Given the recent spoiler/prediction... who do you think might be leaving the show?
I thought that was only an unsubstantiated rumour? We’re talking about the one from tvline.com, right? I remember it as their
other prediction, that Trump is going to suffer a coughing fit midway through
the second debate (which he will later blame on Hillary’s perfume) made
me snigger. :D
But anyway, yes. Y’all probably read speculations based
on knowledge how actor contracts work, how long they last, how many seasons
they probably cover, and so on–so we’ll approach this question from the plain logic (business pragmatism, or narrative-wise) angle.
And our logic says that, no matter how changed beyond recognition and disfigured, personality-wise or visually (what with her ‘walls down’ and ‘opening up to love’ or
however they want us to interpret that garbage) Emma Swan is–there is no Once Upon a
Time without her. Some people may dislike JMo, she herself may dislike the show (I
personally see less than lackluster acting since the DarkSwan debacle, but it could be both that and the shoddy script–so can you blame her, really?), she may not be the ‘main’
character anymore, and her role may be reduced to Kitsis’ Hook-boner
inspired love-interest–but there IS no OUaT without her. Same goes for Regina/Lana
(deservedly so, she’s shouldering 75% of all the weight at this point) and
unfortunately Hook/Colin (not himself, but rather the fact that the other 25% is Kitsis’ boner for him–and
all the Tweens and Twimoms in the audience they’re relying on). Which then takes us
Despite most of us probably being all ‘meh’ if either Snow
or Charming were gone (thanks to the script of course, and their roles being
reduced to way too much running on the spot and a lot of plot-driven dialogues, large part of them useless) they go in package. So while a plot-twist (allegedly) intended
for the pilot (Charming dies) could still create a riveting storyline about the consequences and Snow’s state of mind
and path after it… nah. They’re
proven to be way too cowardly (’cause you know, the Earth would shudder if they
made Emma and Regina gay for each other, and Swan Queen emerged from the subtext–and became maintext) to write anything so ‘daring’,
such as to break up this ‘iconic’ couple. No matter how boring and useless they
both are. Again, thanks to the
script. (Or Ginny being way too preoccupied with having children. But that’s
none of our business. Result’s the same.) Offering us only one conclusion: babies make you boring and useless, because all you do is run on the spot?
Which leaves us… Rumple and Belle. Rumple who was so
brilliantly conceived as a character, given such a complex background story,
and was involved (in the true nature of the plotting imp) in everyone’s stories. But who was eventually
shat on (narrative wise) by not being given a MINUTE
of time with his son, after having plotted/executed a 300+yrs worth of machination to
get him back and correct the mistake he once made–when he chose power over
love. (It all turned out to be laughably pointless now that they jump realms and timelines as they please, no?) And the brilliant actor portraying
him was all but dropped, absolutely underused and underappreciated. Why?
Because of Kitsis’ Hook-boner. Because that’s why Neal had to die, didn’t’cha know? So,
well. What with Mr. Carlyle not participating in anything anymore really (PR related–cons,
interviews and such) our best bet would be that he’s just… doing the least he’s
contractually obliged–and probably waiting to hightail, the first chance he gets–onto a project that will use all of his talents and writers who would appreciate them? Also, narrative-wise, it is not like he’s had the healthiest of
relationships with Belle anyway, nor their story had any consistency or sense (also, they don’t seem to give enough of a rat’s ass about Rumbelle fans to give them something better, something they deserved for being there since the early beginning–they’re way too minor/irrelevant for them?) and she can fly solo anyway (hell, she did–with that
fleeting whatshisname comic-relief-wannabe character?) as Storybrooke gang only needs someone knowledgeable enough to (sarcasm alert)
read books, anyway?
So, yes. If someone leaves… it’d be Rumple. And I’d
personally hate it (and will be very angry because as seen above, I used
to love him) because I do believe that the character 75% of us (minus Tweens,
Twimoms, Kitsis and his boner) would want to see gone–would ONLY be Killian Jones.
Namely because, if he was meant to be
what he is today (a romantic antihero of sorts, rising up to the role of being ‘the one’ for the Saviour–struggling to be worthy of her and all that crap, as unoriginal as it is) they’ve done a HORRIBLE job of developing and justifying it. And as a result, Emma Swan as we knew and loved–got sacrificed at the
altar of… Kitsis’ misogynist boner. Which I’ve now mentioned half dozen
times, and am feeling the need to wash myself with antibacterial soap. Because, ew.
And I think the ‘article’ said nine regulars, but if I can’t for the life of me think who the other two are–which means they’re as useful as the 🌲-dude was (which speaking of, good riddance) so… there’s that. I hope I answered your question satisfyingly?
PS. In the end–a general disclaimer of sorts, seeing that as far as
we know this ‘spoiler’ was encouraged by those who’d be happy to see JMo jump
ship (not for her own sake, but because they’d actually want her gone) and which instigated that fugly JMo vs. Lana skirmish. So, allow me to
emphasize: NONE of us here in any way condone pitting actresses against each
other, or assumptions of what some
celebrity is like privately (from amateur-psych analyses that compare said actresses’
behaviour, affinities and personalities, to assuming what they personally like
and/or support) as means of, not explaining their support of their fanbase (or
lack of whereof) but immature squabbles about whose fave is superior. We won’t
touch those ‘discussions’ with a ten-foot pole, okay? *nods* Okay. Thank you. Now back to our regularly scheduled programming. :)
i think the most heartbreaking part of this whole thing is that 10k stopped counting. this thing, this name he chose for himself, this goal he gave himself, has been taken away. he might never get to ten thousand because he loses himself in the process.
Please theres is a tomb in hell for you antis please use them and leave the rest of the fandom alone . your the reason people can't feel safe not even the creators . One day your bullying will land you in jail. You think your opinion matters more and it doesn't matter that you bullied someone till they sucide ? it's still murder and they will find you and you will pay .
Sorry, anon. If hell exists, there is already a well reserved spot for me. Making fun of people for making things i and 750 other people find cringy wont make a difference.
Phone call. A6, 2016.
I was sent to work a bookies in St John’s Wood a Friday the early shift. There’s nothing much to say about it. Nice buildings. Clean street. Witch burning. Nobody has any manners there though.
Benefit: You gain both the Dual Identity and Seamless Guise class features of the Vigilante as well as the Transformation Sequence ability of the Magical Child. At 7th level, you gain the Quick Change Social Talent; at 13th level, you also gain the Immediate Change Social Talent.
While you are in your social identity, you are always considered to be suppressing your Overflow; you cannot use kinetic blast wild talents or utility wild talents nor accept Burn. All ongoing effects from any of your utility wild talents (see Designer’s Note, below) are likewise suppressed while in your social identity; these resume instantly (as a free action) when you enter your vigilante identity.
In addition, you cannot activate any supernatural abilities granted by the Ghost Rider class archetype while in your social identity.
When you enter your vigilante identity, you automatically summon your phantom steed just as if you had already performed the required one-minute ritual as part of your transformation.
While in your social identity, you may accept one point of Burn
as a free action to increase the speed of your transformation between
identities by one step; thus, if you were a character of 7th level,
you could accept one point of Burn to change identities as a swift action. You may always choose to accept Burn in this way, even though you are still within your social identity when the ability is activated.
While you are in your social identity, whenever you fail a saving throw or an attack roll you must succeed at a Will
save (DC = 10 + ½ your character level) or begin to enter your
vigilante identity against your will. The difficulty of this save
decreases by one each minute, but increases by an
additional +1 for each previous failed attack roll or failed saving
Once you have assumed your vigilante identity, you may return to your social identity at any time after one full round has passed, requiring the appropriate expenditure of time or effort; entering your vigilante identity always resets the Will save, above.
During the day, while observed & outnumbered 3-to-1 (or worse), you always gain a +4 bonus on all Will
saves to avoid entering your vigilante identity. At night, while you are alone or with a group of fewer than four people, you instead suffer a -4 penalty on all Will
saves to avoid entering your vigilante identity.
The special phantom steed summoned by your Ghost Mount ability may appear as a burning, hellish horse or as a flame-shrouded motorcycle, as you choose. Your steed is treated as a construct for the purposes of a ranger’s favored enemy, for bane weapons, for spells such as make whole and for all similar effects, although it does not gain the normal immunities or traits of a true construct.
During any round in which you use a kinetic blast, you may accept one additional point of Burn to use your Frightful Gaze upon one target of your attack as a swift action.
You draw energy and elemental matter from Hell, rather than from the Ethereal Plane (see Designer’s Note, below). You may never gain the Reverse Shift utility wild talent, and this differentiation may impose
additional limitations and effects upon your abilities at your GM’s discretion. Further, you have fully indebted your soul to some infernal patron (see Special, below); when you die, your soul is immediately and
ever-after consigned to their personal realm; any attempt to return you to life
has a great chance of failure. You must make a DC 25 Bluff or
Diplomacy check (your choice) to return to the living if called by a
spell or other magical effect.
Special: Because this ability cannot be gained at character creation, it is primarily intended for campaigns that begin play at 2nd level or higher.
However – with her GM’s explicit permission – a PC intending to utilize this character-concept might choose (at first level) to start the game as a standard caviler, with the intention to fully “re-train” herself upon gaining kineticist levels: perhaps selecting her own now-deceased steed as her new Ghost Mount and those who injured or hampered her as the primary targets of her vengeance.
In addition, it is highly recommended that a character with this Trait possess cool in-game reasoning for her abilities; she may, for example, be blessed by Eiseth, the Angel of Hell, Queen of Revenge & Wrath … tasked, primarily, with the return of escaped souls to the prisons of Dis, yet otherwise free to mete out punishment to mortals, demons, unquiet spirits and devils alike as she sees fit.
Designer’s Note: This ability is often gained in-conjunction with the Flame Shield & Heat Adaptation utility wild talents; it is also known to be used by those who gain Void as their Expanded Element.
In addition, those who gain this Trait – useful, as it is, only for very strange & specific, multiple-ability-dependent dual-class characters – often “buy off” the cost by selecting a Drawback such as Umbral Unmasking: according to legend, the fell shadow of the Rider always reveals both her inhuman power and her infernal “true form”.
This website uses trademarks and/or copyrights owned by Paizo Inc.,
which are used under Paizo’s Community Use Policy. We are expressly
prohibited from charging you to use or access this content. This website
is not published, endorsed, or specifically approved by Paizo Inc. For
more information about Paizo’s Community Use Policy, please visit paizo.com/communityuse. For more information about Paizo Inc. and Paizo products, please visit paizo.com.
I am no longer made for the hope and innocence of springtime buds and doves.
Torn from his arms I walk this stifling world of light and heat above.
How this open silence without whispers, without his voice, cuts me; I feel closed and rough.
And I scream at every rose - do they not see the queen of chaos Hades loves?
All I see before my eyes are his eyes - the deepest green like summer grass.
All I cannot feel around my arms are his arms as I wander the lonely grass.
And long for the comfort - nay, the solace - of my hell, my husband.
Let me continue my thoughts about how to deal with Fundamentalists and Evangelicals regarding salvation. As I noted in my previous blog post,
Romans 10:9 seems to say the mere acceptance of Jesus as Lord and
Savior is sufficient to assure your salvation. If the verse is taken in
isolation, this interpretation looks plausible; but it isn’t the only
possible interpretation, and it doesn’t square with other things in the
In Romans 10:9 Paul could very well have included an implied
condition in what he was saying (and in fact this is the Catholic
position): You will be saved provided you otherwise do what God
commands, such as avoid sin. This interpretation comports better with
other passages in Romans, passages in which Paul writes against the
notion of an absolute assurance of salvation.
Who hopes for what one possesses?
Look at Romans 5:2, and compare it to Romans 8:24. The first verse
reads this way, in the Msgr. Ronald Knox translation: “We are confident
in the hope of attaining glory as the sons of God”—that is, we hope we
will get to heaven. Romans 8:24 says, “Our salvation is founded upon the
hope of something. Hope would not be hope if its object were in view.”
In other words, you don’t hope for something if its attainment is
already assured. If you are absolutely sure of salvation, there is no
reason to hope for it.
Paul is saying Christians hope for salvation, and that means even
Christians might lose salvation. Only if we understand this can we make
sense of 1 Corinthians 9:27: “I buffet my body and make it my slave; or
I, who have preached to others, may myself be rejected as worthless.”
Who, in all of Christian history, has a better claim than Paul to
being a born-again Christian? How many others have had a Damascus Road
experience? But even Paul knew that he would forfeit his salvation if he
let his passions take control of him.
Elsewhere he notes that our final state, of everlasting bliss or endless night, will be a consequence of our works:
He will award to every man what his acts
have deserved; eternal life to those who have striven for glory, and
honor, and immortality, by perseverance in doing good; the retribution
of his anger to those who are contumacious, rebelling against truth and
paying homage to wickedness (Rom. 2:6).
The goats too are Christians
In this Paul is only echoing Jesus. In Matthew 25 our Lord relates
the parable of the sheep and the goats. Many people forget that even the
goats are Christians—after all, Jesus is talking here about the kingdom
which is the Church on Earth—but they are Christians who end up in
hell. Why? Because, when given the opportunity and means to do so, they
failed to feed the hungry, house the homeless, visit the imprisoned—that
is, they sinned through omission.
This chapter can be used with devastating effect when speaking with
Evangelicals and Fundamentalists. The key is to have them see that both
the sheep and the goats are Christians—the sheep those who have acted in
charity, the goats those who have acted against charity. If even the
goats are Christians, and if they end up damned, then there can be no
absolute assurance of salvation.
Contradiction only apparent
How will the “Bible Christian” respond to the Catholic who brings up
such verses? Usually he will dodge to Ephesians 2:8: “It is by grace you
have been saved, through faith; not by anything of your own, but by a
gift from God; not by anything you have done, so that nobody can claim
And what, more likely than not, will the knowledgeable Catholic say
in reply? He will quote James 2:24: “You see then how it is by works a
man is justified, and not by faith only.”
These verses seem contradictory, and each side will take refuge in
its favorite. But the contradiction is only apparent, not real. Paul and
James use the word faith differently. Paul means a faith that
works in charity, that includes charitable works. James is writing
against people who use faith in the narrow intellectual sense. In fact,
he is writing against first-century “Bible Christians” who said all one
need do is accept Jesus as personal Lord and Savior.
They said an intellectual acceptance is sufficient for
justification—for being made righteous in God’s sight. (You must be
justified to be saved.) Not so, replied James. After all, “The devils
also believe, and tremble” (James 2:19). Lucifer, with a perfectly lucid
intellect, knows what the truth is, but he opposes it. Mere knowledge
is not enough, and bare, intellectual faith is not enough. But faith
that works in charity is.
We agree: salvation isn’t earned
Evangelicals and Fundamentalists have been told the Catholic Church
claims salvation is earned, and they desperately want to avoid
succumbing to what they believe to be the Catholic position—that we are
saved by being religious busybodies.
In this their instincts are right, but their understanding is wrong,
because that’s not the Catholic position. We can summarize authentic
Catholic teaching this way: Salvation is a free gift from God. It is
wholly gratuitous. But, like any gift, it can be rejected, and it can be
rejected even after it has once been accepted, the rejection coming
through serious (mortal) sin.
We don’t earn salvation, but we do earn damnation: Remember, “The
wages of sin is death” (Rom. 6:23). And what are wages? What we earn.
So how should we talk about salvation with Fundamentalists and
Evangelicals? Exchanging verses should not come first. If that’s how we
begin the discussion, the discussion is likely to end in a muddle. First
we must explain, slowly and repeatedly if necessary, that “Bible
Christians” misunderstand the Catholic position and that many Catholics
(including those from whom the “Bible Christians” received their notions
of Catholicism) also misunderstand it.
Then we state the position, and we must be clear about the role of
good works: Performing good works keeps us from falling into evil works.
Put another way, the more we increase in holiness, the less likely we
will be to sin.
When a “Bible Christian” asks, “Are you saved?” here’s how to answer:
“I will be saved—get to heaven—so long as I am in the state of grace.
And I have a lively confidence that I will be saved, but not an absolute
assurance, since that would be contrary to the Bible’s teaching. My
salvation comes through faith in Christ, and it’s protected by good
works, which keep me from those sins that can destroy grace in my soul.”
Dante’s Hell is structurally based on the ideas of Aristotle, but with “certain Christian symbolisms, exceptions, and misconstructions of Aristotle’s text.” Dante’s three major categories of sin, as symbolized by the three beasts that Dante encounters in Canto I, are Incontinence, Violence and Bestiality, and Fraud and Malice. Sinners punished for incontinence – the lustful, the gluttonous, the hoarders and wasters, and the wrathful and sullen – all demonstrated weakness in controlling their appetites, desires, and natural urges; according to Aristotle’s Ethics, incontinence is less condemnable than malice or bestiality, and therefore these sinners are located in four circles of Upper Hell (Circles 2-5). These sinners endure lesser torments than do those consigned to Lower Hell, located within the walls of the City of Dis, for committing acts of violence and fraud – the latter of which involves, as Dorothy L. Sayers writes, “abuse of the specifically human faculty of reason”. The deeper levels are organized into one circle for violence (Circle 7) and two circles for fraud (Circles 8 and 9). As a Christian, Dante adds Circle 1 (Limbo) to Upper Hell and Circle 6 (Heresy) to Lower Hell, making 9 Circles in total; incorporating the Vestibule of the Futile, this leads to Hell containing 10 main divisions. This “9+1=10” structure is also found within the Purgatorio and Paradiso. Lower Hell is further subdivided: Circle 7 (Violence) is divided into three rings, Circle 8 (Simple Fraud) is divided into ten bolgia, and Circle 9 (Complex Fraud) is divided into four regions. Thus, Hell contains, in total, 24 divisions.