (Nervous laughter) Perhaps. But you did it nevertheless, no?

Warden: Magic and knives are different.

Zevran: Magic can kill. Knives can kill. Even small children launched at great speed could kill.

Zevran: Why single out the wielders of one and not the others?

Warden: Mages can do more damage with one spell than you ever could.

Zevran: Mm. Touché.

Zevran: I’ve taken the lives of many throughout my career, but this is no measured act. There is no chase, no hunt, no dignity in this… there is only slaughter.

Warden: What about the people they might slaughter?

Zevran: Might, not will. Committing genocide just because something might happen is more than the mark of a weak mind. It is insanity.

Warden: Zevran, you’re a hypocrite.

Zevran: Perhaps I am at that, and a thief and a murderer as well. But I looked my victims in the face.

On twitter my little angels wanted me to draw BNHA so here they are!! （´꒳`人）

Lately i was feeling like my art was very stuck so I tried new lines and new painting!!