ennoblement

The Heaven

Holding us in a mist of ennoblement.
Even the time fell in beneficial sleep.
And fresh born birds are singing melodies stolen from
Veins flowing in God’s unearthly dreams.
Eclipse of Love burying fears
Now - in wade-awake bliss - taking a bath in the warmth calming down world’s committed tears.

French Nobility

Originally posted by slainte71

Who are the nobility?

In France, nobility was a quality of the individual, a legal characteristic that could be held or acquired, and conferred some rights and privileges; such as levied taxes in times of war (since the nobility was supposed to fight for the sovereign), or since the 17th century, only weaker taxing exceptions. Also, a number of military and civic positions were reserved for nobility.

How is it inherited?

Nobility was usually hereditary only through the male line; a nobleman could marry a commoner and keep his nobility, but a noblewoman could not. When the nobility was hereditary, even though it was transmitted through the father, a higher percentage of noble blood or a higher number of noble generations in the family could be important as well.

How is nobility acquired?

  • By Birth. Usually from the father since 1370 (only exceptions are nobility in Champagne until the 16th century and Bar until the French Revolution). Bastards of nobles became nobles when legitimated by letters of the sovereign until 1600, after that a separate act of ennoblement was required (except royal bastards, they were always nobles even with no legitimation).
  • By Office. Depending on the office, the holder became noble either after a number of years in office or immediately. This kind of nobility could be personal or hereditary for 2, 3 or more generations. Here we have nobles for fiscal offices (tax courts and state auditors), “noblesse de robe” (for judicial offices, members of the parliament or courts that have been in office for 20 years),  “noblesse de cloche” (municipal offices, the mayors of towns), administrative offices (the places on the household of the king and the secrétaires du Roi) and military commissions (since 1750 officers reaching the rank of general would receive hereditary nobility).
  • By Letters. Meaning, by royal grant, meaning that the king could always ennoble whoever he wished.

Could nobility be lost?

Yes it could. You lose it by failing to your failing duties (this was called “déchéance”, kind of like Athos in The Musketeers BBC series); by practising forbidden occupations (called “dérogeance”), like commerce or manual crafts or farming someone else’s land (farming your own or the King’s land was ok). Funny that medicine, glass-blowing, exploitation of mines, maritime commerce and wholesale commerce was acceptable. Also, if you were a woman and marry a commoner, your nobility is lost.

What about the titles?

To bear a title you had to be noble. And a title is a rank attached to a certain piece of land. So, there could be nobles with no titles.

  • Duc. A duke (from the Latin dux, “leader”) was originally the governor of a province and a military leader. He was the possessor of a “duché” (a duchy).
  • Comte. A count (from the Latin comes, “companion”), originally an appointee of the king governing a city and its immediate surroundings. He was the possessor of a comté (county) or a high-ranking official in the king’s immediate entourage called Counts Palatine (palace counts).
  • Marquis. Originally the governor of a “march”, a region at the boundaries of the kingdom in need of particular protection. He was the possessor of a marquisat (marquessate).
  • Vicomte. A viscount was originally the lieutenant of a count, either when the count was not at home or then the county was held by the King himself. He was the possessor of a vicomté (viscounty).
  • Baron. Originally a direct vassal of the king or another major feudal lord (a duke or count or so). The possessor of a baronnie (barony).
  • Châtelain. A castellan was the commander in charge of a castle. Few chastellanies survived with the title or “Sire” (sir).
  • Prince. Possessor of a principauté (principality). This title was not the same as the rank of Prince and did not give his possessor precedence at the court.
  • Seigneur. A lord, possessor of a lordship.
  • Chevalier. The equivalent of a “knighted” or a member of certain chivalric orders or the head of the King’s guardsmen. Not the same as the rank of Chevalier.

Wait. Titles and Ranks are not the same?

No, they were not. Because French people are crazy and this could not be easy at all. Let’s say that there were two kinds of “titles”: the ones linked to the fifes (the feudal real estates, meaning the duchies and counties, etc) and the personal ranks.

  • Fils de France/Filles de France. The sons and daughters of the King.
  • Petit-fils de France. The grandchildren of the King through the male line.
  • Prince du Sang/Princesse du Sang. A Prince/Princess of the Blood was a legitimate descendant of the King but was not part of the immediate family. Meaning that they were not Fils neither Petit-Fils de France.
  • Prince/Princess Légitimé. The legitimized children of the King or other males of his dynasty.
  • Prince Étranger. A foreign prince naturalized and recognized by the French court.
  • Chevalier. A rank assumed ONLY by the most noble families and the possessors of very high dignities in the court. Note that the ones with the title of Chevalier and the ones with the rank of Chevalier are addressed differently.
  • Écuyer. This rank (squire) was the one of the majority of nobles. It was a member of the nobility with no title.

How are they addressed?

For this section I’ll use an example name, so each way of addressing will be very clear. Let’s use the Marquis de Castelnau: Philippe-François d'Albignac.

  • The simpler way to address a noble is using Monsieur, Madame and Mademoiselle: here, we would address Philippe-Françoise simply as Monsieur.
  • But of course it cannot be that simple, you could not be sure about who and which Monsieur, Madame or Mademoiselle you’re talking about. So, there is a simple formula: Monsieur/Madame + de + last name or house = Monsieur de Albignac.
  • But you can also refer to someone by their title and not their last name: Monsieur/Madame + le/la + title = Monsieur le Marquis.
  • And you can be even more specific, since we wanna know, are we talking about the same Marquis? You’d use: Monsieur/Madame + le/la + title in full style = Monsieur le Marquis de Castelnau.

Those are the general ways, but it can be very tricky or specific according the rank and title. Here is another helping guide:

  • The King. Majesté, Your/His Most Christian Majesty, Your/His Majesty, Monsieur Le Roi.
  • The Queen. Majesté, Your/Her Most Christian Majesty, Your/Her Majesty, Madame La Reine.
  • The Dauphin (the eldest son of the King). Monsieur le Dauphin, His/Your Royal Highness, Monseigneur le Dauphin, His/Your Royal Highness Monseigneur le Dauphin.
  • The Dauphine (the Dauphin’s wife). Madame la Dauphine, Her/Your Royal Highness, Her Royal Highness Madame la Dauphine.
  • The Fils de France. Referred by their main title, except the Dauphin. I.e. Monsieur le Duc d’Anjou.
  • The Filles de France. Referred as Madame+their given name. Except the eldest daughter that was called Madame Royale until she married, and then that style is used by the next Fille de France. I.e. Madame Victoire.
  • The Petit-Fils/Petit-Filles de France. Addressed using their full style titles.
  • Prince du Sang/Princesse du Sang. Usually styled by their main ducal title, but other more precise titles were also used. It could be used: Monsieur le Prince, Madame la Princesse, Monsieur le Duc, Madame la Duchesse, and so on. In writing only the style Serene Highness was used.
  • Prince Légitimé/Princesse Légitimé. They took last names according to the branch of the House their father belonged and after the legitimization they were given a title. Males were given titles from their father’s lands, and therefore addressed as Monsieur and the title or last name; females were given the style of Mademoiselle de “X”.
  • Prince étranger. Basically addresses as Haut et puissant Prince or Your/His Highness. They are tricky to address, since they could have ANY other kind of title (literally any, from Prince to Chevalier, everything in between), then they could be called according to their first title and/or as Highness. Let’s take the example of Hercule Mériadec de Rohan, Duke of Rohan-Rohan; he could be addressed as: Monsieur le Duc de Rohan-Rohan, His Highness Hercule Mériadec de Rohan, His Highness Monsieur le Duc de Rohan-Rohan, His Highness Monsieur de Rohan, Monsieur de Rohan.

Other words to keep in mind to address nobility:

  • Monseigneur. Used for those of very high office and noble blood, like the Dauphin, cardinals, etc. Usually used only for adults.
  • Excellence. Ambassadors, foreign dignitaries.
  • Eminence. Mostly for cardinals, along with Monseigneur.
  • Monsieur le Chevalier. ONLY used when Chevalier is the rank.
  • Chevalier+last name. To address those who are knighted members of chivalric orders.
  • Sieur. Like Sir in English. Usually used for property holders that are not noble. It is used as Sieur + de + name of the land.
  • Gentilhomme. Used for ANY noble, from the King to the last écuyer.

I hope this works for you @meltingpenguins :D

There will be a second part on English Nobility.

First 100 Days: Trump and the Degradation of the Presidency

Trump’s failure to accomplish little or any of his agenda during his first 100 days shouldn’t blind us to the vast harm he has done in this comparatively short time to our system of government, especially his degradation of the presidency.

From early in the Republic, we have looked at the office of the president as a focal point for the nation’s values. Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, and the two Roosevelts exemplified for generations of Americans the moral authority of the highest office in the land. It is not merely what these men accomplished, but how they did it; not just their policies but their positive effects on the institutions of democratic governance.

True, many of our presidents have fallen short of those ideals. But our disappointments in those individuals reflected the high expectations we have had for those who hold that office.

Yet under Trump, the moral authority of the presidency has all but disappeared.

I’m old enough to recall when John F. Kennedy invited the world’s great artists, writers, and philosophers to dine at the White House. The nation felt ennobled. 

Donald Trump invites Sarah Palin and Ted Nugent, who once called President Obama a “mongrel,” and we feel sullied.

But it has not just been Trump’s vulgarity.

There have also been Trump’s lies – blatant, continuous, and unsubstantiated even after the lack of evidence has been pointed out repeatedly. 

They are not just any lies, but lies that deepen Americans’ suspicion of one another and undermine our confidence in our system of government – such as his repeated contention that “three to five million” people voted illegally in the last election, or that Obama spied on him during the campaign.

Prior presidents have embellished the truth and on occasion have lied about a particular important thing, such as the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. But never before Trump have we had a president who chronically lies, whose lies have become an integral part of his presidency even in the first 100 days.

There is also Trump’s vast family business, from which he continues to benefit even though the decisions he makes in office affect what he earns, and the almost certain decisions by foreign governments to curry favor with him by bestowing benefits on his business. 

Trump shrugs off such conflicts – even refusing to release his tax returns, even inviting his daughter and son-in-law, each with their own businesses and conflicts of interest, to join him at the highest reaches of the White House.

Some presidents have profited from their presidencies after they leave office through large speaking fees and book contracts. But never before Trump have we had a president for whom conflicts of financial interest during his presidency are so flagrant yet ignored.

The first 100 days has also been marked by Trump’s divisiveness – turning Americans against each other, legitimizing hatefulness toward Mexican-Americans and Muslim-Americans and African-Americans, fueling violence between his supporters and his opponents.

We have had divisive elections before. But after them, other presidents have sought to heal the wounds. Even after the horrors of the Civil War, Lincoln famously asked us to come together without malice. 

Trump, by contrast, has fomented the warring camps – calling his opponents “enemies,” suggesting they are plotting against his administration, and staging rallies to encourage and fuel his bedrock supporters.

We have also seen Trump’s cruelty – toward refugees, undocumented immigrants, and the poor among us. He has issued a budget that would deeply harm the least advantaged Americans, and supported a repeal of the Affordable Care Act that would also hurt those most in need.

He has refused asylum to refugees at a time when the world faces the largest refugee crisis since World War II, and unleashed immigration enforcers on 11 million residents of the United States, many of whom have been productive members of their communities for years. He has even deported people who have been here since childhood and know know no other nation.

Other presidents have on occasion been cruel. But Trump’s cruelty has defied reason. It is utterly unnecessary.

There has also been Trump’s affect on the rest of the world – legitimizing crude nationalism and hateful xenophobia. He has promoted France’s Marine Le Pen and encouraged authoritarians such as Turkey’s Tayyip Erdogan, while at the same time confusing our democratic allies and friends.  

Finally, there is Donald Trump himself – who in the first 100 days as president has shown himself to be narcissistic, xenophobic, paranoid, vindictive, and thin-skinned; who takes credit for the work of others and blames others for his own failings; who lashes out at the press and journalists when they criticize him, and who demonizes judges who disagree with him.  

We have before had presidents whose personality defects harmed their presidencies and tainted the office of the president, such as Richard Nixon. But Donald Trump is in a different league altogether. He exhibits the opposite of every civic virtue ever encouraged in our school rooms, town halls, and churches.

The first 100 days is an artificial landmark for presidents. But it does offer an opportunity to pause and assess what they have done. Too often, though, we think in the narrow gauge of policies and legislation.

With Trump, it’s important to think more broadly. Among the most significant legacies of his first 100 days is his degrading of the moral authority of the office of the president, and, thereby, of America.

anonymous asked:

So there's this post going around st*ny circles that basically says as a "burn", oh everyone's comparing Steve Trevor to Steve Rogers but "at least Trevor was a real captain" and lmfao what the fuck, do these morons not realize Cap is an actual fucking captain as well. It's not a fucking ~title~ or stage name, it's his goddamn rank, he's O-3 and he earned it because THAT IS HOW WARTIME PROMOTIONS WENT jfc. Ugh. Sorry for the impromptu rant in your inbox, I'm just fed up with this ignorant shit.

I’d be pissed along with you (normally I am whenever I encounter Steve hate) but I’m too amused at their ignorance. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face! LOL! When you try so hard to be a hater, but end up looking like an idiot because you got your facts so incredibly wrong.

In other words, you are 100% correct, Anon, and the people who made and are reblogging that post are 100% wrong. Steve was a legit Captain.

Rank insignia for army officers, including the rank of Captain…

Steve Rogers in full army dress uniform circa Captain America: First Avenger

It’s called a field promotion or battlefield promotion. And when you skip a rank it’s called a jump-step promotion. Very common during WW1 and WW2, in fact, very common right up to the Vietnam War when such commissions were replaced by a centralized promotion system. 

According to the army website: “Battlefield promotions are predicated on extraordinary performance of duties while serving in combat or under combat conditions.”

Which is how Steve was awarded the promotion.

More on the practice of battlefield commissions: “A battlefield commission is awarded to enlisted soldiers who are promoted to the rank of commissioned officer for outstanding leadership on the field of battle. The granting of a battlefield commission has its historical predecessor in the medieval practice of the knighting or ennoblement of a plebeian combatant on the battleground for demonstration of heroic qualities in an exceptional degree.”

You know what the irony of this situation is? Years ago, circa 2009, a movie came out featuring a young soon-to-be Captain who was promoted in a very similar fashion to the way Steve Rogers was promoted by the end of the movie, i.e. skipping rank to be granted the commission of Captain after leading a courageous mission against a serious threat. That character was James T. Kirk, who, incidentally, was played by Chris Pine. And I once defended Kirk’s promotion in a similar way to the way I’m defending Steve’s rank now, as Kirk, like Rogers, is one of my all-time favorite characters.

I think I must be destined to a life of defending young Captains played by actors named Chris from imbeciles who don’t bother to check their facts before making ridiculous posts. :D

Honestly, the argument over Lyanna’s consent could easily be settled by answering only four questions:

  • Was her consent voluntary?

  • Was her consent free?

  • Was her consent informed?

  • Was her consent ongoing?

I’m going to set aside Lyanna’s age for now despite how this alone invalidates any argument for consent since Lyanna was a minor even by Westerosi standards and thus incapable of giving consent. But I know that people will come out from the woodworks claiming that “this was how things were back then” which is factually incorrect, and “we shouldn’t apply our modern world’s rules to medieval period” which…. why shouldn’t I? The text calls Lyanna a “child-woman” and goes a long way in establishing her youngness, powerlessness and impulsiveness. It shows how a somewhat similar “relationship” between Cersei and Lancel - which also includes a fucked up power dynamic and an older “partner” using the younger one’s naivete for their own purposes - was devastating to Lancel’s psyche. We argue about the skewness of Dany\Drogo and what it means for the definition of their relationship, we argue about how Cersei and Lancel’s relationship could not be considered consensual despite Lancel saying yes. So why should I ignore the same considerations when it comes to Lyanna and Rhaegar?

However, let’s put that aside for a little while as we try to answer the above questions. Consent is not just about saying yes: for Lyanna’s consent to be valid and accepted, it had to be voluntary, free, informed and ongoing, otherwise it was not consent. But did these adjectives truly apply to Lyanna’s situation?

Keep reading

The signs are more stagnant, passive planes of energy whereas the planets are more active vehicles of it. The planets operate through the signs, but something that is frequently disregarded (on Tumblr) is the fact that the signs also operate through the planets – they have to, or else they would solely be, and in quite a bland, distant sense. Following this concept, dignity & debility should be understood as affecting both the planet and the sign involved.

Domicile means “home.”
Planets in their ruling sign are at home, in their natural habitat; they can exist freely, organically, without intrinsic nor extrinsic tension/resistance. Signs that possess their ruling planet are granted the perfect opportunity to present themselves in us & in the world – their planet provides a safe, comfortable platform for manifestation, and they are fountains of energy in the chart, free-flowing due to being built on something they understand and own and are.

Detriment means “harm” or “impairment.”
Planets in the opposite of their ruling sign are lost, damaged by the strain of trying to express themselves through the lack of ease, acceptance, or stability. There’s a disadvantage, a struggle due to discomfort. Signs that possess the ruling planet of their opposites are not equipped with the proper capacity or space they need to function well, or even normally. The planet doesn’t get along with them, so there can be a bit of chaos or lack of direction involved in their manifestation. There is no secure path; they have to draw their own, and it will only work if they learn to cooperate & genuinely converge with the planet.

Exaltation means “honor.”
Exalted planets & signs are raised to their highest possible power, ennobled, given the space and dynamism to stand proudly as the best versions of themselves. They are both optimized and elevated, in an energetic and archetypal sense; there is no holding them back because they have everything they need to be everything they are in the strongest, most effective, most influential, and most engaged way they can manage. They’ve been “charged” so to speak, and they’re ready to manifest to the fullest.

Fall means “defeat.”
Fallen planets & signs are devastated, shrunken and belittled, exhausted; they are weak and small, with the life sucked out of them by the challenges they face. They’re crushed because they have been thrust into struggles they were not prepared for. They aren’t allowed to rest; it’s perpetual strife, constant effort poured into a seemingly futile cause. Existence drains them because they’re pitifully unready and poorly poised; they lack the force to pull through to the other side on their own, so they will end up being dragged.

The birth of 'Hamilton,' told by the man who was in the room where it happened

In May 2009, my friend Jeremy McCarter made me sit down and watch a video of the now-famous rendition Lin-Manuel Miranda gave at the White House of the opening song of “Hamilton.” At the time, the song was all that existed of the show, and its first performance took place in front of Barack and Michelle Obama. (The president later suggested that he should get a Tony along with the “Hamilton” producers, since the show had begun its development at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.)

The song pierced me, thrilled me and converted me. I had been completely oblivious to the size and scope of Lin’s genius, and in 4 minutes and 32 seconds I was awakened from my dogmatic slumbers. It was immediately apparent that Lin had hit upon a subject and a form that were brilliantly suited to each other…

Years before “Hamilton” opened at the Public on Feb. 17, 2015, I had been comparing Lin to Shakespeare. Each of them took the language of the common people and elevated it into verse, thereby ennobling both the language and the characters who spoke it. They both told the founding stories of their nation in a way that recognized everyone, of all classes, as citizens. They both employed a freedom of form that was exhilarating and masterful.

But Shakespeare and Lin also refused to be completely pinned down, leaving their narratives open to interpretation and constantly renewed debate. Leaving them, in short, entirely human.

Lin gathered around him an amazing group of collaborators, each of whom was essential to this show.

Alex Lacamoire, orchestrator and music director, the curly-haired cherub I saw at the piano in that first clip of Lin at the White House, is not only a brilliant musician but a deeply loving collaborator. He shares so much musical DNA with Lin that he was able to express all the diverse musical influences of the music while always making it feel like one score.

Andy Blankenbuehler’s choreography adds a dimension to Hamilton that I’ve never seen before — a form of abstract but profound narrative that continually supports and enhances the story. His dancing dramaturgy would become a profound piece of the show.

Jeffrey Seller is the commercial producer who has been attached to Lin and his work for Lin’s entire career. I would come to treasure Jeffrey as a partner: His brilliant commercial instincts were matched by his deep commitment to supporting the show in becoming the best possible version of itself.

And guiding the entire ship was Tommy Kail, Lin’s friend, fellow Wesleyan graduate and the director of “Hamilton.” It was with wonderment and awe that I watched Tommy direct. I have never seen a director more able to inspire the best possible work from everyone around him, more willing to let the best idea win in any debate, more able to lead from vision and principle. He is a miracle.

Obviously, there were many other vital contributors to this show, but it was these four, along with Lin himself, who were the leadership. I was privileged to be among them.

“Hamilton” is a brilliant musical, and a brilliantly entertaining one. But it is more than that because it was created by the huge and generous hearts of the artists who made it, most of all Lin himself. Broadway musical numbers, hip-hop and Beatle-esque ballads all seem to belong together, because they are all things Lin loves. In that way, the form of this amazing musical manifests the egalitarian angels of this country. It doesn’t just speak of a nation where we all belong; it creates it onstage. May it inspire all of us to make our country as good as “Hamilton.”

[Source]

Surfacing Trailer Since his retirement in 2011 after a series of concussions, Paul Kariya has been a veritable ghost, keeping his distance from a game that he once ennobled with his gentlemanly play, his speed and his scoring touch. In November, Kariya will join former linemate Teemu Selanne when they are inducted into the Hockey Hall of Fame, thrusting him once again into the spotlight. After a long – probably too long wait – Paul Kariya surfaces.

Something that people really don’t understand about Saturn is the concept of having to strive & struggle for something – Saturn doesn’t work the same way as the other planets, especially not the benefics. Most of the time, Saturn’s placement in a chart doesn’t come easily, it has to be worked for. I don’t just mean the “positive” indications, either. Even harsh aspects to Saturn or difficult house positions don’t necessarily just appear in a person. Sometimes they really do have to be experienced, discovered, grown into, and earned before they even begin to manifest at all. This says a lot about the signs associated with Saturn. Capricorn is said to rule Saturn so it shows more easily within them; usually, they earn Saturn at a very young age. Aquarius, the Vedic co-ruler of Saturn, generally has to earn their individuality. Libra – exaltation of Saturn – is the most interesting here. Many people say Libra doesn’t seem very cardinal because they’re passive, gentle, manipulative, what have you. This is because they must earn their strength & assertiveness. It says a lot, because exaltation is elevation / ennoblement / optimization of the planet. So when you interpret Saturn’s placement in a chart, don’t assume his influence is inborn, because that’s a very immature way of looking at him. Saturn is all about the process, the work, the trial, the journey, the search, the lesson.

anonymous asked:

what do you mean about an 'actually appropriate' use of the song 'hallelujah'?

Friend, you are the greatest because I have goddamn citations.

So I would be entirely remiss in not stating the obvious, that being that “Hallelujah” was written by Leonard Cohen, a Jewish man. And that Superman was also created by Jewish men and that Kryptonians in general are basically space-Jewish.

Okay? Okay.

Keep reading

Lol!! Taxes are done. I think I need to start advertising for a tax break. 🙄 Uncle Sam is not my favorite donation entity.

I heard a brief talk about attracting experiences in our lives. One of the suggestions is to Make your relationship with yourself​; who you are and how you feel your number one priority. It will improve your relationships and experiences. Bring our best true self to others which evokes the best in others too.

“The small courtesies sweeten life; the greater ennoble it.” ~ Christian Nestell Bovee

anonymous asked:

i loved your thoughts about the monsters and female sexuality, and i was wondering if you had anything specifically about the phantom? or any thoughts on the phantom of the opera in general i would love to hear them

You know those pieces of media you can’t read/listen/watch without being transported to your first go-through, with all the exact emotions that come with it? And it doesn’t matter if these were profound Great Works of Art, they were just there at the exact right time to crawl under some bit of skin, to find the exact right string to pluck—and you will never, ever get rid of them. They are inside you, all you can do is accommodate them.

For me, that’s what Phantom of the Opera was. I stumbled over it at twelve-thirteen, already knowing that I was a fucking weirdo but not really sure how I was planning to deal with that, and it just—blew the fucking doors off the place. I cannot listen to a single song, watch a single frame of the 2004 movie, even glance at a picture of Sarah Brightman without the all-over cringing embarrassment of being that thirteen-year-old again and feeling things that were enormous and sweating-hot and nameless and much more than I was even sort of prepared for.

Which means that I am largely incapable of talking about it in a rational sort of fashion. I will say that Phantom takes…something an opposite tack towards the monster romance. Typically, a monster romance is Beauty recognizing the humanity of a Beast, and ennobling the Beast because of it; it’s a redemption-thorough-love narrative. In Phantom, Beauty (Christine) recognizes there is something also monstrous in her, but ultimately rejects that monstrosity. She’s really he one who undergoes through the transformation, not the Beast, though he ultimately does recognize her transformation.

I generally put this down to the addition of the Svengali narrative—while there’s always a power imbalance between Beauty and the Beast, it’s acute in Phantom. (The Beast just wants Belle to come to dinner and avoid the West Wing, Erik watches Christine through her fucking mirror and kills people.) The Phantom’s real monstrosity isn’t his face, it is the demand Christine sacrifice literally everything to him and capital-A-Art. The absolutist mania is monstrosity in itself. Monstrosity is just another way of transcending the ordinary, and isn’t that what artists are meant to do?

Christine’s desire to be an Artist is part and parcel of the monster romance of the Phantom; if she didn’t sort of want to be an artistic monster herself, there’s no draw. The 2004 movie is….awkwardly blunt about this, making the Phantom a transgressively sexual figure. (While I don’t think it’s incorrect, I also think it obscures some of the real motivation there. Desire for a basement dwelling weirdo can be two things, ALW.)

I realize my previous meta was about monster romance-qua-monster romance, monster romance as an expression of desire, but monster romances represent a hell of a lot of different things—each slightly different, but drawing on the long legacy of transgressive desire in all senses.


Also, the overture remains A True Banger.

Goofy RPG Character Concept #137: The SCP Foundation as a Nobilis PC.

No, not like it’s a Noble’s anchor. As in, the organisation itself has been enNobled, and collectively functions as a single player character.

Its primary Affliction would be “I am a faceless globe-spanning conspiracy”, which in practice is mostly identical to the standard “dead” Affliction - i.e., it would only able to act through anchors.

(The most frequently employed anchors would, of course, be tied to the Bond “my many superbly trained and equipped but sadly mortality-prone agents“ as a mundane collection.)

You could go a number of ways with its Attributes and Gifts. The only obvious restriction is that it definitely doesn’t have Treasure 5, because it’s more thematic if it has to eat a Deadly Wound in order to bust out a weaponised CK-class reality restructuring event.

Figuring out how to adapt this concept for Chuubo’s Marvelous Wish-Granting Engine is left as an exercise for the reader.

10

“For us, the storm has passed. The war is over. But let us never forget those who journeyed into the howling dark and did not return. For their decision required courage beyond measure…sacrifice, and unshakable conviction that their fight; our fight, was elsewhere. As we start to rebuild, this hillside will remain barren, a memorial to heroes fallen. They ennobled all of us, and they shall not be forgotten.” -Lord Admiral Hood

Planets in Exalt 

The Sun exalts in Aries
Here are twin themes of sparkling self expression and the development of the ego. The Sun is the centre being and constantly in view. In the same way, the sign of Aries is all about establishing an important place on the world and leaving an impression. The radiance of the Sun creates the life force of energy for Aries

The Moon exalts in Taurus
The fertility principle of the Moon is reflected in maternal and nurturing Taurus. The Moon governs the biological processes of pregnancy and childbirth. This is not merely childbirth, the energies of Taurus facilitate the growth of flowers, plants, and crops. The symbol of Taurus reflects a Bull with horns, but also a half crescent moon perched above a full moon.

Mercury exalts in Virgo
Mercury is the only planet that both rules and exalts in the same sign - Virgo. This means that it’s position is highly dignified. Virgo encourages Mercury to pan down its greatest power and potentials. This is focusing on the intricate detail, rearing intelligence, and analyzing tried and tested formula. Virgo not only encompasses the communicative elements of Mercury, but also ensures the information being dispersed is precise and authentic.

Venus exalts in Pisces
The high flowing Piscean receptivity is an open channel for creativity. The awareness of the collective through love is a Venusian focal point. There is the sweeping saturation with romance and ideals. Pisces is the fusion of the material with the ethereal and relating of all things that seem opposite or irrevocable. This is diluting the barriers that separate us all. It’s collective Venus

Mars exalts in Capricorn
Mars is directed inward here, and thrust into the world in systematic, calculative Capricorn manner. Capricorn holds the energy of Mars like a battery and releases without it withering away due to being erratic or scattered. There is Mars ambition, pioneering confidence, and intense physical emphasis

Jupiter exalts in Cancer
Cancer carries home on its back, and so Jupiter mediates the quest and discovery through the inner world. Emotions are filtered through larger than life Jupiter and create a wide scope of emotional experience. There is a longing to come home in Cancer, in a spiritual sense, and this is ennobled by faith, personal growth, and belief governed by Jupiter.

Saturn exalts in Libra
There is intimate knowledge of laws, justice, and fairness in Libra that relates to the conventional and moral structures of Saturn. Saturn promotes the rationale, reasoning, and wisdom that is imperative in balancing the Libra scales. There are the civil themes of responsibility, impartial judgement and the promotion of what is good and right.

-Cherry

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Hate multiplies hate, violence multiplies violence, and toughness multiplies toughness in a descending spiral of destruction … The chain reaction of evil - hate begetting hate, wars producing more wars - must be broken, or we shall be plunged into the dark abyss of annihilation.
— 

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

“Nonviolence is not sterile passivity, but a powerful moral force which makes for social transformation.”

“Nonviolence is a powerful and just weapon. Indeed, it is a weapon unique in history, which cuts without wounding and ennobles the man who wields it.”

“Love is the only force capable of transforming an enemy into friend.”

“As you press on for justice, be sure to move with dignity and discipline, using only the weapon of love. Let no man pull you so low as to hate him. Always avoid violence. If you succumb to the temptation of using violence in your struggle, unborn generations will be the recipients of a long and desolate night of bitterness, and your chief legacy to the future will be an endless reign of meaningless chaos.”

“Nonviolence is the answer to the crucial political and moral questions of our time: the need for man to overcome oppression and violence without resorting to oppression and violence. Man must evolve for all human conflict a method which rejects revenge, aggression and retaliation. The foundation of such a method is love.”

That last quote was from he was given the Nobel Peace Prize. 

If you’re advocating for violence, you’re showing the other side that their methods are socially acceptable.  You’re creating an environment for them to thrive.  You drew them out by giving them attention they never deserved, so let’s take that away from them.  The only thing we should be giving them is indifference and ridicule. 

People of Germany: Friedrich Schiller (1759-1805) was a German poet, philosopher, physician, historian, and playwright. He was born in Marbach, Württemberg as the only son of a military doctor. He grew up in a very religious family and spent much of his youth studying the Bible, which would later influence his writing for the theatre. He had 5 sisters. He was named after King Frederick the Great, but he was called Fritz by nearly everyone. As a boy, Schiller was excited by the idea of becoming a cleric and often put on black robes and pretended to preach. Later, he entered the Karlsschule Stuttgart (an elite military academy), where he eventually studied medicine. During most of his short life, he suffered from illnesses that he tried to cure himself. While at the Karlsschule, he read Rousseau and Goethe and discussed Classical ideals with his classmates. At school, he wrote his first play, The Robbers, which dramatizes the conflict between 2 aristocratic brothers: the elder, Karl Moor, leads a group of rebellious students into the Bohemian forest where they become Robin Hood-like bandits, while Franz Moor, the younger brother, schemes to inherit his father’s considerable estate. The play’s critique of social corruption and its affirmation of proto-revolutionary republican ideals astounded its original audience. Schiller became an overnight sensation. Later, he would be made an honorary member of the French Republic because of this play. In 1780, he obtained a post as regimental doctor in Stuttgart, a job he disliked. In order to attend the first performance of The Robbers in Mannheim, Schiller left his regiment without permission. As a result, he was arrested, sentenced to 14 days of imprisonment, and forbidden by Karl Eugen from publishing any further works. He fled Stuttgart in 1782, going via Frankfurt, Mannheim, Leipzig, and Dresden to Weimar. Along this journey he had an affair with an army officer’s wife Charlotte von Kalb. In 1789, he was appointed professor of History and Philosophy in Jena, where he wrote only historical works.

Goethe convinced him to return to playwriting. He and Goethe founded the Weimar Theater, which became the leading theater in Germany. Their collaboration helped lead to a renaissance of drama in Germany. For his achievements, Schiller was ennobled in 1802 by the Duke of Saxe-Weimar, adding the nobiliary particle “von” to his name. He remained in Weimar, Saxe-Weimar until his death at 45 from tuberculosis in 1805.