The whole everyone in the party are assholes with a bunch of personal issues really reminds me of KOTOR 2 and I LOVE KOTOR 2 so I'm pretty happy with it
I don't mind, if it fits the story and the characters are developed sufficiently.
At the moment, our companions appear to be plot hooks. Pushing us to meet this and that person in the web of the conspiracy.
You can get a fair amount of approval in early access without trying. I'm not worried about minmaxing quests like this is Dragon Age Inquisition. They're prickly, but not annoyingly picky. The wariness in camp feels earned.
All good ^.^ this is friendly and I think we're going to keep seeing the situation differently, but that's okay. Even if I'm wrong (and I may be, when the full game comes out).... I'll stand by the way I feel about these particular things, and blame Larian for what I will most likely call poor writing <.< >.>
Anyhow... I see his flaws as overconfidence, ego, a bit of social awkwardness, but enough self-centred self-assurance to believe that he's actually smooth and charming all the time. He's more insecure than he wishes to let on, because even after all this time, the blow to his confidence has him over-compensating. The more recent loss of the greater majority of his power has left him in a position where his raw intellect and experience are what he must fall back on, so he Must believe that they are tools that are up to solving any and every problem he has – his own sense of self-worth depends upon it… and there Is a very big self-worth wound lurking beneath his academic bravado. He used to have a healthy level of self worth and self love (along with an unhealthy degree of ego and pride), but right now he doesn't, and it's eating him alive just as much as his shadow orb is. That's my take anyway... none of that is malicious or deceptive, to me.
Quote
I can make my case by referring the things Gale says
You say that... but I don't really feel you do that successfully, at least not for me, not yet. I agree that the lack of further dialogue to talk him around without the promise is probably deliberate and an element of his current character, I'm just saying it would look better for him if we cold have that conversation.
Quote
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.
No, it's a security blanket for him – it's not about you at all, and it does not give him ANY control. He knows that if he tells you, and he's incorrect about whether you will accept that, and not freak out about it, or do something rash... then the promise itself means nothing; if he's wrong about you, then that promise will not stop the things he's worried about and it won't serve any purpose or hold any value... and if he's right, and you are trustworthy, then the promise is also meaningless because you're not going to freak our or act rashly anyway. It's purely a security blanket for him, because he feels better having that promise there before he tells you about the biggest source of shame and personal failure in his life – and that is exactly what he is telling you about; his biggest failure and his greatest shame, and the way in which it is continuing to make problems for him and everyone around him, and is making him a burden, when he's used to being the one with all the answers and all the power. It's a big thing to admit you need help with, for someone like him.
We'll have to disagree about the escalation – from my perspective, what he tells you from the outset, is that he needs magical artefacts – plural – to feed this hungry chunk of weave, and that if he doesn't keep it fed, continuously, it's going to do some real bad things. He lets us know that the more powerful the artefacts he feeds it, the better. That is where we stand, after he comes to us with his need – and that is exactly where we Stay – no escalation.
My general experience with Gale is usually tossing him the sword as the very first artefact he shows interest in, and then him contentedly telling me that he's good for the rest of the act. And he is. It doesn't come up again, he doesn't ask for more. When you give him an artefact that isn't enough to hold it off long term, he tells you immediately; he tells you that it will keep him safe for a while, but he'll need more soon. This is not new or escalated information – he has already told us that he needs these on the regular.
You said that you cannot get by with just giving him all the other artefacts that show up on his list, and not one of the major ones – that hasn't been my experience, personally. If you regularly feed him lesser artefacts, does he still feel compelled to stake his soul with Raphael over the matter? That hasn't been my personal experience, and I'm sure it wasn't that way a few patches ago.
Quote
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
But he didn't say that... YOU put those words in his mouth; they don't exist except in your interpretation.
Quote
"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?
Perhaps our perspectives are different here because this has never really affected me, personally – I'm unemployed and live on a disability pension, but I do donate to a few different organisations, to the limit of my capabilities and to the extent I want to; there are several others I support without giving money to, and I juggle a bit depending on my capability and breathing room. When they ask if I can donate an extra $5 to their cause, or if I could be persuaded to to make an ongoing sponsorship payment, I tell them that no, I can't. That's all there is to it; my self worth is not called into question by this. I know that I'm doing as much as I can, or as much as I feel I wish to – nothing they say on the other end has any impact on that, for me.
Quote
Note how quick he is to threaten your self conception as a good person (timestamp 26:17)
I'm curious about this... I watched the section from 26-29, where he's told you that he needs to eat powerful weave strands, by way of artefacts, and you're questioning him on the topic. Nowhere during that did I feel him calling into question my value or self-worth as a person, or casting shade on my goodness as a person – it was just a question and answer session where he gave honest, but reticent and short answers about his condition and his needs. When you tell him you're not ready to give up the one he identified, he says “Okay, that's fine – but please do keep on the look out for others; it will save my life, and faerun is full of them – though they're usually protected (again; up front telling you that there will be danger, most likely, in trying to acquire more, not escalating to that risk after the fact). What part of this exchange, to your perspective, is him casting shade on your status as a good person?
He denotes the value points that they would otherwise hold for him – that they are artefacts of power, history and magic – when conveying that he understands that what he is asking of you is a lot – he's not accusing you of being power-seduced at all... again, I feel that's you putting that interpretation there where it simply does not exist at all.
Quote
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.
Well, you can also sacrifice him to Booaal. I only regret that you cannot whisper to him that it's a clever ploy since they'll kill him, then all die in his body's necrotic aura, and then you'll rez him after – and ask him to trust you.
Quote
...this is what you see if you refuse every request to give artifacts and then use the tadpole:
Yes – If he runs out of options, and no-one is willing to help him, he assesses what his choices are, and he chooses – unsurprisingly to me – the one that endangers ONLY himself, and his immortal soul, and no-one else.
He does not vindictively let himself blow up and take everyone with him, he does not steal artefacts from you and consume them on the sly, and he does not tear off into the wilds on the blind hope of finding one himself, without any leads or reliable information indicating that he will be able to in time. No... he does the thing he clearly did not Want to do as a first choice, now because it is his only safe contingency plan left... he stakes his own soul, and no-one else's, with Raphael to help his problem.
If anything, this paints him in a better, if more desperate light, than any other choice. What would you, as a good and honest person, do in his position: you've got a ticking clock that will devastate a huge area and kill countless people, your companions have in their possession, but have refused you the tools you need to keep this danger at bay, and now you can feel your time is running dangerously low. Your goddess is not listening, your normal magical powers are reduced, and you're a long way from a major magical hub, with no way to get to one quickly. You know quite a lot about fiends and their interactions, and you know how devil contracts work, and you know one is watching you particularly right now; you don't know if you can beat one at its own game, but you know it's possible for the clever, and you believe you are very clever. What do you do? Clock's ticking. What does a good person, who cares about the lives, souls and rights of others, do, here?
Quote
But as a player I think I can sense the deception in the words and in the voice acting.
As a player, I still do think you're putting something there that doesn't exist – and if it did exist, we should get the same tools checking it like we do for other deceptive followers when they deceive or mislead us.
On the subject of Mystra...
Quote
He repeatedly declares his love for Mystra but what he is doing is heretical to Mystran belief.
What he did in folly, was what caused her to abandon him almost completely. What he is doing may be antithetical to what he should be doing in her name... but what would you have him do instead? What option does he have, to not do that? It's not a choice that he can make, so it's also not something we can hold against him.
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
Gale does these things, right now, in act one. He shows a deep love and fascination with all things magical, at almost all times, he encourages others to try and to experience magic, and he is always happy to educate, explain and teach any who show an interest. He does not tell the barbarian “Oh it's complex magic, you wouldn't understand” - he teaches you what he is doing, gives you the correct terminology to talk about it, and encourages your interest in it if you show any at all.
He also shows us that he has taken the time to develop new spells – and just look at the spell he created! The one he shows us is one that allows other people, without a natural connection to the weave, to feel and experience it directly! That is what he chose to create. It's not a spell that exists in any textbook, and it's beautiful, yet benign; it's art. Love of magic and the eagerness to share that love of it with others positively oozes from his pores at every turn.
It could be said that he oversteps the line of pride, and uses magic for minor and frivolous things, but I don't really hold that against him, personally – though if he was really bad at that in his heyday, that may have been what led Mystra to grow bored of him and move on.
Right now, he is the unwitting gatekeeper of something destructive, and he feeds that thing to prevent it being more destructive... but he is not the one destroying magic. He is responsible for it, and he's paying a heavy toll for his foolishness and his pride.
Great post Niara, certainly food for thought about Gale as a character.
I don't mind, if it fits the story and the characters are developed sufficiently.
At the moment, our companions appear to be plot hooks. Pushing us to meet this and that person in the web of the conspiracy.
You can get a fair amount of approval in early access without trying. I'm not worried about minmaxing quests like this is Dragon Age Inquisition. They're prickly, but not annoyingly picky. The wariness in camp feels earned.
read this forum carful again.
you will find the fact --
if there is no game player leading the game progress, "the five origin character" -- gale, wyll, shadowheart, lae'zel, astarion, they never can be the toril savior, in the fact, they will ruin toril without the game player's active.
the five origin character actural are only five selectable followers, they are more like "pawns(chess pieces)" that gods or god-like beings behind them.
the only thing they will make is -- ruin toril. i suppose this is why the official description the five origin characters are "biased evil".
warcraft 3 arthas has the similar personality with the five origin characters, they will lured by the dark evil, and eventurally ruin or corrupt toril.
only game player stands apart with aloof position, can lead some of the five origin with toril back to the right destiny track.
While I'm hoping each playable character, including Tav, has a special ending, I don't want to assume too much about how evil each has to be.
Players probably wouldn't be satisfied picking Gale, SH or Wyll... just to encounter railroading. It's a bit mean to do. D&D players are no doubt among the most critical roleplayers.
Of course, a predetermined ending /may/ be the most logical, but it's limiting. Larian seems too flashy in their style to sacrifice player choice. They're flashy enough that I have to wonder about physical marks of evil (tadpole use).
Shadowheart seems the most likely candidate for an enemy agent, but if she is I think she doesn’t know it, and I can’t quite make sense of why the Absolute would give the order to kill whoever has “the weapon” rather than capture them if Shadowheart’s mission to steal it from the gith was ultimately for the cult and they could simply restore her memory. Plus it seems legit that like us her tadpole has just been inserted as she knows about it unlike other cultists. Though thinking more about it, isn’t there something different about her condition when everyone else gets ill after a few tadpole uses?
In fact, the more I think about it the less I understand what’s going on with Shadowheart and the nautiloid. I initially assumed that it was heading to Moonrise Towers and was kidnapping people for the cult of the Absolute, but then why are there a number of sacrificed Absolute cultists on it? I suppose it’s possible that part of the reason for setting up the cult, if the mindflayers are behind it, might be to gain fodder for sacrifice. But we find them in the same room as Shadowheart. Is she connected with them? She says the rest of her mission were killed, was that elsewhere or might that be them? And, if so, are the people wearing the sign of the Absolute on the ship real cultists or are they disguised Sharrans? Or is Shar also connected with the cult? Where was Shadowheart brought onto the nautiloid, anyway? Was she coincidentally kidnapped while escaping from her heist, or was the nautiloid actually part of it and her getaway vehicle but she’s somehow been double-crossed or just restrained by the mindflayers as she doesn’t actually know she’s working with them?
I have so many more questions, but I’ll stop there! I’ll bet folk here have some interesting theories, or have picked up on stuff I’ve missed.
Very interesting. Here's some wild speculation - Shadowheart's sphere is needed for a ritual that would transform SH into a chosen.
So we have three big powers who want the artifact - the absolute, Shar and Vlaakith. And I don't know if Shar wants the dead three to thrive or not. She allied with Cyric against Mystra so that would suggest no, she'd rather see Cyric hold the portfolios the absolute are trying to regain, but Shar's allegiances shift so 🤷
i think that you are talking the things that touch upon "spellplague".
baldur's gate 3 is beginning in 1492DR, this after baldur's gate 2 more then 100 years. during the period, mystra(midnight) is assassinated success by cyric in 1385DR. and if without shar's "essential help", cyric can not succeed the assassin action. this make shar from an enemy becomes a sworn enemy to mystra. in this assassin action shar lost her shadow weave due to her serious miscalculation, this makes that mystra obtains the shadow weave. and cyric is sealed in his court by a certain existence.
"This new Mystra was a combination of the memories of Mystra and Midnight/Mystra, and presumably of Mystryl as she had drawn her memories from the Weave rather than from personal experience."
Okay, fresh morning, fresh eyes, more friendly, go!
(Jumping back to the Gale discussion, to KillerRabbit, spoilered mainly because the conversation is moving on.)
Quote
I buy his arrogance and bravado but don't I buy his awkwardness. The 'awkwardness' strikes me as a mask for something more sinister.
I could understand this as reasonable, if not for the way you based it on something that you literally made up and inserted yourself. The fact that you took a line, added in a completely non-present blame-for-killing-many-people, that didn't exist in any way, and then cast the line as sinister and manipulative based on that thing that you literally invented and put there yourself... to be honest that feels manipulative and deceptive, KR ^.^ Said in good humour, but no less serious.
It's just... that is in no way a reasonable accusation or criticism to make, when nothing he said indicated, hinted or even remotely suggested anything like that, and you just whacked that 'blame' in there on your own, then tarred him with it as part of your justification for reading him as sinister and manipulative in that line. Please take a step back and look at what you did there, and how far you framed that situation up to match your narrative when it didn't actually fit it.
Quote
Note how quick he is to threaten your self conception as a good person (timestamp 26:17)
[…]
It's in the framing itself. […] You are putatively having this discussion because he sees you as good person. You helped that child, etc and etc. But that's false. […] I'm not kindly disposed and see it as a sign of his manipulative nature. Again, he would make the ask of anyone but he tells you he chose to provisionally "trust" you because of your good nature because that's the best way to manipulate someone who wants to think of themselves as good.
Yes... he wants you to be as agreeable as possible for this. He's picking the best moment he can to broach the subject with you, in the hopes to get you at your most favourable, because he is quite eager to get your willing help on this.
That's Normal. Normal sensible people do that, every day, and it's entirely mundane. It's not manipulation and it's not deceit. It's just a normal every day element of social interaction and social awareness. You don't ask someone for help moving boxes when they just got home from stocking a warehouse all day and are exhausted – that's dumb and socially unaware.
He is asking you because of all of the reasons he lists – he's asking you because he has come to the conclusion that you are his best option to secure help from and to give his confidence to; the reasons he lists are the reasons why he has come to that conclusion. He thinks you're his best bet for this, and he'd like to be able to trust you with it as his first choice from amongst this available options. Why is that a problem? It doesn't seem or feel like a problem to me. There's no 'sinister manipulation' in any of that – just normal human behaviour... unless you are predisposed to treat everything he does with cynical prejudice and presume ill intention without evidence of it... which is what, again, it feels like you are doing.
If I had a group of travelling companions, and one of them looked at me like I was an insect, one of them looked at me like I was meat, one of them can't even see me because she's too busy trying to look down her nose at me while simultaneously holding it up in the air, and one of them seems to be a more or less upstanding person who has listened to, taken on, and solved the problems of others despite being in danger themselves already... and I felt it was necessary that I tell one of these people about my needs, and ask for their help... who do you think I'm going to ask? Of course I'm going to ask the decent person! And of course I'm going to do it at a time that I think is probably the best moment to get them in a good mood and congenial disposition – especially if I'm concerned that the thing I have to ask them is hard to swallow! That's not being manipulative, that's just being a socially aware human being. That's pretty normal.
Quote
"wouldn't want to make you into a oathbreaker"
Once again, and off-handed joke said with no weight and a chuckle... but if you are determined to construe that as villainy and manipulation, then there is virtually nothing this man can do that you would not find some way to malign as manipulation, or at least that's how it feels as I read your perspective.... like you've already decided, and you are going to twist, extrapolate or straight up invent out of the ether (as you did earlier), everything that is said to force it to fit the description you've already come up with, whether it fits on its own or not. It feels like you're being disingenuous with the facts, I'd even say, just to make them match your stance, when they don't.
Quote
"I know the allure . . ."
Yes... he's projecting. That's what I was implying; in trying to convey that he is aware that he's asking a big thing of you, he projects the values that he, personally, finds in such things, and why the action would be a sacrifice for him. That's not malicious or evil – inept, perhaps, but not manipulation, especially if it's not true of us. It would be great if we could correct him on why we're not eager to give him the items, and it would be a chance for more character building, which I would welcome, but in terms of examining Gale's character it's irrelevant.
Bear in mind, as well, the comment about the allure and power of the artefacts only comes directly in relation to artefacts you already have – you've already Stolen the idol from the grove. You've already either taken the sword from the cold dead fingers of its former wielder, or else been given it as a gift to use and serve you as needed by someone you helped. The assumption that you want to keep it because you wish to use it is not only not an unfair one... it's straight up one of the only reasonable assumptions one can make, and it's a true one in the extreme vast majority of cases... Why do the vast majority of players not give him the sword of Tyr? Because They Want To Use It.
Quote
2) he's telling you why you might not agree - because you want to hold onto power. Not, say, I don't want to slaughter the grove. Or destroy one of Selune's sacred objects or destroy one of Tyr's holy artifacts
So... again, and I'm sorry, but here's you, attempting to escalate a situation and throw shade on the character of the side of the argument you want to discredit, by inventing recriminations that do not exist and tarring them onto the character you want to malign. Why do you keep doing this? Are you aware that you are doing it? Is that not extremely similar to the thing you are accusing Gale of doing? In point: Who said anything about slaughtering a grove? No-one – only you said that. That's you, inserting the supposition of violent death (Again!) where it was not mentioned or even implied. It's not necessary and never was. You put that there, and you characterised it as being the only outcome tied to acquiring the idol when it's not, and it seems very much like you do this, just so that you can characterise anyone defending the first statement as being someone who would not stand against the slaughter of innocents... when loss of innocent life never even entered into the picture in the first place, until You put it there. Why do you contort yourself so? Take a step beck and look at the rings you're twisting yourself into to make this fit the person you feel like he is... the simpler answer is that you are projecting the idea and motives of a character onto him that simply is not there... and that is why you have to twist so much to make the things fit when they don't.
I do grant, yes, he does only mention power and value in that phrase. I don't feel it substantively changes anything though; that whole exchange simply does not in any way come off to me as him trying to guilt or shame, at all – quite the opposite, in fact. It comes off to me as him accepting that you may feel your need for a particular item outweighs his more general need for items – but to impress upon you that he does consider it a desperate need all the same, and that he thinks you should place a similar importance upon it as well. There's nothing deceptive or manipulative about this – it's a bald-faced, up front request that you make this as much of a priority as you can.
Quote
Once again - we'll see but I rather suspect that his answers are not truthful.
And yet... unlike when Wyll bullshits at us, we are not presented even a single insight check at any point to discern whether he is being genuine or not...
The evidence we have in game directly countermands the supposition that these are lies and falsehoods that he's telling us... So, we can take that on board and adjust our opinions, or we can tie ourselves into a pretzel adding on ad-hoc suppositions to explain why this directly countermanding evidence does not negate our stance but actually supports it. One of these is a sensible action, the other is the action of a zealot uninterested in the actual truth.
Here, you're doing the latter: you're deciding that Larian are god-moding that tool away from us, for this singular character, when they don't appear to be doing that for other characters with secrets to hide. Just so that you can suppose dishonesty where none is actually present in game. Why are Larian giving Gale the ability to lie to us without rolling dice, and without subjecting himself to our dice rolls, but not the other companions? Why do you feel the need to suppose that they are doing that, just with him? Also worth noting – there are cases where we Do get insight checks on Gale himself, and where we Can call him out on hiding something from us and being dishonest... so it's worse than that, because you're having to say that they're taking away that tool for just some specific things he says, which you think are lies but which we are told by the game are not, but not others, which we can reliably test using the tools the game provides. Please take a step back and realise that you are doing this.
Quote
I think he went looking for the shadow weave and found it - but found out that Shar is not a kind mistress.
Based onnnn...?
He told us that in his questing for forgotten lore and magic he found what he believed to be a lost fragment of weave that had been cut off from Mystra, and he thought it would be just what he needed to re-win her attention, if he returned it. When he accessed the piece of weave, though, it assaulted and attacked him, and embedded itself in him, and turned out to not be what he thought it was.
We can peer into his mind and see images that more or less confirm that this Is exactly how it happened, and at no point during any of his story to this extent are we given any indication that he might be deceiving us with anything he says – no insight, no deception, nothing.... So what grounds, other than personal prejudice, are you using to suppose that this is all deceit?
==
Quote
The option that would do that would be die in the Anauroch desert away from everyone. Or to die inside a troll mound or some other monster maker. Once's he belongs the Raphel he will endanger many others.
[…]
Try to make it as far away from people as possible. And hope that I wouldn't be so self deceived to think that selling my soul to a devil wouldn't the first of many evil acts committed at the behest of my new master. Use a fly spell to get into the air? Sell every thing I own for a teleport scroll? Gale's decision to get anywhere near a city is incredibly selfish.
Soul deals with devils come due upon death, and they generally contain no other requisites or contingencies levied upon the individual to act in certain ways, or grant the devil any right to command or instruct that individual – such caveats create the potential for invalidation, and they don't need to put them in if they're getting your soul anyway. They generally go the other way, actually, and give nothing but benefits for your mortal life, since they are trying to sell the target on the deal. Soul deals come due when you die, and Gale would definitely have negotiated as best he could to get as favourable a contract as he could, to allow him as much room as he could to wiggle out of it. I'm not saying he'd have done well, or succeeded, but he'd definitely have tried his best and fought for every inch of freedom in life as he could get, and as much boon as he could get out of it in that time, to boot.
Beyond that... It sounds to me like your 'good person' solution is “I'd give up and die”. That's not good enough, sorry. What do you do Before you give up and die?
Presuming we go with “Give up and die” though.... your plan is... Get as far away as possible – on foot, through unknown landscapes, with few resources? Sounds reckless and stupid to me, and basically just like a choice of suicide that doesn't actually care if anyone actually does happen to be in your blast range – just as long as you can tell yourself that you tried to get away.
- Flying into the air? When you don't know exactly when you will explode, and don't know how great a detonation it may be except that it would be enough to level a city or more, and fly only lasts a few minutes? No, that's pretty darn stupid and ineffective too.
- Sell your possessions for a teleport scroll? From whom are you buying this powerful spell scroll that is the exclusive domain of highly powerful spellcasters... here in the middle of the wilderness and a string of small fishing villages, townships and outposts? That's not happening. And are your possessions and belongings valuable enough to buy a spell scroll (7th level, very rare) that might sell for up to 100,000 gold? I doubt it, considering you escaped enslavement and crashed with the clothes on your back a few days ago; remember, you don't have the backing of your allies on this, you're abandoning them in order to manage your own problem on your own, in this solution you're proposing.
In fact... the nearest place you could reliably expect to buy a magic item of that level anyway would be... well... Baldur's Gate. So... you're being exactly as 'selfish' as you accuse Gale of being, in that case.
Have you got any other 'solutions'? Any other options? What does a good person do? So far you're zero for three, plus one that is doing exactly what you are trying to call Gale selfish for doing – going somewhere where you can acquire more resources to solve your problem.
Incidentally... If you can get a teleport scroll, you can get a plane shift scroll; Gale has already suggested that if he can wrangle a way to get himself into the astral plane (and ideally back again afterwards...), he can release the orb there, unexploded due to how the astral works, and solve the problem without anyone dying. That seems like a goal to strive for to me – and it's his best choice solution too.
Quote
they strike more like the man mourning the end of a relationship with the wife he cheated on.
Once again, I'd like to point out that you are making a denigrating and back-handed attack on his character status; you're doing the exact thing you're accusing him of doing. “Wife he cheated on”? Only if you assume against all evidence to the contrary that he deliberately sought out shadow weave, knew what it was and choose to absorb it himself, with intent. Only if you assume that the evidence we see in his mind, and the explanation he gives us of events, which both line up and agree and give no indication of the possibility of deception, are, in fact, false and lies... at which stage, I feel I must ask... what is the gain you get from having a conversation about him, if you're going to write off anything that doesn't line up with your belief as a lie, and invent things that were not said or indicated in order to maintain your stance? Why is characterising Gale as a dishonest manipulator so important and essential to you that you are – either consciously or subconsciously – undermining your own intellectual honesty and conversational integrity just to force the square pegs into the round holes?
“Lover that got bored and dumped him” would be more honest – “and then publicly roasted him on all her socials for his failed attempt to recapture her interest” could be added.
But yes – the ~three scenes that deal with Mystra and his spurning by her all have that jilted lover mourning vibe, no arguments there, they do. However... we were not talking about his love of Mystra – we were talking about his attitudes towards loving magic, sharing it, teaching it, and spreading it to others – all of which, I pointed out, he is actively doing at any opportunity. As much as he talks the talk about Mystra and magic being one and the same, there's a fairly clear delineation between the two, even within Gale himself; the scenes that have Mystra come into play all have that vibe, definitely, and it's a bit awkward... but all the rest are just simply the image of a boy who has loved all things magic and magic related, and has always and continues to be enthusiastic about it.
Quote
So very, very creepy - which is to say I think it's well written.
The weave scene is even more awkward if you're both wizards and both in nothing but your underwear. If you're a halfling, you spend a goodly number of transitional shots with a moderate closeup on his groin. I've been there.
==
Okay, I am sorry if any of that came across as harsh, and I promise it's not intended to be fighty or fractious... The first and second drafts of this were... sleep-deprived and aggressive. I sincerely hope that this reads a bit better!
I'll add the final caveat onto this: I know people like Gale - to a certain extent I Am people like Gale; I tend to be drawn towards people who share these positive traits, and I'm pretty well equipped and experienced with picking out where they can go bad or get nasty; I try, very hard, to avoid those pitfalls and unhealthy behaviours myself - but that's real life and real people, and this is a video game, with fictional characters written by fallible people so I'm happy enough to admit that my instincts and reads may come up false, no matter how clear and transparent they seem to me. Gale does seem clear and transparent to me; I feel I can see and understand his drives and his insecurities, the things he wants to hide or downplay, the core of his persona at his centre and how he both hides and attempts to exhibit that to others. But, the writers may decide otherwise, and that will be their call.
While I'm hoping each playable character, including Tav, has a special ending, I don't want to assume too much about how evil each has to be.
Players probably wouldn't be satisfied picking Gale, SH or Wyll... just to encounter railroading. It's a bit mean to do. D&D players are no doubt among the most critical roleplayers.
Of course, a predetermined ending /may/ be the most logical, but it's limiting. Larian seems too flashy in their style to sacrifice player choice. They're flashy enough that I have to wonder about physical marks of evil (tadpole use).
..., the five origin characters are just pawns.
gale -- want to become a god, this makes the power controls him, despite he is knowing the dangerous, someone(a god, or might be a devil) is easy give him a thrust into the power whirlpool.
wyll -- want to become a hero. he hopes people think that he is a hero, but he is violating the nature of a hero, he can do the betrayal to return other's give.
astarion -- want to replace his master, but he is going to do the things the same evil as his master.
shadowheart -- a puppet of shar, we know shar's plan has no good things, in the fact, this is going to be a great evil of some disaster purpose.
lae'zel -- her queen's order is absolute, this makes her achilles heel.
Okay, fresh morning, fresh eyes, more friendly, go!
I could understand this as reasonable, if not for the way you based it on something that you literally made up and inserted yourself. The fact that you took a line, added in a completely non-present blame-for-killing-many-people, that didn't exist in any way, and then cast the line as sinister and manipulative based on that thing that you literally invented and put there yourself... to be honest that feels manipulative and deceptive, KR ^.^ Said in good humour, but no less serious.
Sorry if I'm being daft but what are you referring to? I don't believe I've made anything up - even if I've speculated and interpreted things differently than you do i've not invented anything out of whole cloth. Sincere point of clarification - to what are you referring? Perhaps a quote got cut?
Thanks for keeping the tone friendly. I'm tempted to make a cat face but that would feel like taking your thing so I will smile
On killing people. If he decides to search for a cure in Baldurs gate instead of taking himself out somewhere remote and/or populated by evil monsters he's guilty of two 'sins':
a) he's putting the lives of others in danger because he could blow to others up b) if he does survive he's committing a sin against Mystra
Absurd, silly, 21st first century example: you wake up in airport. Some evil person has put a tactical-nuke suicide vest on you that will explode if tampered with. Because you are expert in such matters you know bomb is big enough to take out all of NYC. Timer is set for 3 days. Two flights are leaving immediately. Do you:
a) buy a ticket to NYC hoping to the meet with the best possible bomb experts?
b) buy a ticket to the south pole?
Gale is being selfish.
Quote
Please take a step back and look at what you did there, and how far you framed that situation up to match your narrative when it didn't actually fit it.
Again, I sincerely don't know which scenario you are referring to. I don't believe I am guilty of doing such.
But let me explain why I don't believe his story.
One of the things that doesn't add up is Mystra cutting off contact for no reason at all. Who knows what reincarnated Mystra is like but that doesn't sound like either rule bound Mystra #1 or compassionate, loving Midnight/Mystra #2
Mystra does not ghost her lovers .
But we do know that using the Shadow Weave cuts you off from the main weave. The more you use the shadow weave the weaker your connection. My speculation? My theory?
He was experimenting with the shadow weave before he found the book with the shadow mythalar in it. That's why he's divorced from Mystra - he was unfaithful to his ex.
Originally Posted by Killerabbit
Note how quick he is to threaten your self conception as a good person (timestamp 26:17)
Quote
That's Normal. Normal sensible people do that, every day, and it's entirely mundane.
So our attitudes are quite different towards such things. Yes people manipulate each other every day in all sorts of ways. That's never a good thing but sometimes we look past it. It's entirely fair to offended with salesman like manipulation.
Quote
You don't ask someone for help moving boxes when they just got home from stocking a warehouse all day and are exhausted – that's dumb and socially unaware.
That's not an example of salesman like manipulation, that's an example of tact and even an example of compassion. They're tired it's just nice not to burden them with a request at this time.
If, on the other hand, KillerRabbit lets Bob get a full nights sleep, makes Bob their favorite breakfast, make sure Bob knows that KR made an old family recipe from scratch, then KR told Bob that were going to ask for a favor but first extracted a promise to not ask for any details about the favor then KillerRabbit is acting like a manipulative ass.
And I submit that my example is closer to Gale's behavior than your own.
Quote
If I had a group of travelling companions, and one of them looked at me like I was an insect, one of them looked at me like I was meat, one of them can't even see me because she's too busy trying to look down her nose at me while simultaneously holding it up in the air,
I am literally laughing out loud. Brilliant!
Quote
and one of them seems to be a more or less upstanding person . . .
I see Gale more like an obedience expert deciding which puppy will be the easiest to train. As you've said, you identify with him but I don't think you and Gale are anything alike. I see Gale as Machiavellian manipulator. You seem earnest, honest and good
And believe me - I am very familiar with the habits of homo academicus. You would be a great prof - Gale would be dismissed for dating his students.
Quote
"wouldn't want to make you into a oathbreaker"
Quote
Once again, and off-handed joke said with no weight and a chuckle...
Mmm. Color me unconvinced - I saw something quite different.
Quote
It feels like you're being disingenuous with the facts, I'd even say, just to make them match your stance, when they don't.
Hopefully we can leave this with a smile? And return to where you opened your previous post that we just have very different interpretations? Yes, I cannot stand him but I don't believe that I being disingenuous. Not in the slightest. Seriously.
Quote
"I know the allure . . ."
Quote
Yes... he's projecting. That's what I was implying; in trying to convey that he is aware that he's asking a big thing of you, he projects the values that he, personally, finds in such things, and why the action would be a sacrifice for him. That's not malicious or evil – inept, perhaps, but not manipulation, especially if it's not true of us. It would be great if we could correct him on why we're not eager to give him the items, and it would be a chance for more character building, which I would welcome, but in terms of examining Gale's character it's irrelevant.
He's also using telling us why we might object and he's so doing deliberately and strategically.
I'd had many jobs in my life and a number of them involved manipulation. I was a canvasser for an environmental organization where I learned how to use the foot in the door technique. Great organization, terrible work. I was also a server where I learned the art of "provide the reason" and "provide the answer". Provide the answer was one my first lessons as a server - you never, never ask open ended questions when checking on a table. "How are things over here"? is wrong. "How are things over here-good?" is the right way to manipulate customers into being happy. It's easier for them to repeat "good" than stop and think about why they might be unhappy. Believe me I learned this the hard way. It's a realtively benign form of manipulation - you suggest they are happy and, more often than not, people agree that they are. But it's still manipulation. "Provide the reason" - when someone is unhappy a good server suggest a reason that is easy to fix. "you don't like it? Not enough sauce perhaps?" Gale is "providing the reason" - power. We will not help him and others because we want power.
Boy we sound like jerks . . .
Quote
Bear in mind, as well, the comment about the allure and power of the artefacts only comes directly in relation to artefacts you already have – you've already Stolen the idol from the grove.
That's not been true in my playthroughs - he asks for idol just because we passed by it. In my experience the benched Gale made dinner, tried to extract a promise, I told him no and he said something manipulative. He came to me few days later and told me anyway. I said yes but that point I didn't have any blue artifacts in my inventory. Next rest he mentioned that the idol was the sort of object he would looking for and, laughingly, claimed he wasn't actually asking for it.
I know my point would be better supported I could find that dialogue on you tube but I can't seem to find it.
Quote
Why do the vast majority of players not give him the sword of Tyr? Because They Want To Use It.
Not my toons - neither my Mystra worshiping wizard nor my Cleric of Selune wants to destroy magic items, especially not holy objects.
Quote
Who said anything about slaughtering a grove? No-one – only you said that. That's you, inserting the supposition of violent death (Again!) where it was not mentioned or even implied.
Have you tried to steal the idol? It's not easy without save scumming or using engine exploits. It is really, really easy to make the entire grove attack you. Which they almost did when you first arrived. And it's one hell of a heist - the druids are in a circle staring right at it! I stand by my characterization
Quote
Why do you contort yourself so? Take a step beck and look at the rings you're twisting yourself into to make this fit the person you feel like he is... the simpler answer is that you are projecting the idea and motives of a character onto him that simply is not there... and that is why you have to twist so much to make the things fit when they don't.
That's not entirely wrong - as I've said I do think about manipulation often and I've had jobs where I manipulated people; I used to worry that those jobs would turn me into a Gale, which is why I had to quit. So there is an element of "takes one to know one" but I think it's recognition not projection. I prefer your projections - I just think you've found the wrong canvas
And I truly believe that my position requires fewer contortions than yours
Quote
And yet... unlike when Wyll bullshits at us, we are not presented even a single insight check at any point to discern whether he is being genuine or not... One of these is a sensible action, the other is the action of a zealot uninterested in the actual truth.
Note that you get checks to see that Wyll's eye is a sending stone but his "what? drow? here? " conversation is presented as comic relief. The lie is so obvious and so bad the player even the dimmest barbarian recognizes it as a lie.
I may regret saying this but I wonder how much of our differences of interpretation come down to being okay with being manipulated? Because if someone makes me dinner and then tries to extract a promise while I still have the flavor on my tongue . . . my first instinct is . . . not kind.
I think we're supposed to see the manipulation with dinner just like we're supposed to spot the lie when Wyll is talking to his patron - it's not like we, the players, actually have the flavor of venison on our tongue. I think we're supposed to think "Sure Gale, I see you pulling the strings - now let's see how my toon feels about that"
We roll our eyes when Wyll says that he's just practicing his battle cries and we're supposed to roll our eyes when gale asks us how he liked his cooking.
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
I think he went looking for the shadow weave and found it - but found out that Shar is not a kind mistress.
[quote-Niara]Based onnnn...? [/quote]
See above ^
And, as I said previously - for someone like him - archmage and chosen - the shadow weave is the only thing that could provide him more power (assuming the shadow weave allows level 12 spells - which it may or may not)
Quote
Soul deals with devils come due upon death, and they generally contain no other requisites or contingencies levied upon the individual to act in certain ways, or grant the devil any right to command or instruct that individual – such caveats create the potential for invalidation, and they don't need to put them in if they're getting your soul anyway. They generally go the other way, actually, and give nothing but benefits for your mortal life, since they are trying to sell the target on the deal. Soul deals come due when you die, and Gale would definitely have negotiated as best he could to get as favourable a contract as he could, to allow him as much room as he could to wiggle out of it. I'm not saying he'd have done well, or succeeded, but he'd definitely have tried his best and fought for every inch of freedom in life as he could get, and as much boon as he could get out of it in that time, to boot.
Granted. You have a good point - were we dealing with a standard contract but "please do something now I'm about to explode" is not a strong negotiating position - if I were DM I wouldn't just go for one of the standard contract forms mentioned in Descent into Avernus. And remember that when Gale talks about the contract he mentions that we needn't settle for a standard contract because Raphel likely wants the tadpole for some reason. If Gale can suggest deviating from the standard contact it suggests that Raphel can as well.
Quote
Beyond that... It sounds to me like your 'good person' solution is “I'd give up and die”.
No my solution is that a good person would die like Spock did - Gale needs to come to the conclusion "better than I die than that thousands die". "Giving up" suggests weakness - I'm suggesting a solution that requires strength on Gale's part - a strength he claims to have but doesn't display.
Quote
- Flying into the air? When you don't know exactly when you will explode, and don't know how great a detonation it may be except that it would be enough to level a city or more, and fly only lasts a few minutes? No, that's pretty darn stupid and ineffective too.
I maintain it's better than finding an inn with soft sheets in one the largest cities on the continent.
Quote
- Sell your possessions for a teleport scroll? From whom are you buying this powerful spell scroll that is the exclusive domain of highly powerful spellcasters... here in the middle of the wilderness and a string of small fishing villages, townships and outposts? That's not happening. And are your possessions and belongings valuable enough to buy a spell scroll (7th level, very rare) that might sell for up to 100,000 gold?
And let's remember how our poor victim responds when you finally give him the object that will last him until Baldur's gate - that is to say when he is surrounded by 1,000s of people. Does he think about how many lives he can save? No. Does he worry that he won't find a solution in time to assure the safety of all Baldurians? No, instead he waxes lyrical about the allure of soft beds, scented baths, music and good food. Like good people do.
Concerns about other people dying are reserved for those moments when he's asking for an object or extracting a promise - they're conspicuously absent from his mind when he feels safe and secure. You, the object of his manipulations, are to expected to carry a weight he does not.
Quote
Have you got any other 'solutions'? Any other options? What does a good person do? So far you're zero for three, plus one that is doing exactly what you are trying to call Gale selfish for doing – going somewhere where you can acquire more resources to solve your problem.
We don't know the answer to this but the implication is that he's been living with this condition for some time. Sounds like he should have teleported to the desert under his own power when he was still an archmage (and chances are pretty good that he found that book in the desert anyway so he should have done it then) I'm guessing he had a ticket Antarctica and exchanged it for a ticket to NYC.
I had forgotten about the plane shift, thanks! Such is the problem with leaving Gale at his gate. Agreed - that would be optimal. And the Gith can plane shift so there might a solution there - we'll see if Gale is willing to be like Spock.
Quote
they strike more like the man mourning the end of a relationship with the wife he cheated on.
Quote
Once again, I'd like to point out that you are making a denigrating and back-handed attack on his character status; you're doing the exact thing you're accusing him of doing. “Wife he cheated on”?
So not apologizing for that one Said jokingly but also not.
While Mystra is poly and her chosen are her lovers I do think an affair with Shar would qualify as infidelity . . .
Quote
“Lover that got bored and dumped him” would be more honest – “and then publicly roasted him on all her socials for his failed attempt to recapture her interest” could be added.
Heresy! You would rather besmirch the name of holy Mystra?! All for the sake of one of the creepiest NPCs in the history of gaming?! Call the inquisitors! (said in good humor of course)
Quote
But yes – the ~three scenes that deal with Mystra and his spurning by her all have that jilted lover mourning vibe, no arguments there, they do. However... we were not talking about his love of Mystra – we were talking about his attitudes towards loving magic, sharing it, teaching it, and spreading it to others – all of which, I pointed out, he is actively doing at any opportunity. As much as he talks the talk about Mystra and magic being one and the same, there's a fairly clear delineation between the two, even within Gale himself; the scenes that have Mystra come into play all have that vibe, definitely, and it's a bit awkward... but all the rest are just simply the image of a boy who has loved all things magic and magic related, and has always and continues to be enthusiastic about it.[/quote/
The ambiguity is true to the lore - which is why I do think there are writers at Larian who are familiar with the lore. Why they don't let those writers wear the armor and speak during the panels . . . but I digress.
The chosen are lovers and it's implied that one of the reasons Midnight was chosen to become Mystra is that she loved freely but committed to no one. (at least that's my interpretation - I don't know why else Greenwood decides to tells us about Midnight's sexual history) [quote] The weave scene is even more awkward if you're both wizards and both in nothing but your underwear. If you're a halfling, you spend a goodly number of transitional shots with a moderate closeup on his groin. I've been there.
Ha! That image will stay with me
Quote
I know people like Gale - to a certain extent I Am people like Gale . . .
You're not Or, rather, you are like the Gale you imagine Gale to be but not at all like the Gale I see.
I also know academics. Indeed I've lived my entire life surrounded by them. And to show that I can be as arrogant as Gale himself - my "creepy prof radar" has a 100% success rate. Every time I've said: "that new prof is going to be facing sexual harassment charges within 3 years" I've been right. Every single time. You aren't like Gale and that's a good thing.
Quote
Okay, I am sorry if any of that came across as harsh, and I promise it's not intended to be fighty or fractious... The first and second drafts of this were... sleep-deprived and aggressive. I sincerely hope that this reads a bit better!
Likewise.
I know we are just words and avatars to each other but I do always enjoy reading your posts - I would authentically feel sad if this exchange led to any tension between us. I'm having fun. If you are not please say so and we'll end this now on good terms.
(sometimes I'm a bit Lae'zel I need to people to be very explicit and say things like "let's stop")
Okay, I am sorry if any of that came across as harsh, and I promise it's not intended to be fighty or fractious... The first and second drafts of this were... sleep-deprived and aggressive. I sincerely hope that this reads a bit better!
I'll add the final caveat onto this: I know people like Gale - to a certain extent I Am people like Gale; I tend to be drawn towards people who share these positive traits, and I'm pretty well equipped and experienced with picking out where they can go bad or get nasty; I try, very hard, to avoid those pitfalls and unhealthy behaviours myself - but that's real life and real people, and this is a video game, with fictional characters written by fallible people so I'm happy enough to admit that my instincts and reads may come up false, no matter how clear and transparent they seem to me. Gale does seem clear and transparent to me; I feel I can see and understand his drives and his insecurities, the things he wants to hide or downplay, the core of his persona at his centre and how he both hides and attempts to exhibit that to others. But, the writers may decide otherwise, and that will be their call.
i used to see the official description about the five "origin characters" are "biased evil", this includes gale.
that is why i suspect gale, because he is "too" good, he agree and is very happy to see i do the things as a tyr paladin. gale's words make me feel comfortable, moderate, even lae'zel can not be picky from his speech.
gale talks about the story -- karsus's folly. i sigh -- "mortals should not attempt of becoming gods." but gale replies -- "but we should not worship a god blindly."
from the talking, i know gale appreciate karsus, gale beautifies the his action "absorbing the dark magic shard" as a beautiful romance -- gale's folly for love mystra... , but in my view, this "love" will deteriorate to devour mystra. and mystra knows clearly that gale's essence that too similar with karsus. mystra keeps him alive might be just for dealing with the one behind gale.
i think gale is hypnotized by a certain existence(such as shar). this makes gale truely think tht he is "loving mystra", so that even you use "tadpole" or "perception" can not see through his lie. this can perfect cover ambition.
One thing I wonder about Gale is why he wants to read (and not just absorb) the Necromancy of Thay. I hope he doesn't want to become a lich! Maybe only on the evil path. I guess it is best to just destroy that book.
I don't believe Larian's writers have a clue about any of these nuances or have any knowledge of longstanding FR lore. Nor do they care. As I've repeatedly said from the beginning, for me Larian's writers are just plain awful, and the writing is the biggest weakness of BG3.
I don't want to sound like an uncritical booster - I'm not. But my critique has never been of the writing - it's more the Faerun 'feel' and the game mechanics. It think it's possible to say "no, badgers cannot teleport across pits" and still enjoy the writing. It's possible to say "to feel like a true sequel we need to be able to form an entirely good-aligned party" and still appreciate what the authors have put forward so far.
I don't think the ceo understands Faerun - but one of the writers might. Gale is using the shadow weave for it's intended purpose - to destroy Mystra's creations. Which give me some hope for BG3 - I really liked the shadow weave and I'm glad it has returned.
Totally fair. I was only offering my personal feelings; no expectation anyone else must also see it that way, obviously.
I guess my feelings on the writing come from being very, very, very invested in FR lore. I'm an FR lore fanatic, having all the FR-related 3.5e source books, and owning and having read almost all the FR novels. I positively LOVE the lore of the FR setting. So when I see (or perceive) FR lore being treated dismissively or cavalierly in any DnD game, not just BG3, I tend to react quite harshly.
One thing I wonder about Gale is why he wants to read (and not just absorb) the Necromancy of Thay. I hope he doesn't want to become a lich! Maybe only on the evil path. I guess it is best to just destroy that book.
I was wondering about that, too. Maybe he is just curious, it seems to be a pretty unique book after all, but I have also thought about the lich possibility. Maybe there is one path where he is tempted by the idea of becoming a lich.
Usually, I give the book to Astarion. Most likely, it is a bit of a risk to give it to him, as he is also not experienced with these kind of things, but I think he has a legitimate interest. If this book offers indeed a possibility to bring the dead back to life (I am thinking of a True Ressurection Spell), maybe we can bring Astarion back (after killing him first, so he is dead-dead and not undead)?
This could be a "good" path to help him (if he wants to), he would be free from Cazador and the detriments of being a vampire spawn, without having to keep the tadpole. The way he talks about full vampires, I am not so sure if he is so keen on becoming one.
But maybe there are different paths here as well.
Last edited by Lyelle; 09/03/2302:43 PM. Reason: Grammar
I guess my feelings on the writing come from being very, very, very invested in FR lore. I'm an FR lore fanatic, having all the FR-related 3.5e source books, and owning and having read almost all the FR novels. I positively LOVE the lore of the FR setting. So when I see (or perceive) FR lore being treated dismissively or cavalierly in any DnD game, not just BG3, I tend to react quite harshly.
Agreed. Faerun is and will always be my favorite setting. I've not read as many novels but I also own many sourcebooks. I really do think there is someone inside Larian who gets FR lore. The shadow weave is acting just like a shadow weave should act, no? The shadow weave is a cancer - it finds healthy weave and replaces it.
I'm even open to the idea that this how WotC is reintroducing the weave back into the world - one mythallar was not destroyed in 4e, Gale finds it, feeds and in "little shop of horror" style it emerges as fully formed . . .
And the fact that Gale annoys me so much tells me that he's well written. Anomen was one of the better written NPCs in BG2. But he was so very annoying . . .
One thing I wonder about Gale is why he wants to read (and not just absorb) the Necromancy of Thay. I hope he doesn't want to become a lich! Maybe only on the evil path. I guess it is best to just destroy that book.
I was wondering about that, too. Maybe he is just curious, it seems to be a pretty unique book after all, but I have also thought about the lich possibility. Maybe there is one path where he is tempted by the idea of becoming a lich.
Usually, I give the book to Astarion. Most likely, it is a bit of a risk to give it to him, as he is also not experienced with these kind of things, but I think he has a legitimate interest. If this book offers indeed a possibility to bring the dead back to life (I am thinking of a True Ressurection Spell), maybe we can bring Astarion back (after killing him first, so he is dead-dead and not undead)?
This could be a "good" path to help him (if he wants to), he would be free from Cazador and the detriments of being a vampire spawn, without having to keep the tadpole. The way he talks about full vampires, I am not so sure if he is so keen on becoming one.
But maybe there are different paths here as well.
oh... , you are so dangerous. this is an experiment of "the in between", i do suspect astarion will agree the experiment.
@stevelin7 Yes you are correct I am referring to the start of the spellplague. Shar aided Cyric's assassination of Mystra.
Now she may have abandoned him now that's he's locked away in his own dimension - we just don't know. But if she believes that Cyric will one day be freed from his prison she has a good reason to want him to hold the portfolio of murder instead of Bhaal: Cyric was a useful tool
@stevelin7 Yes you are correct I am referring to the start of the spellplague. Shar aided Cyric's assassination of Mystra.
Now she may have abandoned him now that's he's locked away in his own dimension - we just don't know. But if she believes that Cyric will one day be freed from his prison she has a good reason to want him to hold the portfolio of murder instead of Bhaal: Cyric was a useful tool
Actually, Stevelin - to your earlier comment, Our companions are the "Non-Good" companions - meaning these five represent both the evil and neutral spectrum. Gale is Neutral; either TN or CN. Shadow is Neutral Evil(Neutral Good underneath the brainwashing), Lae is Lawful Evil, Wyll is CN (But trending pretty heavy towards red) and Astarion is CE. They're all pretty strong classic archetypes of those alignments, in their basic form.
To KillerRabbit, what was said before – that this is likely staying the realms of us having differing opinions, still remains, and I'm also adding to it the standing statement that I think there's a lot of merit in the suggestion that there may not even be an objective truth to some of the details and motives, if there's the possibility of them swinging retroactively based on how we guide the story (Those of us who read a manipulating mastermind with intents on godhood will turn out to be correct if they play making decisions that assert that... and those that read a good person who made a bad mistake, and support him as such, will also be right in their own games). I know it may seem like repeated back-patting, but it's one of those conversations where checking in and touching base is worthwhile, to keep things light-hearted, so, sorry if reiterating it seems a bit repetitive!
Would you believe I've never associated the emote I use as anything cat related? It's always just been happy-eyes to me... which I'm think is originally an eastern cultural emote affectation that I just seem to have adopted at some point (the irony being that I'm pretty anti-emote and anti-emoji universally elsewise... yet I use that one, and that one only, all the time).
So, yes, sure, I can clarify what I was referring to - just, take it with smile and a pinch of salt ^.^
( The Continued Commentary -dun-dun-DUN-)
The things I'm mentioning you inventing out of the ether and then tarring Gale with are the places where you credited him with lines he didn't say and implications which you made up.
Here:
Quote
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 Here:
Quote
2) he's telling you why you might not agree - because you want to hold onto power. Not, say, I don't want to slaughter the grove.
Twice, you have attempted to introduce the idea of murder and death as the thing that Gale's request is compelling you to do, as part of characterising his requests as manipulative and Machiavellian. Both times, you inserted the supposition of death and murder of innocents into dialogue lines that did not contain any such reference, hint or suggestion, at all, and went on with your comment in a way that attempted to associate Gale's request or comment with that concept of murder and death of innocents. I believe part of what you were saying there was that he was implying that you condoned or would not stand against those things, if you didn't do as he asked, which is ridiculously unfair, since you were the one who introduced those concepts into the narrative yourself.
Gale never says, hints, suggests, implies or even remotely indicates in any way that you will have responsibility for any deaths if you don't do what he says (He's unlikely to ever do so, because doing so would imply that he is not the master of his own fate - something he would never willingly accept). Nor does getting him the item he asks for have anything at all to do with death or killing people, or need to in any way. Stealing the Idol, for example, is incredibly easy, safe and risk free, and doesn't require you to cause or incite any violence or death at all... Just don't grab it when it's busy being the central focus of an important ritual that the entire grove is on high alert about. Pick it up After the ritual issue is dealt with, and it's not being watched by a dozen pairs of eyes, and, once Khagga isn't making it important anymore, suddenly no-one actually cares – Some will notice it missing, and comment that the idol seems to have gone missing, after all that fuss, then shrug and walk away.
On multiple occasions, he indicates that he is against allowing the deaths of innocents, even if it involves danger to himself – which is actually more than can be said of would-be-hero Wyll.
Regarding the Idol and Gale's comments; I've never had him comment about the allure of such items except, explicitly in the circumstance where he is asking you for an item that you have, and you have the option of telling him you're not ready to part with it. Other lines at other junctures, certainly, but that particular line, only ever in that specific circumstance – that is my experience at least.
I'd also like to note that you consider Gale's reaction about not asking you to steal it to be a manipulation... Counter point: Gale is correct, and he didn't ask you to steal it. The player character is the one who invoked the idea of stealing it, and it is the player character's line that is casting Gale in a negative light, implying that he proposed theft when he literally did not. Gale is then forced to defend himself to that accusation – noting that he did not ask you to steal it at all. If the player had instead asked “How should I get it?” and Gale had suggested stealing it, I'd be on board with you, but he didn't. I could even say that it is the player character that is being manipulative and unfair towards Gale in that circumstance. The player could negotiate to acquire the idol from the druids, discuss trading it from them either for something else they need or some other service, or explain their need and talk with them about any other artefacts of that calibre that they may know about that could be put towards this need without inconveniencing anyone. We could do any of those things and I'm sure Gale would be very appreciative of it... but no, our Character jumped straight to Theft, and back-handed accused Gale of jumping to that point as well, when he literally did not.
And... it looks as though you bought into that manipulation by the player character, hook and all, because you accepted the player's characterisation of Gale as suggesting theft... or so it seems.
Quote
Next rest he […] claimed he wasn't actually asking for it.
No, he didn't. He tells you that he didn't ask you to steal it. Important difference. He certainly wants it, or something like it... but he corrected the player character's accusation that he has asked them to steal it... because he didn't.
==
Quote
One of the things that doesn't add up is Mystra cutting off contact for no reason at all. [...] Mystra does not ghost her lovers.
So, my understanding of the situation here – and I'll admit I'm hazy, so if you've got better quotes/videos etc that we can both look at that might help, but... My understanding was that Mystra didn't ghost him right away... what happened was that she grew more distant and not as immediately on-call as direct lovers. Not like he'd done anything wrong, just that she wasn't making the same time for him she used to, and eventually was not really making direct one-on-one time for him any more at all. He was still her chosen, and still in her good books, but he wasn't enjoying the heady closeness that he'd initially had when he was a fresh and new prodigy for her. Gale couldn't accept this, however (which is where I do find a bit of fault in him).
In trying to recapture her attention, he made his big play – and it was in that moment that he was cut off from her for more fundamentally, and fully – it was then that she 'ghosted' him. And that happened, I think it's safe to say, because that was the moment that he was bonded in essence to that chunk of shadow weave. That was such a sudden shift, that I feel it almost points more clearly to him not having had any contact with shadow weave before that at all.
That's my understanding of events... Mystra takes many lovers, and she loves freely, and without commitment. That means that you often take new lovers, and it means you often move on from old ones; there is no shame or fault or recrimination in any of that. Why she moved on from him doesn't even need a reason or justification, because unless your name is Elminster, it's going to happen sooner or later anyway. (Let's... not get into the whole “Gale is Elminster” theory... it's a thing, apparently!)
Gale did not 'Cheat on' Mystra, in that sense, unless you presume, and I'll say it again – against all evidence to the contrary that the game currently provides us – that he knew that what he was trying to access was shadow weave, not just a chunk of the first weave that had been cut off as he tells us, and that, knowing that, he took it into himself willingly. All the evidence we have points to these things not being correct; we get no insight check on his story-telling of the matter, and our look into his mind confirms that the shadow weave attacked him violently and suddenly when he found it. So, he only 'cheated' if you are actively ignoring the evidence we have, and are constructing a completely different story of your own creation, which has no evidence to support it.
Regardless of this... Gale, could not accept that he was 'moved on from', and it drove him to an action which cost him even more; that was his folly, and the poetic tragedy of it is that the burden levied upon him forces him to be the gate-keeper of a thing that destroys the very things he has loved and devoted himself to his whole life sharing and spreading... and he must feed it to survive.
==
Speaking of surviving... I guess that brings us to the “options” part of the topic!
Regarding the options – I'd like it if you acknowledged that one of your own suggestions, that you made – to buy a teleport scroll – is synonymous with doing the exact thing that Gale is trying to do, and which you are condemning him for trying to do. You suggested doing the exact same thing, as a solution that a good person might do, and he's doing it, and you're condemning him for it. Please acknowledge this, or amend or retract your suggestion. I am sorry to be so snippy about that – it just bugged me.
For the rest, in terms of his actions and choices.... Unfortunately from my perspective, all your comments regarding options and actions add up to is: “Yes, giving up and dying/committing 'noble' suicide is the only acceptable course of action!”
This means that Gale's premise alone – completely irrespective of anything to do with his personality – prevents you from Ever giving him a fair shot or thinking of him fairly, by definition... or so it seems. Or, to use your own modern analogy... the fact that Gale has (explosive)cancer, and isn't choosing to terminate his own life immediately because of that fact, makes him a bad person, on your metric. If I'm mistaken please correct me... because that isn't fair.
To be clear:
Quote
Some evil person has put a tactical-nuke suicide vest on you that will explode if tampered with. Because you are expert in such matters you know bomb is big enough to take out all of NYC. Timer is set for 3 days.
I buy the ticket to NYC. 100% that's what I do... and it's what any sane and rational person would do. If, after 2 days, I have no solution and no hope in sight of finding one, then I'll get out of the city and ensure that no-one else suffers for my failure to find a solution (not before giving as much information as I can about my circumstance to the authorities, of course, so that the mad bomber can be caught before they do this again), but as long as I have time and the ability to use that time, then I'm going to use every possible resource at my disposal to seek a better solution than giving up and dying.
Giving up and dying is not strength, and there isn't really any such thing as a noble sacrifice – just a person who has accepted death because they've given up on looking for a better solution. Sometimes there isn't a better solution, that's true – but that's no excuse to stop looking for one, because there usually is. I may have a personal and biased outlook on this, and I accept that, but it's where I stand. By all means, if I seem harsh here, drop me a message, as it's not something that I'll discuss in this thread.
Quote
Quote
Flying into the air […] Running off into the wilderness on foot.
I maintain it's better than finding an inn with soft sheets in one the largest cities on the continent.
I do not. Seeking answers while you have the time and capability to seek them is a far better and more morally sound course of action than shrugging your shoulders and saying “Well, I guess I'll die then.”
Quote
And let's remember how our poor victim responds when you finally give him the object that will last him until Baldur's gate [...] Does he think about how many lives he can save? […] No, instead he waxes lyrical about the allure of soft beds, scented baths, music and good food. Like good people do.
Why would talking about 'saving people' make any sense at all when the conversation is about your ability to find a solution to your problem? It wouldn't make sense in this conversation at all, so why do you attempt to insert it into the conversation? I'm looking forward to the comforts of a proper city too; that doesn't detract from the fact that I'm there to search for solutions – a point which Gale, even in this moment of optimism, reminds us of himself: he says, himself, that more important than any of those luxuries, is the search for solutions.
There are some people who would recriminate the person who, when everything seems terrible and dire, can still appreciate the good things for what they are, and who can accept the moments when they must rest or recuperate as being such moments, and release their weariness and stresses during those moments. The ones who rebuke these people are generally not very pleasant people to be around themselves. Being able to appreciate the things that we are able to appreciate in times of strife and hardship is an important and valuable skill.
I've got a tadpole in my brain, and no idea when, if, or how it might destroy me body and soul. I'm doing everything I can to solve that problem, within my own personal morality... and when I get to Baldur's gate, I will have to sleep, and I will have to eat, and I will have to bathe, and I am very much looking forward to sleeping in comfortable beds, and eating good food, and bathing in pleasant conditions, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
Quote
Concerns about other people dying are reserved for those moments when he's asking for an object or extracting a promise
This is not true either; Gale, more than any of the others, as far a I recall, has strong reactions to situations that deal with the potential loss of innocent lives of others, or their endangerment. His reaction to Nettie trying to kill you, under the pretence of 'treating' you, comes to mind, as well as his reactions relating to Mayrina and Ethel. He's also one of he only ones who will leave you hard cut for selling out the tieflings and the druids to the goblins, which he will do irrespective of Halsin's status, so it's not about tadpole cure options.
==
Quote
I may regret saying this but I wonder how much of our differences of interpretation come down to being okay with being manipulated? Because if someone makes me dinner and then tries to extract a promise while I still have the flavor on my tongue . . . my first instinct is . . . not kind.
I'm not going to hold it against you for suggesting this, because I know it comes from a place of good intention... but do I strike you as the sort who allows herself to be manipulated in ways she does not wish to be?
If a friend invites me over, and makes me dinner, and then sits me down after the fancy desert and says “So.. look... Can I ask you to promise me something?”
My first instinct is: “This is probably something serious. They've gone to a lot of effort to make sure I'm in a good mood before broaching this subject to me, whatever it is, so, I guess it must really be something important to them that they want me in their corner for, whatever that looks like. It's probably something pretty big, too, so... let's hear them out.” And then I will listen to what they have to say, and I'll make my decision based on the information at my disposal.
If your first instinct in that situation is “This Person Is Trying To Manipulate Me! Slimy Git! How Dare!!”, then, I may regret saying this, and I'll ask for your understanding that it also comes from a place of good intention, but that's concerning to me.
Reading through the rest of our comments and exchanges on this topic, and I know I'm running real long here, so I'll try to be succinct... but, the more I read about your own background and history as you tell it, the more inclined I am to feel that you have conditioned yourself, or been conditioned, to see and identify malicious, manipulative behaviour Everywhere, even where it simply does not exist and is not present.
Like, here's the thing: I could go back over your past three posts to me, and pull out a list of comments, phrases and details, that, were I you, and you Gale, I would absolutely characterise as you being a Direly Machiavellian Manipulator and of Obviously Insidious Intent with the way you are trying to manipulate me into being more agreeable to your stance. I know that's not what you're doing, and I know that that was no part of your intent – you are trying to be convincing(I presume), but there's nothing underhanded about it (and I apologise if anything I've said thus far has leaned into implying that without my noticing).
Quote
And I truly believe that my position requires fewer contortions than yours
I'm sorry, but I really don't... and I'm just not sure how it is that you don't see that. Your position requires you to presume that the information provided above the table, by the game system, is falsified, that the information provided in universe is also lies, and then requires you to build an entirely different story to replace the information provided, and string it up in order to make sure it still can be made to fit the other behaviours that seem to contradict it, based on an initial supposition that you have no hard in-game evidence for.
My stance requires you to trust that the above-table tools are working as described, and to take the information provided at face value when those tools report it as honest. Nothing more.
=
Humour to round it off...
Quote
And believe me - I am very familiar with the habits of homo academicus. You would be a great prof - Gale would be dismissed for dating his students.
Given the chatter about Mystra, wouldn't you say it's more apt to characterise him as the student who got in trouble for engaging in adult activities with his teachers? I which case, you say Gale and I are not alike, but... erm...
Quote
I was also a server where I learned the art of "provide the reason" and "provide the answer". Provide the answer was one my first lessons as a server - you never, never ask open ended questions when checking on a table. "How are things over here"? is wrong. "How are things over here-good?" is the right way to manipulate customers into being happy. […] "Provide the reason" - when someone is unhappy a good server suggest a reason that is easy to fix. "you don't like it? Not enough sauce perhaps?"
If serving staff here behaved like that, I, and a lot of other folks, would likely get quite agitated at them for their invasive and presumptuous attitude... yikes.
(Here, the general propositions are: “Is everything alright here?” and/or “Can I get you anything else?”)
Different cultures and different mindsets, perhaps (I don't actually know where you're located, sorry.... I'm in Australia ^.^).
Touching base at the end: I spent a couple of hours going through this and picking over the points we're discussing, because I'm enjoying the examination of it, and I'm finding your view and stance very interesting, for being so different from my own. Other folks have mentioned feeling the same way about Gale as you do, and I've had a real hard time pinning down an honest and open conversation about it, so thank you for this! I'm not trying to win a debate or argue, and if anything here ended up getting too direct or too aggressive, or feeling like an attack, that's a failure on my part, and one I apologise for ^.^
Gale did ask me to acquire the idol for him once, because he chose to reveal himself on night 1 after glitching out. He asked.
By his delivery, he knew it was an evil choice.
I don't think it's reasonable to assume the druids would part with it willingly. Proof? Gale thinks they wouldn't. Respond (in my memory) "that sounds like more trouble than it's worth" and he'll back down with "haha, yeah that would be stupid. Only brainstorming. There's artefacts everywhere".
You cannot convince me he wasn't /fishing/ to gauge your character. It was manipulative and machiavellain. I know machiavellain people, and what drives their behavior. Gale, however, has not the necessary broken and repurposed gears to be one proper, making the whole encounter slimy.
Gale is greedy. People have been saying his flaw is hybris, but I don't think so. It's not hybris that makes him do stupid things. It's greed. Greed, to possess all of Mystra's affection. Greed for power for the sake of power. Greed to /consume/.
His ego was never the problem. It's how far he's willing to bend his morals for his heart's desire. His greed will cause the artefact to gain in power... or doom his soul.
Pinning hybris on someone, I'd have to go with Astarion. That weasel thinks he's on the road to becoming invincible. Even Lae'Zel is foolish enough.
I do think our perspectives differ because of what we perceive Gale's fatal flaw to be, though. Greed can't exactly be misguided the way hybris is... nor does it go away with wisdom. Furthermore, greed would mean absorbing the artefact probably/wasn't/ an accident. He just didn't expect it to sap his power. Greed would mean he's still sticking to the plan of unlocking its full potential -- not seeking a cure.
Most of all... greed means he's evolving into something highly favored by Shar. Shar is not nice in bestowing favors. They do not end well for the target. That thing is a curse for anyone it comes in contact with. It may as well be Gale's desire to consume Mystra given physical shape.
Not spoilering because there's a weird forum bug that can make spoilered comments invisible unless you click on quote reply.
Quote
To KillerRabbit, what was said before – that this is likely staying the realms of us having differing opinions, still remains, and I'm also adding to it the standing statement that I think there's a lot of merit in the suggestion that there may not even be an objective truth to some of the details and motives, if there's the possibility of them swinging retroactively based on how we guide the story (Those of us who read a manipulating mastermind with intents on godhood will turn out to be correct if they play making decisions that assert that... and those that read a good person who made a bad mistake, and support him as such, will also be right in their own games). I know it may seem like repeated back-patting, but it's one of those conversations where checking in and touching base is worthwhile, to keep things light-hearted, so, sorry if reiterating it seems a bit repetitive!
Quote
Twice, you have attempted to introduce the idea of murder and death as the thing that Gale's request is compelling you to do, as part of characterising his requests as manipulative and Machiavellian. Both times, you inserted the supposition of death and murder of innocents
Heck. I keep searching youtube for one that takes the option that makes Gale say "It won't be just me that suffers" but I can't. Too many of the videos are edited for length. I'm going to have play a game where I bring gale, aren't I? Will respond in coming days
Quote
Regarding the Idol and Gale's comments; I've never had him comment about the allure of such items except, explicitly in the circumstance where he is asking you for an item that you have, and you have the option of telling him you're not ready to part with it. Other lines at other junctures, certainly, but that particular line, only ever in that specific circumstance – that is my experience at least.
That also fires if you don't have any artifacts on you, on this I'm certain. It's part of Gales training of Tav - if you agree not only are you good but also brave. "which is to say, I know the sacrifice I ask . . . in the hands of powerful . . .good, some boldness will serve us well"
Quote
I'd also like to note that you consider Gale's reaction about not asking you to steal it to be a manipulation... Counter point: Gale is correct, and he didn't ask you to steal it. The player character is the one who invoked the idea of stealing it, and it is the player character's line that is casting Gale in a negative light, implying that he proposed theft when he literally did not.
This is lots of fun but it's a bit lawyerly isn't it? It's not like the idol is for sale . . .
Quote
One of the things that doesn't add up is Mystra cutting off contact for no reason at all. [...] Mystra does not ghost her lovers.
Quote
So, my understanding of the situation here – and I'll admit I'm hazy, so if you've got better quotes/videos etc that we can both look at that might help, but... My understanding was that Mystra didn't ghost him right away... what happened was that she grew more distant and not as immediately on-call as direct lovers. Not like he'd done anything wrong, just that she wasn't making the same time for him she used to, and eventually was not really making direct one-on-one time for him any more at all. He was still her chosen, and still in her good books, but he wasn't enjoying the heady closeness that he'd initially had when he was a fresh and new prodigy for her. Gale couldn't accept this, however (which is where I do find a bit of fault in him).
It's not clear if it was sudden or the whispers stop at some point. (1:29)
It think a slow tapering off of contact would fit what we know about the shadow weave - in 3.5 it's hinted that even the god of divination can't divine things obscured by the shadow weave - so she could have been calling him but failing to reach his phone. Perhaps she was never upset at all?
Quote
That's my understanding of events... Mystra takes many lovers, and she loves freely, and without commitment. That means that you often take new lovers, and it means you often move on from old ones; there is no shame or fault or recrimination in any of that.
True - she's something of a relationship anarchist but the only other version of ending contact / revoking chosen status I can remember is Sammaster and in that instance she sent Eliminster to intervene. Otherwise chosen status is nigh immortality.
Quote
Gale did not 'Cheat on' Mystra, in that sense, unless you presume, and I'll say it again – against all evidence to the contrary that the game currently provides us – that he knew that what he was trying to access was shadow weave, not just a chunk of the first weave that had been cut off as he tells us, and that, knowing that, he took it into himself willingly. All the evidence we have points to these things not being correct; we get no insight check on his story-telling of the matter, and our look into his mind confirms that the shadow weave attacked him violently and suddenly when he found it. So, he only 'cheated' if you are actively ignoring the evidence we have, and are constructing a completely different story of your own creation, which has no evidence to support it.
I honestly had not seen this before I used the cheating on the ex line! Note that Gale has an opportunity to suggest some version of ethical non monogamy but doesn't - he wanted an affair or a break up. I mean come on! I can't believe Astarian wouldn't be open to the idea of ENM (or, since it's Astarian it would just be NM wouldn't it?)
Take note of another time when we aren't allowed an insight check or tadpole - Astarian's meeting of the Gur and his transformation into a Vampire spawn.
Why did the Gur attack him in the first place? Could the Gur have had good reason to seek him out? Did they want revenge?
Or think about why the flaming fist officer who distrusts Wyll - we only have a part of the story there but no tadpole or wisdom option.
Not getting the full story because the DM doesn't want us to have it yet par for the course in this game.
Quote
Regardless of this... Gale, could not accept that he was 'moved on from', and it drove him to an action which cost him even more; that was his folly, and the poetic tragedy of it is that the burden levied upon him forces him to be the gate-keeper of a thing that destroys the very things he has loved and devoted himself to his whole life sharing and spreading... and he must feed it to survive.
That's the crux of the matter and you may be correct - there may not be a definitive truth but multiple true stories in the game itself.
Quote
“Yes, . . . committing 'noble' suicide is the only acceptable course of action!”
Yes. Except, again, that it's not giving up - that's just facing up the facts. Better that than exploding a bomb that could take out a city the size of Waterdeep, better that destroying objects sacred to Mystra, better that than feeding the shadow weave.
And it was just ghosting and not betrayal he would have done well to do so right away - he'd get to see Mystra again.
This means that Gale's premise alone – completely irrespective of anything to do with his personality – prevents you from Ever giving him a fair shot or thinking of him fairly, by definition... or so it seems. Or, to use your own modern analogy... the fact that Gale has (explosive)cancer, and isn't choosing to terminate his own life immediately because of that fact, makes him a bad person, on your metric. If I'm mistaken please correct me... because that isn't fair.
To be clear:
Quote
Some evil person has put a tactical-nuke suicide vest on you that will explode if tampered with. Because you are expert in such matters you know bomb is big enough to take out all of NYC. Timer is set for 3 days.
Quote
I buy the ticket to NYC. 100% that's what I do... and it's what any sane and rational person would do.
I'm running as fast I as can to get away from the penguins . . .
Quote
I may have a personal and biased outlook on this, and I accept that, but it's where I stand. By all means, if I seem harsh here, drop me a message, as it's not something that I'll discuss in this thread.
I accept that - I'll not press on the matter. We'll just accept that our views are very different on this matter.
Quote
This is not true either; Gale, more than any of the others, as far a I recall, has strong reactions to situations that deal with the potential loss of innocent lives of others, or their endangerment. His reaction to Nettie trying to kill you, under the pretence of 'treating' you, comes to mind, as well as his reactions relating to Mayrina and Ethel. He's also one of he only ones who will leave you hard cut for selling out the tieflings and the druids to the goblins, which he will do irrespective of Halsin's status, so it's not about tadpole cure options.
You can convince him to stay and he will help you slaughter everyone but he feels awful about it - another place where his reactions and actions are at odds.
Glad I looked this up - I really like his lines but I can never bring myself to side with Minthara. His lines about the spreading darkness within makes me think that chosen of shar is real possibility . . . .
Quote
but do I strike you as the sort who allows herself to be manipulated in ways she does not wish to be?
No you do not But your phrasing does make think we've identified something important. We have different emotional reactions to . . . ummm . . . some forms of consensual manipulation?
Quote
(sniping dinner example) . . . I may regret saying this, and I'll ask for your understanding that it also comes from a place of good intention, but that's concerning to me.
I read that in the spirit it was intended. As a sincere expression of concern for my well being. It's nice to be thought of
Luckily my friends know me well enough to never try something like that on me.
Quote
you have conditioned yourself, or been conditioned, to see and identify malicious, manipulative behaviour Everywhere, even where it simply does not exist and is not present.
Yes. Except that it is everywhere. And what's more, I try to make other people see the world the way I do so they can better protect themselves from getting into manipulative relationships. Such is the irony for me that the people who tend to see the world the way I do are usually either Focauldians or heavily into the D/s lifestyle - but they and I have very different reactions when they see what I see.
Quote
Like, here's the thing: I could go back over your past three posts to me, and pull out a list of comments, phrases and details, that, were I you, and you Gale, I would absolutely characterise as you being a Direly Machiavellian Manipulator and of Obviously Insidious Intent with the way you are trying to manipulate me into being more agreeable to your stance. I know that's not what you're doing, and I know that that was no part of your intent – you are trying to be convincing(I presume), but there's nothing underhanded about it (and I apologise if anything I've said thus far has leaned into implying that without my noticing).
Are we doing that? Are we trying to persuade one another? Or are both spelling our positions because it's entertaining to see something through the eyes of another person? From my selfish perspective I just enjoy reading your replies.
But, granted, manipulation is everywhere and, try as I might, I've not purged myself of the impulse to manipulate so I might have done so unconsciously - if so, I'm sorry.
Quote
you say we're not alike, but... erm...
What thing for you and I to have in common . . . I've only met 4 other people who . . .
Quote
(Here, the general propositions are: “Is everything alright here?” and/or “Can I get you anything else?”)
I used those as well - the phrase you use is determined by the body language of the people and how much they've eaten. If you've only heard those phrases the chances are that you are usually happy when eating in restaurants and appear to be enjoying your food and the company you keep. Pro tip - never wait tables on Mothers Day in the U.S. Half the people you end up serving don't feel comfortable in restaurants
Timing is key. "How is the food?" then you have microseconds before they start thinking - thinking that must be replaced with your own suggestions! "Is it good?" is the best question to ask but a quick "good?" is better if you are dealing with a business diner.
Quote
Touching base at the end: I spent a couple of hours going through this and picking over the points we're discussing, because I'm enjoying the examination of it, and I'm finding your view and stance very interesting, for being so different from my own.
Likewise!
Here's someone who also reacted strongly against gale but for (slightly) different reasons. Found it while looking for the "it won't just be me" video. I think this human dislikes Gale even more than I do!
Strange note to end on I realize but I didn't know where else to put it. So thanks again for making efforts to keep the conversation fun.
