I see it exactly the same way. Shadowheart gives me the most problems (e.g. What is the role of Shar in the story?, How is Shadowheart related to K. Thorm?, What is the weapon from and for?), at the same time she is the one who is physically the most attractive to me and surely will be in the party if it really closes after Act 1. I'm already worried what would happen if I had to do serious story decisions later on. Maybe a cute male halfelf companion comes along in Act 2 and offers an alternative.
Aha! Well, thank you for finally saying it.
Let's all at least be honest, that the only reason people *want* to like SH and to *desperately* try to make her be "good"/to "redeem" her, is because she is attractive and she gets to bat those eyelashes at you. To me, Lae'zel is by far the more legitimate companion for receiving the benefit of the doubt or for "redemption" by the PC, and yet nobody cares about any of that with her. Why? Because she is not cute like SH (same argument can be made about Astarion).
Tbh, I do like Shadowheart the most, but that is because I just like her personality the most. That said, I do actually think, that Lae'zel is the most honest with us, so props for that. But I think, she will betray us for Githyanki stuff any day, I think the same might happen with Shadow and Sharrans, which is the reason, I said, I don't Trust any of them, the three guys included.
"We are all stories in the end. Just make it a good one."
2) Luke throws away his light saber and acknowledges Vader as a Jedi and as his father.
Redemption for Darth Vader? Vader? The guy chokes people to death when they annoy him. He cut off the hand of his child. Hell, he dresses in black and his face looks like a skull. He's evil!
But the redemption story was so satisfying.
Well ... it was, when we were kids ... Question is: Is it still?
Bcs honestly, to me, its not ... The only thing Vader did was that he killed the Emperor (except he didnt as we know now) ... wich he was supposed to do anyway. But since he didnt do it for power, but with "noble goal" to save his son (person he felt personally attachet to) ... decades of all sort of evil deeds are supposed to be erased like none of those ever happened?
We cant even say that he sacrificed for Luke ... he simply tryed to save him and it backfired horribly ... i mean, yes it resulted in his death, but i doubt that was intentional.
Fun part is that we dont really know what he would do if Emperor wouldnt inflict tose mortal wounds: Maybe he would leave with Luke help him rebuild Jedi order and spend rest of his life teaching young students about dangerous temptations of the Dark Side ... Maybe he would leave with Luke ... but keep tempting him with Dark Side for the rest of his life ... Maybe he would sieze the opourtunity that Emperor just weakened Luke, kill him right there and finaly proove that he actually is a Dark Lord ... Maybe he would just stay there to rule, but let Luke escape ... And maybe something entirely different.
The situation, when you think about it, would allow him all and many more ... maybe he wasnt redeemed at all ... maybe he was just dying man, who finaly realized that he is done and any potential achievment seemed meaningless in that light, and so he instead decided to enjoy what was left for him. Just a thought
Its funny how things get different perspectives as we grow older ... i used to chher for Luke when he blow the Death Star ... now i realize there was thousands innocent engineers, programators, soldiers, officials, janitors or cantina workers ... just doing their jobs. Basicaly, Luke is a terrorist!
Last edited by RagnarokCzD; 07/03/2309:14 AM.
I still dont understand why cant we change Race for our hirelings. Lets us play Githyanki as racist as they trully are!
I'll take articulate as a compliment... not sure about formidable though... regardless, I hope no-one ever feels like they shouldn't disagree with me, or that I'm trying to intimidate anyone from doing so... eek!
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
Gale's delivery is manipulative. [...] He's using the foot in the door strategy
I don't agree with that interpretation of what he does and says - I feel that that is a very prejudiced read of his actions from a perspective that has already decided - in advance - that they didn't like the kind of person that the speaker has already decided that he is.
If I recall, he doesn't say that he can trust you, or that he knows he can trust you - he says that he feels like he can, and as with his personality type (which I'm well acquainted with and share many elements of), expresses that with backed-up reasoning; the merits and actions that he's personally put value on. Yes, he attempts to extract a promise first, and that's not 'nice' - not at all! - but nice and good aren't synonyms, and it is pragmatic for a very serious issue, when he has noted that you are a person who treats keeping promise as important.
The act of trust is his telling you, and trusting that you will not act poorly with that information; if he has misjudged the situation, and you will not keep his confidence and refrain from freaking out, that could go pretty badly for him. The promise is a security blanket - for him - because it means nothing, has no value anyway and will do nothing if he's wrong about whether to trust you with his dilemma or not anyway.
Would it be better if your refusal to promise could lead to dialogue that could in turn resolve with him caving in and confiding in you anyway? Yes, absolutely! But given the issue at hand, and his academic pragmatism, it's not a sign of disingenuous behaviour or intention. Foot-in-the-door is defined by escalation, and Gale does not escalate. What he has to tell you is legitimate, and he lays out the cards of what he needs up front once he does reveal it - he doesn't ask you for anything tangible Before telling you the details either - he spells it out first, and tells you what he will need, as soon as you're able to provide it. This need doesn't change from the initial description and is not escalated at any point. It is exactly as he describes it to you, and remains that way.
He doesn't start by saying that he just needs one, and then later shift into just one more, and then just that big one... Up front he says he needs to do this regularly, but the stronger the better, and if you DO give him a strong item, he tells you that he believes that should keep him stable until you reach BG - and lo and behold, he never asks for or has any opportunity to offer or accept another one from that point on.
I feel that Gale is not, in fact, 'like' the kind of guy you hate - you're just choosing to see those traits where they aren't really present. Or perhaps I'm not seeing those traits as clearly because his personality type is one that I am drawn to and appreciative of. I'm willing to entertain either as being a possibility, but, biased as it may be, I feel my footing is more backed up than yours.
Quote
Note that one of the few ways you can rid your party of the Gale virus once you catch it is to use the tadpole. If you use the tadpole and get caught and/or admit it he leaves the party. He'd rather leave than be found out.
This might be a hot take, but... If I had an associate who tried to read my thoughts at one point, and I strongly and clearly told them that that was not okay, and not to do that... and they later, when I showed them some trust, violated that request of mine and accessed my inner thoughts and memories against my will... I 100% would absolutely distance myself from them and want no further contact with that individual; if they will not leave, then I will. No thanks, deal broken, I'm out. Do I hold it against any other character for reacting in the same way? No I don't.
I'll also point out that none of the thoughts and memories we can pry into and gain extra gleanings of in any way contradict or run against what he openly tells us - if anything they confirm that he's being honest about what he did and why, and that it's a point of on-going shame and regret for him... in contrast to the way our insights show things of others that they actively try to deny (*cough* Wyll).
The tools I'm referring to here are the interface and structure by which the game lets us determine if a character is being deceptive towards us - they are not firing in any of the cases where Gale talks about his motives and desires to us, ergo, unless Larian is abjectly cheating to cover their lazy story-telling, he's on the level with us, completely. If you think he isn't, then you think that he is being allowed to deceive us without procing any checks and without our characters being allowed to determine that he is being deceptive in any way... and why is that okay, here, when everywhere else, we have functional tools for determining such things? It's not about player characters and companions - we get insight checks to call Wyll's bullshit in many places; Gale does not proc any, even when we might have every reason to doubt or be incredulous.
wyll is NO 1 that i don't trust. wyll is a "contradictions".
astarion is NO 2 that i don't trust. astarion will betray you easy, he can be lured by too many things.
gale is NO 3. gale seems a good man, but the active of gale absorbing the "shard of dark magic" is suspicious. mystra is sick about netheril, what is the reason gale sees the action is for love?? isn't gale's action an enemy to mystra?
Here's my two cents on Gale. I definitely think he's being on some level manipulative. There are just moments when his manner and approach feel... less than genuine. Moments when it feels like his interactions with us are especially considered and curated to get the reaction he wants. I also think that he's still holding something back about the whole Mystra/orb situation. I don't think he's lied about anything he's told us, but I think there's still some details that have yet to be revealed that maybe paint him in a less than charming light. That having been said, I still think he's ultimately trustworthy. I think that any manipulation he's engaging in is ultimately in service to dealing with the orb, an existential threat that could kill not just him but everyone for miles around. Which I think is fair and reasonable. The threat it poses is big enough that I'm not going to fault him for putting a bit of extra effort into ensuring he has help dealing with it.
So yeah that's my thought on Gale: Manipulative? A little bit, non-maliciously so.
Astarion meanwhile? Definitely not trustworthy, will very likely betray us if it benefits him.
Shadowheart? I think she'd be willing to betray us as well, though less likely than Astarion. Astarion I feel would betray us for a broad scope of reasons while SH is more focused on her mission so unless her mission calls for it, we're probably fine.
Wyll? I think he'd betray us too, if he doesn't undergo character development. I think at this point in Act1, he could betray us if the situation was dire enough and he felt desperate enough, though he'd definitely feel bad about it. I think Wyll definitely wants to be a good person and with support he can be. You see it in his interaction with the tieflings. He doesn't have to help them at all, they clearly don't have much to offer him in pursuit of his goals. Yet he's there anyway. His goals aren't purely selfless, but they aren't purely selfish either. I get the sense that in all his time as blade of frontiers, he wasn't afforded the opportunity to really build close, intimate bonds of trust, since he had to keep being a Warlock under wraps. Which means that Mizora, the cambion who's goal is to corrupt him is the only intimate relationship he has, the only person who knows all about him and who he can open up to, which can't lead to anything good. Having other people know his secret and thus, allow him to open up to them could be exactly what he needs.
Lae'Zel? I don't think she'd betray us in the sense that for betrayal to happen that implies deception at play. From the beginning she lays out her priorities crystal clearly. She's incredibly trustworthy in the sense that if you listen to her at all, then it won't come as a surprise if she tries to kill you, you'll probably be able to figure out why pretty quickly.
Shadowheart? I think she'd be willing to betray us as well, though less likely than Astarion. Astarion I feel would betray us for a broad scope of reasons while SH is more focused on her mission so unless her mission calls for it, we're probably fine.
i think you overestimate shadowheart's faith to shar.
player character -- "do you worry abut helping tiefling that violate shar's teaching?" shadowheart -- "yes, i do worry about it perhaps, but let us put aside it now, i can repent it later." shadowheart -- "let's focus on the celebration."
acturally, i think shadowheart isn't like a shar's believer, because she is not like a "evil neutral" one from the plot of early access stage, shadowheart is like a "neutral chaos" mix a bit evil.
Here's my two cents on Gale. I definitely think he's being on some level manipulative. There are just moments when his manner and approach feel... less than genuine. Moments when it feels like his interactions with us are especially considered and curated to get the reaction he wants. I also think that he's still holding something back about the whole Mystra/orb situation. I don't think he's lied about anything he's told us, but I think there's still some details that have yet to be revealed that maybe paint him in a less than charming light. That having been said, I still think he's ultimately trustworthy. I think that any manipulation he's engaging in is ultimately in service to dealing with the orb, an existential threat that could kill not just him but everyone for miles around. Which I think is fair and reasonable. The threat it poses is big enough that I'm not going to fault him for putting a bit of extra effort into ensuring he has help dealing with it.
So yeah that's my thought on Gale: Manipulative? A little bit, non-maliciously so.
but you haven't explain what is the active of gale absorbing the "shard of dark magic" .
gale claims this is "for love mystra", but why a potential big threat can be seen love??
@Niara - personally I have little against behaviour and actions of Wyll and Gale in the content we have, but I don't trust their motivations in the long run.
They are both in a pickle and we are useful allies to them (and they are too us). But they haven't proven themselves as individuals with... good morals? I am rather fuzzy on Gale's backstory - I triggered it only once.
What I am not convinced about is if either of them would not sell us out of it benefited them. That's also why I see them (and Dhadowheart) as more compelling companions of the bunch, as I want to learn more of their character. But I wouldn't say I trust any of them. Not the way I trusted Minsc or Aerie. Or even evil characters as Edwin and the dwarf as they seemed to be reliably on my side as long as they get paid.
Here's my two cents on Gale. I definitely think he's being on some level manipulative. There are just moments when his manner and approach feel... less than genuine. Moments when it feels like his interactions with us are especially considered and curated to get the reaction he wants. I also think that he's still holding something back about the whole Mystra/orb situation. I don't think he's lied about anything he's told us, but I think there's still some details that have yet to be revealed that maybe paint him in a less than charming light. That having been said, I still think he's ultimately trustworthy. I think that any manipulation he's engaging in is ultimately in service to dealing with the orb, an existential threat that could kill not just him but everyone for miles around. Which I think is fair and reasonable. The threat it poses is big enough that I'm not going to fault him for putting a bit of extra effort into ensuring he has help dealing with it.
So yeah that's my thought on Gale: Manipulative? A little bit, non-maliciously so.
but you haven't explain what is the active of gale absorbing the "shard of dark magic" .
gale claims this is "for love mystra", but why a potential big threat can be seen love??
I'm not sure I understand the lore well enough to really say. Gale explained that he wanted to return it to her, and that absorbing it was never his intent. From what he explained about how the shadow weave worked and what it was, that intent seems to check out. My understanding of it is that the fragment of shadow weave was basically normal weave 'stolen' from her and corrupted/altered, so Gale's intent was to return it to Mystra so she could change it back. I didn't think that the shadow weave itself was harmful to her so much as the way it was created and used harmed her. But my understanding is hardly complete, like I said.
As for your shadowheart point, maybe. But there's a difference between bending some doctrines in an awkward situation and abandoning the mission that your allies already died to complete with you.
Originally Posted by Wormerine
@Niara - personally I have little against behaviour and actions of Wyll and Gale in the content we have, but I don't trust their motivations in the long run.
They are both in a pickle and we are useful allies to them (and they are too us). But they haven't proven themselves as individuals with... good morals? I am rather fuzzy on Gale's backstory - I triggered it only once.
What I am not convinced about is if either of them would not sell us out of it benefited them. That's also why I see them (and Dhadowheart) as more compelling companions of the bunch, as I want to learn more of their character. But I wouldn't say I trust any of them. Not the way I trusted Minsc or Aerie. Or even evil characters as Edwin and the dwarf as they seemed to be reliably on my side as long as they get paid.
I think there's more chance of Wyll doing that than Gale honestly. In terms of backstory, we don't actually get a lot from him to infer about his moral reliability. At best we know that he made a very dumb decision because he was heartbroken. But I do think that Gale values us as a person. If he did sell us out it would be a 'needs of the many' situation, since we know what kind of a threat the orb poses if it detonates. Wyll meanwhile, far less reliable even than that.
I'm not sure I understand the lore well enough to really say. Gale explained that he wanted to return it to her, and that absorbing it was never his intent. From what he explained about how the shadow weave worked and what it was, that intent seems to check out. My understanding of it is that the fragment of shadow weave was basically normal weave 'stolen' from her and corrupted/altered, so Gale's intent was to return it to Mystra so she could change it back. I didn't think that the shadow weave itself was harmful to her so much as the way it was created and used harmed her. But my understanding is hardly complete, like I said.
i think absorbing the shard is gale's intent.
because i used to have the dialog with gale -- "Mortals should not attempt of becoming a god." gale replies -- "we sholdn't worship a god blindly, we try a way to be close them , isn't a wrong thing."
this proves that absorbing the shard is gale's intent.
i tell gale, we shouldn't pursue the power that we can not master. but gale's answer is that -- "why not? if i have the chance i would like to be a god-like being."
if you say gale want to return it to her. i think gale means that i have bound with the shard, and mystra should favor me again. but mystra's choice is that -- give up gale. i suppose the issue could be that "who gives the shard to gale".
wyll is NO 1 that i don't trust. wyll is a "contradictions".
astarion is NO 2 that i don't trust. astarion will betray you easy, he can be lured by too many things.
gale is NO 3. gale seems a good man, but the active of gale absorbing the "shard of dark magic" is suspicious. mystra is sick about netheril, what is the reason gale sees the action is for love?? isn't gale's action an enemy to mystra?
Reading one of his mirror lines gives some more insight into his motivations:
This essentially proves he does not WANT to return it to Mystra. It is strong evidence he never planned to, either, but not proof.
However, note that even his neutral path is "I want to see my rivals humbled, jealous of the majesty I have become". This also suggests an aspiration to transcend humanity. All in all, I really do suspect Gale was experimenting with strong magic until it backfired on him
I am shook. First the Red Queen is green, now she is blue!
Yes, I have now been upgraded to global moderator status, so I’ll receive any post reports directly and be able to update user permissions without having to rely on vometia and The Composer. But the less I have to use my new powers the happier I’ll be .
Let's all at least be honest, that the only reason people *want* to like SH and to *desperately* try to make her be "good"/to "redeem" her, is because she is attractive and she gets to bat those eyelashes at you. To me, Lae'zel is by far the more legitimate companion for receiving the benefit of the doubt or for "redemption" by the PC, and yet nobody cares about any of that with her. Why? Because she is not cute like SH (same argument can be made about Astarion).
Gale's delivery is manipulative. It's in the structure of his 'asks'. He butters you up then he ask for your consent in a manipulative manner. He tells you he trusts you but refuses to divulge more info.
Interesting. I've certainly read the bum notes in the way he goes about trying to engage our cooperation as social awkwardness and anxiety about our reaction rather than manipulation, but I can see how others might take it differently. And given I've said I didn't trust Shadowheart partly because of her flattery, cosying up and conspiratorial manner you've got me thinking about why I'm not getting the same vibes from Gale. Part of it is surely that he's not (as far as we know ) a Sharran, and unlike Shadowheart I don't think he actively tries to stir up distrust against other party members. But I guess it's largely because, once he does open up, I believe him and don't see any obvious point of conflict in what he wants and what I, or my characters that would have him in his party, are likely to want to achieve.
I guess it makes sense that we can read these same characters in very different ways, as presumably they have been designed precisely to be malleable so that they can be developed in different ways as both origin characters and as party members depending on our choices. It wouldn't surprise me to find in the full game that in some playthroughs Gale can be a basically good if somewhat over-ambitious man who made some bad choices for love, and in others can actually be an unscrupulous seeker after power who was trying to equal his goddess rather than win back her affection. I suppose that his character might be more fixed as a companion than a protagonist, but even as the former there's plenty of room for the writers to tweak both his history and choices in the game in response to the player. There's probably no sensible answer to the question of who he, or any of the other companions, really are as that's going to change from game to game.
"You may call it 'nonsense' if you like, but I've heard nonsense, compared with which that would be as sensible as a dictionary!"
Gale's delivery is manipulative. It's in the structure of his 'asks'. He butters you up then he ask for your consent in a manipulative manner. He tells you he trusts you but refuses to divulge more info.
Interesting. I've certainly read the bum notes in the way he goes about trying to engage our cooperation as social awkwardness and anxiety about our reaction rather than manipulation, but I can see how others might take it differently. And given I've said I didn't trust Shadowheart partly because of her flattery, cosying up and conspiratorial manner you've got me thinking about why I'm not getting the same vibes from Gale. Part of it is surely that he's not (as far as we know ) a Sharran, and unlike Shadowheart I don't think he actively tries to stir up distrust against other party members. But I guess it's largely because, once he does open up, I believe him and don't see any obvious point of conflict in what he wants and what I, or my characters that would have him in his party, are likely to want to achieve.
I guess it makes sense that we can read these same characters in very different ways, as presumably they have been designed precisely to be malleable so that they can be developed in different ways as both origin characters and as party members depending on our choices. It wouldn't surprise me to find in the full game that in some playthroughs Gale can be a basically good if somewhat over-ambitious man who made some bad choices for love, and in others can actually be an unscrupulous seeker after power who was trying to equal his goddess rather than win back her affection. I suppose that his character might be more fixed as a companion than a protagonist, but even as the former there's plenty of room for the writers to tweak both his history and choices in the game in response to the player. There's probably no sensible answer to the question of who he, or any of the other companions, really are as that's going to change from game to game.
Totally agree -up to interpretation.
But I do fall into "Gale is not a great person camp"
But I don't know that he is evil, he does leave when you murder the Druid grove, that IS taking a principled stand. Although I don't know why he doesn't stop you while you are doing it.
Gale is impulsive, irresponsible and often looks to others to solve his problems. He will virtue signal you a lot, especially when it comes to the subject of "youthful mistakes" - commentary with Arabella and Mirkon if you need examples - there are others of course.
He then asks you to provide him a powerful and expensive magical artifact and refuses to explain why until later. He basically guilts you into doing this instead of being honest and explaining.
If you fail to do this he goes to Raphael and makes a deal with him. So maybe Lawful Neutral but with ADHD and mild narcissistic tendencies. Nothing a little Welbutrin wouldn't cure.
Apologies to everyone who deserves a response but didn't get one - I'll try to respond in the coming days
Originally Posted by Niara
I'll take articulate as a compliment... not sure about formidable though... regardless, I hope no-one ever feels like they shouldn't disagree with me, or that I'm trying to intimidate anyone from doing so... eek!
Both were intended as compliments. If I'm I going to respond to you I know if I'm going to have make an effort - I'll have to fire up google and do strange things like actually proofread my post before I push the [reveal errors] button.
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
Gale's delivery is manipulative. [...] He's using the foot in the door strategy
Originally Posted by Niara
I don't agree with that interpretation of what he does and says - I feel that that is a very prejudiced read of his actions from a perspective that has already decided - in advance - that they didn't like the kind of person that the speaker has already decided that he is.
There's something to that, Gale put my teeth on edge from the moment I met him, yes. For wizards, the romance begins with a neg. "Yeah gale? Defend yourself against attacks from this mere gust of weave . . " You see Gale as a genial academic, I see him more like the creepy professor who tries to date his students.
I think my interpretation is better supported because I can make my case by referring the things Gale says instead of wishing that the devs would insert dialogues that would support your interpretation. We can agree that a dialogue like this would be better if your interpretation were correct:
Originally Posted by Niara
Would it be better if your refusal to promise could lead to dialogue that could in turn resolve with him caving in and confiding in you anyway? Yes, absolutely!
But don't I consider its absence an oversight. Instead it's true to character.
If you say no he just asks again anyway in a separate dialogue. You eventually learn that he needs artifacts without making any promises - so what was the the purpose of the extracting the promise in the first place? Answer: he wants to make the request in a manner that allows him some degree of control over Tav.
Originally Posted by Niara
Foot-in-the-door is defined by escalation, and Gale does not escalate. What he has to tell you is legitimate, and he lays out the cards of what he needs up front once he does reveal it - he doesn't ask you for anything tangible Before telling you the details either - he spells it out first, and tells you what he will need, as soon as you're able to provide it. This need doesn't change from the initial description and is not escalated at any point. It is exactly as he describes it to you, and remains that way.
I disagree - a classic form of foot in the door is survey research. "will you agree to answer 5 questions"? followed by "will you agree to answer 30 questions" Initially, the interviewer doesn't ask for anything tangible - she just secures increasingly large promises. So securing increasing large promises is indeed a form of escalation.
And his requests do escalate. The promise not ask questions > the promise to deliver artifacts > the delivery of minor artifacts > the delivery of artifacts that cause troubles for the party. You can't just feed Gale a series of small artifacts like the staff of crones and the amulet of Selune - you will eventually need to give him an artifact that impacts the plot. You can give the idol of Silvanus - which will make the grove go hostile if you don't use crate-o-mancy. You can give the Iron Flask (which upsets the Zhents) or the sword of Tyr (which is relevant for reasons I'll mention later). Upsetting the Druids or Zhents is a big ask.
I can't find a video of refusing Gale's ask for the Idol of Silvanus but refusing it's pretty humorous - Something like "I require powerful artifacts and the Idol is one such artifact" "I am not stealing from the Druids" . . . "I wasn't saying steal the idol I'm just saying it's the sort of artifact I need" Right Gale, you just thought you would mention that you needed it and that if you don't get it I'm responsible for multiple deaths and it sure would be nice if it ended up in our backpacks. Gotcha.
Now I did cheat some in last post because I only linked to wiki and not something that would fully the point I was making about the foot in door technique. The foot in door works because each escalating ask represents a threat to self perception. "I just helped Gale, I'm a good person " "he's asking again, if I say no am I no longer a good person"?
Now I didn't send an article like this because doing so on a video game forum this is kinda crazy but here goes - you only need to read the first five paragraphs:
It's the strategy used by NGOs when fundraising. "We're so happy you care about the environment, thanks for signing our petition good climate champion! Can we count on you to support us on a monthly basis so we can continue to do the sort of work you value"? Saying no risks the loss of your climate champion status - do you really care if you can only manage to donate a signature?
Your distinction between saying he does trust you and feels he can trust you is a good one but I fear we still have very different interpretations even with that interpretation in mind - indeed I see the provisional nature of the trust as part of the manipulation.
(unfortunately the forum seems to eliminate embedded time stamps on videos)
Note how quick he is to threaten your self conception as a good person (timestamp 26:17)
And why would you refuse? Because you object to the destruction of the holy artifacts of Tyr, Selune or Silvanus? No! It's because you have been taken by the allure of magical power (timestamp 27:18)
*grumble mumble* stop pulling my strings Gale *grumble*
Originally Posted by Niara
This might be a hot take, but... If I had an associate who tried to read my thoughts at one point, and I strongly and clearly told them that that was not okay, and not to do that... and they later, when I showed them some trust, violated that request of mine and accessed my inner thoughts and memories against my will... I 100% would absolutely distance myself from them and want no further contact with that individual; if they will not leave, then I will. No thanks, deal broken, I'm out. Do I hold it against any other character for reacting in the same way? No I don't.
No question. As would I. My irritation is that it's the only way to get rid of him. You can't tell him go away once he joins. Indeed if you kill him he still hangs around camp and his body kills your pets.
I just mentioned it because, yes, you are right that we should be able to "sense motive" or similar. I just mentioned it because you had mentioned tadpoles as way to get at the truth.
Originally Posted by Niara
I'll also point out that none of the thoughts and memories we can pry into and gain extra gleanings of in any way contradict or run against what he openly tells us - if anything they confirm that he's being honest about what he did and why,
And **major spoiler** this is what you see if you refuse every request to give artifacts and then use the tadpole:
in contrast to the way our insights show things of others that they actively try to deny (*cough* Wyll)
*Auntie Ethel voice* "What a terrible cough! Now you just drink this slippery elm tea and you'll feel as right as rain. Now, let me speak to the handsome, trustworthy-looking man you brought with you"
Originally Posted by Niara
If you think he isn't, then you think that he is being allowed to deceive us without procing any checks and without our characters being allowed to determine that he is being deceptive in any way... and why is that okay, here, when everywhere else, we have functional tools for determining such things? It's not about player characters and companions - we get insight checks to call Wyll's bullshit in many places; Gale does not proc any, even when we might have every reason to doubt or be incredulous.
Granted I do think this is a god move by the DM - I'm hoping we get some explanation as to why sense motive never ends working. But as a player I think I can sense the deception in the words and in the voice acting.
And of course with metaknowledge of Larian - In DOS2 the companions you leave "in camp" turn on you at some point. Someone is going to betray us. All have the potential but I think the most likely is Gale and least likely is Lae'zel
Part of it is surely that he's not (as far as we know ) a Sharran, and unlike Shadowheart I don't think he actively tries to stir up distrust against other party members. But I guess it's largely because, once he does open up, I believe him and don't see any obvious point of conflict in what he wants and what I, or my characters that would have him in his party, are likely to want to achieve.
Now that's an interesting point because, once again, it speaks to the distance between Gale's words and his actions. He repeatedly declares his love for Mystra but what he is doing is heretical to Mystran belief. Mystran faithful, especially the chosen and the magister are expected to author new spells and to create more artifacts. A good Mystran wants to increase the amount of magic in the world. Gale is doing just the opposite - he destroys artifacts. In his words he worships Mystra but in his deeds he worships Shar. Gale is either on the edge of a conversion or someone who worships Shar but doesn't realize it - he's another candidate for chosen of Shar
This is the magister not the chosen but the responsibilities overlap:
Quote
The central task of the Magister was to spread the use and teaching of magic, encouraging its use, and promoting its availability and utility. Specific Magisters sometimes received different tasks, but the common thread was always spreading magic
Love magic for itself. Do not treat it just as a weapon to reshape the world to your will. True wisdom is knowing when not to use magic. Strive to use magic less as your powers develop, for often the threat or promise of its use outstrips its actual performance. Magic is Art, the Gift of the Lady, and those who wield it are privileged in the extreme. Conduct yourself humbly, not proudly, while being mindful of this. Use the Art deftly and efficiently, not carelessly and recklessly. Seek always to learn and create new magic.
And note which items seem to satisfy Gale's hunger - he's satisfied either by ones that cause problems for the party (iron flask) or destroy the works of the good and neutral gods (sword, amulet, idol)
"Are you Sharran but don't know it yet? Take this quiz to find out!"
This essentially proves he does not WANT to return it to Mystra. It is strong evidence he never planned to, either, but not proof.
However, note that even his neutral path is "I want to see my rivals humbled, jealous of the majesty I have become". This also suggests an aspiration to transcend humanity. All in all, I really do suspect Gale was experimenting with strong magic until it backfired on him
I think that's right - an ambiguity that was never resolved in 3.5 is "are Shadow weave spells capped at level 9 like weave spells or do they go up to level 12 like Mystryl's weave did"
Is the shadow weave the dark reflection of Mystra's weave of Mystryl's weave - if it's the latter then shadow weave is the only way someone at Gale's level - an archmage and a chosen - could gain more power. I think he went looking for the shadow weave and found it but also found out that Shar is a harsh mistress.
Now that's an interesting point because, once again, it speaks to the distance between Gale's words and his actions. He repeatedly declares his love for Mystra but what he is doing is heretical to Mystran belief. Mystran faithful, especially the chosen and the magister are expected to author new spells and to create more artifacts. A good Mystran wants to increase the amount of magic in the world. Gale is doing just the opposite - he destroys artifacts. In his words he worships Mystra but in his deeds he worships Shar. Gale is either on the edge of a conversion or someone who worships Shar but doesn't realize it - he's another candidate for chosen of Shar
Interesting take. OTH it's perfectly believable that it is just bad writing by Larian to have Gale doing the opposite of what a good Mystran would do.
Now that's an interesting point because, once again, it speaks to the distance between Gale's words and his actions. He repeatedly declares his love for Mystra but what he is doing is heretical to Mystran belief. Mystran faithful, especially the chosen and the magister are expected to author new spells and to create more artifacts. A good Mystran wants to increase the amount of magic in the world. Gale is doing just the opposite - he destroys artifacts. In his words he worships Mystra but in his deeds he worships Shar. Gale is either on the edge of a conversion or someone who worships Shar but doesn't realize it - he's another candidate for chosen of Shar
Interesting take. OTH it's perfectly believable that it is just bad writing by Larian to have Gale doing the opposite of what a good Mystran would do.
Even when it lines up with Sharran goals? Is called a netherese artefact? That's a great many conincidences in my opinion. The game is screaming "absolute this, absolute that", yet the Shar mentions are just lurking everywhere.
