# NOTE. Subject maintains low public profile; prefers independent research outside mainstream institutional frameworks. Known for a strong ethical stance that has caused professional divergence within scientific community.

Dr. Elizabeth M. Thorne.

I met Ravielle when he was barely twenty, already difficult to understand and twice as difficult to ignore. He was... sharp. Not the kind that cuts, but the kind that makes you realize you've been sleepwalking for decades. He asked questions that made people nervous. He once said, “If a child suffers because of what we call discovery, then perhaps it is discovery itself that needs dismantling.”At first, we dismissed him as naive. Later, we feared him.
In the end, I believe we failed him.He refused to compromise on the question of consent in experimental augmentation, especially when it involved minors or designed cognition. He wasn't loud, but he was persistent. And he was right more often than we wanted to admit. His notes were meticulous, his logic brutal, and his kindness tragically underappreciated.When the Incident happened we were all too quick to distance ourselves. The committee threw around words like liability, noncompliance, and instability. But none of us could stomach the real word we needed to use: conscience.

Prof. Helena Grant.

Having observed Dr. Ravielle Lysantheris Witherbloom’s career from its early stages, I can attest to his unwavering commitment to ethical research, which, while admirable, has often placed him at odds with the pragmatic demands of scientific advancement.Ravi’s strict refusal to engage in human trials reflects a principled stance that many respect but few dare to uphold so rigorously. However, this idealism, admirable as it is, has at times limited his ability to deliver timely results, leading to professional isolation.While I hold great respect for his integrity and dedication, I also recognize that science requires balance between caution and innovation, idealism and practicality. Dr. Witherbloom’s journey remains a poignant example of the complexities faced by those who navigate these competing demands.

Prof. Emeritus G. Reide.

Ravielle Lysantheris Witherbloom.That name resurfaced during last week’s cutting-edge ethics symposium. Naturally, I feigned disinterest. But really—who could forget the boy who once silenced an entire hall of senior scientists with one absurd (and painfully accurate) question?"And if they cannot give consent because we engineered their consciousness, who’s truly being manipulated?"We laughed, of course. A fresh graduate, lecturing us about moral boundaries? The audacity.And yet, not long after, everyone began mimicking his speech patterns. His research methods. Even his silences. He never sought validation and that made him dangerous. No one quite knows why he left. Some say he resigned; others whisper he was pushed out. But I suspect he left because we were never the right institution for a mind like his.Now he’s some urban legend in scientific circles. They say he lives somewhere remote, perhaps in a lighthouse, cultivating healing flora and rereading old lab notebooks over cups of herbal tea—like a retired wizard.True or not, I cannot deny one thing: I wish I had his spine.And if you’re reading this, Witherbloom—know that, though I never told you then—you were right. And we were all too afraid to follow you.

Dr. Victor Crane.

The self-proclaimed guardian of “ethical science,” has always been more concerned with moral grandstanding than actual progress. His obstinate refusal to utilize human trials isn’t a noble stand—it’s a convenient excuse to avoid the messy realities that real research demands.Watching him cling to his lofty ideals while the world moved on was almost tragicomic. His brand of “science” feels less like innovation and more like paralysis dressed up in a white lab coat.Our paths diverged because I believe in pushing boundaries; he believes in drawing lines, frankly, hold us back. If hesitation were a virtue, Ravi would be a saint. But in the ruthless pursuit of discovery, saints rarely make history.

SIDE STORY Mom, Can we go outside?The pale room breathes quietly beneath a ceiling fan’s gentle hum. Nestled beneath a blanket patterned with stars, a small figure lay still—fragile, as if made of dreams and dust. His slender fingers, faintly trembling, toyed with the fraying edge of the quilt, tracing invisible constellations into the fabric as though trying to name the sky.Sunlight spilled softly through the window, painting warm stripes on the floor, inching closer with the slow patience of time itself. By the bedside sat another figure—calm, composed. Her hair, soft and white like moonlight, framed a face etched with quiet strength and enduring tenderness.
No words stirred in the quiet for a long moment. Then, a voice as soft as a breeze barely broke the stillness. “Mom, can we go outside?” The question floats, a delicate thread reaching out.The shawl draped around the elder figure shifted as they leaned closer. A warm hand reached out and rested gently over the child’s.A smile, barely there, touched her lips. “We will,” came the whisper. “When the sky remembers kindness.”A faint breath escaped. His gaze drifted toward the silver strands that shimmered faintly in the light. Those strands more than anything, spoke of promises kept, of mornings endured, of love wrapped in silence.And in that quiet room, wrapped in the soft cocoon of care and gentle promises, a fragile soul found strength in waiting—for the moment the world would open again.

Mom, Can we go outiside?

Ravielle

SIDE STORY RavielleThe study was steeped in silence. A single lamp cast its warm amber glow across a sea of scattered parchment, each page inscribed with names — some ancient, some drawn from memory, others plucked from distant languages and forgotten stories. The man sat motionless, his fingers lightly brushing the edges of the paper, as if through touch alone he might grasp the essence that words failed to capture.As a private consultant, his life revolved around logic, precision, and cold analysis. Yet this simple task unsettled him more than any complex problem he had ever faced.The room remained quiet except for the soft scratch of his pen. He wrote names in neat script, then crossed them out—mechanical acts laden with unspoken tension.Maple’s voice echoed faintly in his memory — a flicker of warmth he seldom allowed himself to dwell upon. She had said once, almost laughing, “It’s not should to be perfect. It’s the child who will give it meaning.” He recalled the gentle warmth in her eyes, a lightness he often struggled to summon for himself.But for him, the task was a quiet torment. Names, he knew, carried histories and expectations, power and poetry. And none seemed to fit what he wished for this child — still only a promise within Maple’s womb.Alaric. The name echoed — strong, commanding, regal. Yet when he imagined speaking it aloud, it felt like a weight pressing down, too heavy for an infant’s first breath. His lips curled in a subtle shake of his head, dismissing it like a worn garment that no longer fit.Lucien. A gentle light, soft and flickering. He allowed a faint smile, appreciating its delicacy, but quickly pushed it aside. It seemed fragile, a brightness too easily dimmed by the world’s harsh edges.Darian. Protector, gift, noble — the sound rolled through his mind like a distant song, beautiful yet removed, as if belonging to someone else’s story, not theirs. His fingers tapped a quiet rhythm on the desk, unsettled.The night deepened; the room was wrapped in silence save for the faint scratch of his pen against paper. His thoughts spiraled between hope and reason, between the cold certainty he sought and the warmth he was reluctant to admit he needed.In that stillness, a quiet truth emerged — the name itself did not hold power. It was belief, pure and steadfast, that would breathe life into the letters and carry the child through all that was yet to come.“Well..., who cares, anyway? Any name doesn’t matter,” he said quietly. “As the father. I just need to believe him.”The pen hovered over a blank page, no longer hesitant. Letters formed deliberately, slowly — carrying no grand history or profound etymology, only a sound that felt like possibility itself.Ravielle.

original.
film.
television.
comics.
video games.

NAME fandom / theme, pro/nouns, age. faceclaim : faceclaim. put a description here, bud. sorry for my new garden hyperfixation btw. NAME fandom / theme, pro/nouns, age. faceclaim : faceclaim. put a description here, bud. sorry for my new garden hyperfixation btw. NAME fandom / theme, pro/nouns, age. faceclaim : faceclaim. put a description here, bud. sorry for my new garden hyperfixation btw. NAME fandom / theme, pro/nouns, age. faceclaim : faceclaim. put a description here, bud. sorry for my new garden hyperfixation btw. NAME fandom / theme, pro/nouns, age. faceclaim : faceclaim. put a description here, bud. sorry for my new garden hyperfixation btw.

original.
film.
television.
comics.
video games.