Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Story & Character Discussion Justice for Gale

Killer Rabbit.

1) You cannot willfully ignore evidence within a narrative then judge that narrative using a pre-assumed conclusion from external sources, create double standards between which cast members are and are not allowed to suffer abuse according to your own biases, and claim personal authority over which narratives (or readings) are and are not permitted to be explored. You are not the authority on writing or morality. No one is. You overstepped both analytically and on a personal level with me. You do not know me. I have gone out of my way to be polite and considerate toward you despite strong differences in opinion. You do not know my life experiences or why I personally care so much about this subject being navigated appropriately. You have assumed, mocked, and twisted words in bad faith throughout our exchange.

2) Narratives operate on implicit as well as explicit evidence. Both count as valid storytelling technique. Both are used as evidence to support analysis. Explicit storytelling involves being exposed to information directly in immediate situations or communication by cast members. Implicit storytelling requires paying attention to context clues, character behavior, the environment, symbolism, foreshadowing, etc. then reading between the lines to find meaning. Implicit storytelling can involve some understanding of how narrative arcs and human psychology work, as well as putting information together to create a cohesive whole.

One of the most textbook examples of implicit storytelling reads "For Sale: Baby shoes, never worn." This suggests that someone was expecting and excited for a baby (bought shoes in advance) only to lose the baby before it could wear the shoes bought for it. According to your discussion, I suspect you would engage this piece trying to argue 'the baby shoes were the wrong size' or 'someone didn't like those baby shoes after all'. You and I will not be able to have meaningful discussions regarding explicit versus implicit storytelling for this reason.

3) You appear to have misconceptions about what grooming is versus what it isn't. Because of this it seems you have an incorrect read of the situation I have been describing with regards to Gale and Mystra. Grooming does not necessitate physical assault. It is when an adult takes advantage of the vulnerability of a minor with the goal of conditioning them to be more compliant and accepting of advances. It still counts as grooming if the adult swoops in the moment the minor turns eighteen, having normalized their advances before then. It still counts if the subject turns twenty, or twenty five, or whatever age. It still counts if the preparation was there but isn't ultimately realized by the groomer. This situation does not prevent Gale from having other relationships during adolescence or early adulthood while being subjected to grooming. He would still be a victim of grooming if Mystra instigated the relationship at a later point in time. Adults who were groomed as children are still victims of abuse. Age gap relationships and divine/mortal relationships are not generally presumed to involve grooming. I find it not only disingenuous that you suggested as much but outright disturbing that you don't appear to recognize the difference.

4) Minsc has aspects of his character that are meant to be jokes. Not everything he says, does, or experiences is written to be a joke. He would be a poorer character if he was, particularly within the narrative of Baldur's Gate 3. This is very basic character construction. There is no reality in which the dialogue I presented was included to be a joke, meaningless, or discarded out of hand. The subject matter and implications are simply too heavy for that. For people who prefer to read it without the undertone, there is room to argue there are other types of 'snares she sets for young and prideful boys'. I don't personally think that implication is as strong given the relationship as context, but there is plausible room to opt out.

5) The words I used were only tools to communicate. Good faith may help improve yours. It does a lot for for prettiness when you're sincerely trying to express an idea to someone instead of lashing out.

6) Hierarchies of suffering and abuse (as you've insisted upon employing with Asterion) are deeply offensive and actually serve to harm victims of abuse through invalidation. Discussing the existence of child abuse in storytelling does not do this. You decided that Gale was not allowed to be victimized by Mystra without so much as entertaining the possibility because you were biased toward Mystra from the outset and inflexible in your perception of her. You deliberately opted not to engage with Gale's character by your own admission because of this, labeling any expression of pain on his part as him painting Mystra as his crazy ex. You also lack the humility to acknowledge your subjective choice regarding which narrative receives priority. Your preference has zero bearing on which version of Mystra is inherently more valid.

It comes across that you referred to the possibility of Gale being groomed by Mystra (or being a victim of abuse generally) as 'silly' solely because you like Mystra and do not want to entertain the possibility that there is a version of her that would commit such acts. I specifically tried to give you an out for that scenario with 'choose your canon' since it would allow you to preserve your favored version of Mystra regardless of anything in BG3. This was an attempt to spare you discomfort. You ignored it to be aggressive instead. I don't think you're prepared to navigate the possibility of defending a character within a specific narrative where she is an abuser, or the possibility that you have been actively denouncing her victim's trauma along with evidence of that abuse to preserve your own sense of moral certainty. Being mindful that this is fiction, your entire position hinges on denying the possibility of your having expressed cruelty, trivialization, and disdain for a character who is a victim while championing his abuser.

It wouldn't be hard to say 'I find this reading inconsistent with my understanding of Mystra from other material, and am not using it.' You're allowed to do that. There's nothing wrong with doing that.

Instead, you have behaved with the presumption that you are incapable of being unjustly cruel or disdainful while remaining enthusiastic in your cruelty and disdain. Your entire reply is characterized by the belief that you couldn't possibly misjudge regardless of whether you bothered to engage the story at all. You have shown the same presumption, judgment, and hostility to me (a stranger) because we disagree on a matter of storytelling. You're not the exception to human fallibility and you don't know everything.

7) Solely because you raised the subject, Alan Moore explicitly stated that Barbara Gordon was paralyzed and sexually assaulted in The Killing Joke--but nothing beyond that. It would be sexual assault, but not rape by his claim. Death of the author means readers can agree or disagree regarding Alan Moore's explanation according to the work presented. The regret Alan Moore expressed reflected framing Barbara's suffering as a narrative device within a story that wasn't about her experience, but as a tool to torment her father. He additionally had no intention for Barbara's paralysis to be a sticking feature in continuity and (with that particularly in-mind) did not feel he did her story justice. The problem was not that she was paralyzed and sexually assaulted within a narrative. This is unfortunately something that happens to human beings and we are allowed to examine those horrors in fiction. If the interpretation included rape, that also would have been narratively acceptable to examine as a part of human experience. The element that Alan Moore regretted specifically had to do with not treating Barbara as a person of equal weight to Batman and Jim Gordon in The Killing Joke. Alan Moore certainly never said that it was impossible to examine sexual assault through a comic medium or even in superhero comics specifically, which is obvious from his body of work and if you know anything about Alan Moore's creative philosophy. He didn't even advocate for more conservative presentations of such violence.

It matters if a character's trauma is treated as a prop in someone else's story or if the story is specifically about them going through that traumatic experience. The takeaway from The Killing Joke should not be that such horror and trauma can never be depicted, but that horror and trauma must be afforded weight and identified with by the reader as 'default' as opposed to 'other'.

There is plenty of subject matter to discuss about The Killing Joke. It is an important and influential comic. It isn't my favorite, is flawed, is still worth discussing for the places it falls short as well as where it succeeds. While talented, Alan Moore isn't my favorite creator either. There are works of his I disagree with and find uncomfortable by Moore's own design.

And frankly, if Moore changed his answer to advocate censorship of any medium later I would lose respect for Moore over it and consider him a hypocrite. Particularly after Lost Girls and Watchmen.

8) I have been careful to state anytime I discuss the reading that Mystra groomed Gale, and will reiterate--it's a possibility that has evidence behind it, but it is not a mandate to interpret said evidence that way. I personally think the evidence supports the read. I have reasons I've gone with that interpretation. It's also totally fine to read the examples provided differently. Understanding how a conclusion was reached does not require agreeing with the conclusion. Being insulting is unnecessary.

I am surprised that the interpretation wasn't something known or discussed here previously because it is not only prevalent in other fan circles, but an additional factor feeding anger from many fans toward Larian due to the IGN interview coupled with instances of insulting Gale on subjects related to his trauma within the narrative. The outrage is at a point where I can't even browse tags without encountering that anger from other fans. I came to the forums because I don't think the worst interpretations of the interview or dialogue options were intended on Larian's part, and wanted to articulate any concerns with that benefit of the doubt rather than have Larian exposed purely via people wound up out of their minds taking the worst readings as true. There are multiple developers at Larian working on different areas of the narrative and my impression is that they have varying awareness/involvement on other parts. I can absolutely imagine confusion at why fans are having such an intense reaction particularly if that subtext possibility wasn't accounted for by interviewees focused on other areas. My first message in this thread essentially said it might be a good idea to clarify if the devs aren't advocating that Gale should die because he's annoying on a personal level. I don't think that's what they meant, but that interpretation is so goddamn common it might be worth it to just clarify if that wasn't the intent. I think clarifying might de-escalate the discussions going on.

With those points addressed, I have no further desire to speak with you.