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

I've actually done a bunch of analysis on this lol, and it's something I find insanely interesting! I do think talking Gale down from godhood is the right call myself, but not because godhood would be an immoral choice. What Mystra is doing is unconscionable imo and a mortal would be totally within bounds to unseat her for it. It's not a matter of Gale being less in any way either. I just think godhood would be personally, psychologically bad for him. (Plus what happened to Karsus is I-have-no-mouth-and-I-must-scream material that just isn't worth it lol.)

I figure Gale buries his self-esteem issues under stuff. Magic, wealth, education, etc. If you strip those things away and leave him as just a person he does not see anything of value there. He uses other things to try and create lifelines for when he thinks his existence has nothing to offer by itself and the world would be better off without him. 'I might be a worthless person but at least I'm smart. At least I'm powerful. At least I'm influential.' The root of the problem is that he thinks he's worthless. He's never been worthless. With god!Gale, he buries that insecurity under so much stuff that he'll be hard-pressed to address it in any meaningful way again. He'll never know for sure whether a romanced player chose to be with him because they believed he could ascend to godhood--giving them perks from such a powerful partner. He'll never know if anyone likes him as a person instead of the stuff he's accumulated. Alternate readings are totally possible ofc, but that's mine.

So I don't personally mind the 'god you pretend to be' line because I figure it speaks more to Gale trying to bury himself under whatever qualities, skills, achievements, or possessions he finds impressive. I interpret it as 'you don't need stuff to impress me'. I'm also in what's probably a weird minority position where I don't think Gale is ambitious for its own sake so much as he uses ambition as a crutch against his mental health issues. Characters who try to bend and expand what magic is capable of achieving purely because they love the challenge of it I'd say are more fitting there. Even characters who get joy from competing with one another would qualify imo. But ambition itself doesn't strike me as Gale's end goal. Think the guy just wants to know he's not replaceable and is worth caring about as a person. Way more mundane desire but Gale's depressed and traumatized so it seems unattainable to him. If he gives up on being cared about, he'll put all of his efforts into being irreplaceable through unrivaled ability. Means to an end does not true ambition make imo.

Also though, YEAH SAME ON THE LORROAKAN SCENE. I'm kind of grossed out but not surprised Mystra spread word of that the way she did too. Not because she's caricature evil or anything, I think she has complexes tied to the Karsus incident and subsequent deaths so she's doing her best to control wizards. She'd want to discourage similar activity, so what better way than to make an example of Gale? Still abusive as hell though.

And with bragging, I didn't figure him mentioning Tara and the mephit were part of that tbh. The yawning portal story might have qualified a bit where anecdotes are concerned but it also read to me like he was so impressed by the player that he wanted to impress back. Wasn't offended, just seemed a little awkward on his end in a realistic way. Also makes sense to me that the stories he tells are ones where he's trying to make himself look good. Especially early on, he's afraid the group will abandon him somewhere to explode if he isn't seen as bringing something of value to the table. Since dude's depressed + brought down to level one, he doesn't see himself as bringing much to the table except burdens and added threats. Guy's desperately trying to compensate.

Wow... that was... a rather impressive post.

The "pretend" bothers me because it is not true. He wouldn't be a pretend god, he would be a real god and it still would be a shame to loose the human for it. Many of the Gods we deal with were mortal once, Mystra was mortal once but in becoming gods they became focused on their domain and lost parts of themselves. Gale knows that, he even says it about Mystra, but when spinning his idealistic tale about bettering the gods, he completely forgets about this. Probably mostly because the godhood thing is a way out for him, revenge against the goddess who wronged him and getting rid of all the human aspects of himself which he doesn't think much of. The "god you'd pretend to be" is dismissive of him and his vision, if you take the pretend out and say "the man you are is worth more than the god you could be" there you have statement that hits - and also reflects disregard for all the divines who have treated you as their playthings until now.


I think there are two sides to ambition, the magical side and the renown side. He totally is an ambitious wizards, is insanely curious, loves a challenge and needs to understand everything. That's what he is personally proud of and that never goes away, even in his human epilogues. Then there is the side of public acknowledgement, of fame and being respected, that's the crutch. It's this sentiment that made him pick his monicker because his family name doesn't sound like much. If you look at the other wizards we meet, Rolan and Lorroakan, one can imagine why, wizard academia seems to be extremely cut-throat and place importance only on individual power and prestige. I'd go as far as to say this environment might be the reason for his mental health issues. For a long while he was only valued as a great wizard (or at least that's what he thought) and then suddenly all that power was gone and he was worthless in his own eyes and those of his envious peers. The need for fame is the part of ambition that his human self gets rid of - and the one thing that is left to his god self.

In that conversation Lorroakan mocks him for following around some adventurer and Gale begrudgingly says, that it's his choice to do so. I would just like for an opportunity to tell him how much I value him, his exposition and his expertly timed counter spells. It would be a nice opportunity to show the value of a group against that individualistic wizard behaviour too.


I don't think she did. I figured that was the academic grapevine. You probably notice when a famed wizard suddenly goes into hiding and never leaves his tower. There probably was a lot of gossip.

I hope not either, but there's actually a third example - Halsin - which makes me think we're looking at a real pattern. Fortunately they did sort of address that issue with Halsin by adding some new, more thoughtful content later.

I agree. I'm impressed by the quality of the writing and the strength of the authors convictions. I also strongly disagree with the premise. I don't think Gale was victimized by Mystra and find the comparison of Gale's treatment to that of child abuse . . . supercilious? It's overly strong analogue to apply to a silly story. Child abuse is a very serious issue and shouldn't be invoked in such a manner.

If Gale blows himself up he is all but assured a place in the afterlife with Mystra. Someone who is always asking to be directed to a good library is ends up spending eternity in the best library in existence. When Gale was a chosen he was granted god level health (passive regeneration, immunity to aging and most diseases), immunity to a host of spells, the ability to free cast some spells and the ability to use silverfire. As long as you don't die in a vat of acid you are immortal - no need for mephits or underemployed death gods. Gale was also free to form any sort of romantic relationship he wanted with mortals or other gods. Being chosen is not nice thing and is not abusive. My Tav would take the offer in an instant.

What Gale did was not evil but he created quite a mess. Mystra is both the internet and the sysadmin of the internet. Gale was someone who downloaded a virus that destroyed his laptop and and is now spreading to other computers. Were Mystra vindictive she could launch Gale into the shadowfell and let his orb detonate there. Instead she lets the virus spread across the internet in the hopes that Gale would use this crisis as an opportunity to show he is worthy of his status as a chosen. If Mystra is to be faulted for anything it's putting her personal feelings before her duties as sysadmin. How many servers did that virus take down before Gale fixed his mistake? How much of the weave fell victim to Gale's Folly?

Granted I've not romanced Gale so I only know him as a companion and my cleric of Mystra made it clear she didn't want hear him talk about her god as if she were a crazy ex so I don't have all the dialogues others do but I think Mystra treated Gale rather well. And of course she forgives him every time he fails to enact her plan . . .

Hope it was fun! Analysis is my jam, but also sorry for length lol. I'm horrendous at short.



Intended gently from me--I think this is an interpretative choice on your end same as the version I described is an interpretive choice on mine. There are aspects of writing that are decisive and (DARE I SAY) absolute--but there are others that are more ambiguous. The latter work similarly to optical illusions where different audience members come away with different reads.

I don't take the 'god you pretend to be' line as purely literal, but as a reflection of what godhood/Gale trying to improve himself as much as possible through stuff would mean. By my read, it's less about functionally becoming a god and more about Gale abandoning himself the way he's feared everyone else would. Akin to outright burying the personal self.

If the line is taken in an exclusively literal sense, then it carries a connotation closer to what you described. But people don't speak in exclusively literal terms. For me, it was far more intuitive and tonally consistent for the line to suggest the player is elevating Gale's personal identity irrespective of power.

With the same intended gentleness, I do think it's important to be careful about what is claimed as objective fact versus what is interpretive choice. I figure you and I are fine and just sort of comparing notes here, but holy crap are some corners of the internet winding themselves up needlessly.


I told ya my ambition bit was controversial lol! ;P I may need to respectfully disagree, but like--the respect is sincere, I know this is an odd take and a lot hinges on personal definitions of ambition.

I figure Gale still genuinely loves magic in his human epilogue, but having seen a slew of other archwizards in the Forgotten Realms (including Daurgothoth, who far as I'm concerned is the pinnacle)--I'd argue the epilogue shows Gale finds contentment in a quiet, non-ambitious life teaching. He wants to share his knowledge with others and give them tools to find joy in magic for its own sake. He does offer to teach all subjects since he knows them, but that's not reasonable on a bunch of levels including 'humans do need sleep sometimes'.

Gale in his human ending doesn't appear focused on testing or pushing the limits of magic himself or impressing others, but in spreading understanding of magic among students so they can succeed to their best ability. It isn't about elevating himself to a singular and irreplaceable position (god!Gale) but specifically sharing tools and resources so that others have a better chance of success themselves. Combine this with Gale abandoning 'the Wizard of Waterdeep' (pompous, in his own words) to be just a normal guy with a normal first and last name... he seems finally at peace with being himelf.

Guy still loves magic, same as a writer might love writing or an artist might love drawing. Gale just doesn't need to be better than everyone else at it anymore to find personal value. At least, that's how I read the human ending.


I analyzed this on another website in more detail, but 1) I agree 2) I think this is by design, by Mystra, who 5000% has motive given her own situation and psychology. It's okay if you prefer to read it differently ofc, this is another spot where loads of debate exists.


I saw the scene--personally idk if I'd call gale begrudging exactly so much as it's not something he's quite comfortable talking to Lorroakan about for the simple reason that Lorroakan is an asshole lol. But I'm with you on preferring to let Gale know the player character cares more and checking in.



See I figure people noticed he was missing, and there was gossip. But I also think Lorroakan had too many personal details not to have word from Mystra. Fits with Mystra's past behavior trying to warn followers away from doing certain things (IIRC she did some of this after the fall of Netheril and possibly a bit after Midnight ascended) along with her psych profile/what she fears for herself. Not including here because it would be an irredeemably long tangent on an already monstrous post, but I seriously loved analyzing Mystra. Wild narrative parallels, super manipulative and kind of tragic imo. But readings on Mystra are also controversial and subject to debate even without continuity questions. So again, all good if you have a different interpretation from me.




YEAH I DIDN'T WANT TO GET AHEAD OF MYSELF SINCE I DIDN'T EXPERIENCE THAT BACKSTORY FIRSTHAND, BUT SEEMS LIKE ANOTHER CASE. I am glad it's been addressed somewhat at least, but agreed it seems like a pattern. Denial of women's wrongs has been a running issue across multiple fandoms for me lately and it's so creepy.

Both Midnight-Mystra and Kelemvor were put on trial and she was forbidden from cutting evil mortals off from the weave. There's also a practical implication - anyone who is cut off from the weave can use the shadow weave instead.

Mystra is like a sysadmin who doesn't care if someone hosts silkroad 2.0 on their machine but she does care if people start to hack the server and threaten to bring everything down. She's especially lenient towards evil mages who create interesting new spells. Larloch lived for centuries, he was as evil as the day was long and Mystra never rescinded his chosen of Mystryl status.

It just happens that Gale's Hubris led him to do the one thing she couldn't ignore - brought forth a threat that could destroy all magic.

Thank you sincerely, but I also think we can both see we have dramatically different reads. Where I stand that's okay (answer meant in the spirit of your comment, no animosity), and I figure that Forgotten Realms canon shifts in characterization at times. Not uncommon for long-term, multi-creator media. Mystra being framed as she has been in Baldur's Gate 3 is very compelling and makes a lot of sense in my opinion, but I understand it may be jarring compared to other iterations of her. I've winced at lore videos made pre-game where Mystra was someone's favorite goddess, because that is a dramatically different and extremely dark shift.

I do want to assure you specifically that I've done my homework though, am taking this seriously on my end, and don't make the claims I do without evidence.

In the interest of transparency I've seen people float quotes about how all of the companions are victims of abuse. I cannot for the life of me recall which interview it came from or who specifically stated as such, so grain of salt there/this is like citing wikipedia. I do have definitive quotes alluding to Mystra's child abuse within the game though.

Minsc, discussing Gale's relationship with Mystra:

"Gale reminds me of the vremyonni of my homeland. The man-mages of Rashemen. While the girl-folk go on to rule as wychlaran, Weave-touched boys were hidden away. Trained to work their craft in silence and secrecy. It is an old custom, not well-observed. In truth I thought it born of caution, after some catastrophe wrought by wizardly men-folk of old. Now I wonder if it was not done to hide them from Mystra, and the snares she sets for young and prideful boys, hm?"

Tying this to analysis I've done elsewhere:

Gale has, by his own admission, been involved with the Weave for as long as he can remember. He sees Mystra as synonymous with the Weave, and with magic. These are things he explicitly states within the game. Gale also has notable reactions to say, saving Arabella from being killed over the idol of Silvanus or Mirkon from harpies. With Arabella especially, the idea of being treated as unforgivable or deserving death for a youthful mistake is something he talks about as if he has some experience with it. And while this is a video game with limited character models, I'm going to estimate that the tiefling kids are probably somewhere between eight and thirteen.

We know Gale has been stuck largely alone in his tower with the orb for a year or so. The orb specifically is something that happened when he was an adult, but the way he talks about Arabella with implicit personal identification of facing older authority figures as a young person who didn't know better... I don't think this is the orb alone troubling him. It's also worth noting that Mystra sent Elminster to Gale when Gale was eight years old canonically, so she was at least watching and involved to some extent from the time that Gale was eight. This is revealed in Elminster's letter in (IIRC) the god!Gale ending.

I've seen people try to argue that Mystra would have been indisposed/dead and unable to take advantage of Gale when he was a kid due to the broader Forgotten Realms timeline. I'm inclined to say in this instance, with all evidence in the narrative pointing to a particular arc and theme for Gale and Mystra's relationship, it's more likely that the timeline was something Larian chose to fudge in the interest of storytelling opportunities. The alternative would be that none of those dialogue exchanges meant anything. The narrative is weakened if those moments are made meaningless, and the characters become flatter and less credible without them too. If it comes between trivia and the emotional core of a story, I'd argue the core wins.

Gale claims to have slept with other people before Mystra, but that a romanced character is the first person he's slept with after her. I personally suspect it wasn't a lot of prior experience, and he was pretty young when his romance with Mystra began. Additionally, while it's pure conjecture on my part--given how Gale reacts to the tiefling kids it would make sense to me if Mystra started grooming him when he was between eight and thirteen years old.

[...]

I also want to express to you, as someone who has been involved with media for similar popular nerd properties in both a consumer and company capacity--child abuse is very much examined in works like this. Fiction, be it speculative media or realistic fiction, is a safer way to examine these subjects than nonfiction where real and specific human beings are attached. Because it is a very heavy subject, such narratives won't be what everyone is comfortable engaging--but it is absolutely within grounds for creators to tell those stories regardless. Speculative fiction allows audiences to connect with human beings who may have experienced very different lives and circumstances than them, but who share common humanity as it were. What aspects of humanity are shown depend on the storyteller and the story itself, but it isn't inherently trivialized or framed with less seriousness than examination of the topic in a different time period or part of the world. Additionally, you could argue Astarion being subjected to enslavement and rape for two hundred years is an overly strong analogue to apply to a 'silly story'--but it is canon. This is the story being told in Baldur's Gate 3. Touching upon child abuse in a story built to examine abuse across cast members would not be out of place thematically or in terms of severity. Whether the abuse is examined effectively and respectfully might be subject to examination, but it does have a place in storytelling and evidence suggests it was incorporated deliberately here.

I have more commentary on Mystra and how she addresses Gale regarding the Karsic Weave, but 1) more long 2) my goal here isn't actually to convert you into agreeing with me. This is just showing that I am not pulling stuff out of my ass, and am not being unreasonable in my read. I do think Mystra's abuse was extremely insidious and horrifying, but I think it was all filtered firmly through Mystra's own perceptions, priorities, and self-justification. She genuinely does not think she did anything wrong. She is framing herself in that belief. It is for audiences to reconcile what she says with the rest of the situation, as well as what she omits or disregards. If you went in with a version of Mystra you wanted and are unwilling to consider anything that doesn't fit that version, then this might not be a particular story or examination you prefer for yourself. As a fan you're allowed to pick and choose between different canons though, and genuinely I do get it.

I'm going to work backwards some:


Minsc is not a reliable reporter. Ever. At all.

(from memory) " do you think Minsc could forget all of that?! . . . You are right! Minsc has forgotten it all "

But he's not the only one confused, no Rahsmeni man knows the reason behind this practice.

Rashmen is a Matriarchy and, like Barbieland, it has it's injustices. But the reason behind this practice is not to hide boys from Mystra, it's to prevent the restoration of the demonic patriarchy that used to rule the Rashmeni lands. Before there was a Rashamen there was another country in a continual state of war of the demon-worshiping patriarchy of Narfel. The men who ruled proto-rashmen used forbidden magic to take down narfel and in doing so destroyed both themselves the patriarchs of Nar. The Wyclaran matriarch keep these secrets - including Imaskari secrets hateful to the gods - but keep them out of the hands of men because they fear that the demonic spirits that remain in Rashemen will whisper to them about the glories of a restored demonic patriarchy.

This doesn't justify the injustices of Rashemen but does explain it . . .

Long story short, Minsc is wrong.

The timeline is also problematic. How old is Gale? Late 30s? Early 40s? From appearances alone he looks mid 40s. While his prodigal talents might have captured Mystra's interests before then there is no reason to believe that she started the romantic relationship at an earlier age than she started her relationships with other chosen - mid 20s in Elminster's case. This even bolstered by the evidence that he had lovers before Mystra.


As to the identification with Arabella it may indeed be the that Gale identifies with her because he wishes that the mistake he made as an adult could be treated as a youthful indiscretion. But the 40 year Gale was not literally a child. Given the tremendous differences in power between Gale and Mystra he might feel like a child when dealing with her but, again, he was not actually a child.


(although in terms of chronological age Mystra-Midnight is younger than Jaheria. And probably younger than both Halsin and Dame Aylin)

Now if you think than any age / power gap relationship is so problematic as to be criminal and are willing to apply this to similar figures like Isobel and Aylin you would be on solid ground. If you think that Isobel's early faith in the Moonmaiden was a form of grooming that set her up for an inherently abusive relationship with the Selune's daughter you are standing on solid ground. But by suggesting that Gale was not at least in his 20s when the romantic relationship started you are on building a castle on a weak foundation.

And you are placing a very great a weight on a rotten beam.



Lovely. Ah! I wish I could write as well as you. But beautiful words are not always true and true words are not always beautiful. You are right to say that fiction can be a safe way to explore heavy subjects BUT, as you have acknowledged, you also need to ask if your treatment of the matter trivializes it.

And, my articulate interlocutor, I fear you you have done just that. You have trivialized the issue of child sexual assault in by applying to the silly story of Gale and Mystra.

This is indeed a silly story in a way that Astarian's is not. The child abuse analogue is a reaaaaal stretch. Beautifully written, well researched and well argued. But it's a tin foil hat theory that is shoehorned into an abuse story in a way Astarian's is not. ( said fondly, ** the rabbit re adjusts their own foil hat to ensure ears are covered ** )


Astarian's story is, root and branch, a story of abuse. One of the first sincere things he says to Tav is "I was a slave . . ." And, of course, we have more than a century and half of vampire stories that deal with this weighty topic. Even if Astarian's story was a weak one (it's not) it would under-girded by decades of vampire stories that addressed these same issues.

Do you know the comic book the Killing Joke? Even if you haven't read it you probably know it because it has influenced every "dark" version of Batman since the 90s. It's easy to find nerds who celebrate it and credit it with establishing graphic novels as a form of literature.

What's less well known is that the author of that book has decided that the critics were correct and he has denounced his own book. He decided that a comic book could not deal with an issue as weighty as sexual assault and that his use of it in the story was exploitative. And I have enormous respect for his decision to do so!

Now if one of the most influential and celebrated products of nerd culture failed to carry the weight of a topic as heavy as adult sexual assault do you think a fan theory about a video game is suited to the task of allowing us to explore the issue of child sexual assault? I don't and I do think it trivializes a very important issue.


But this isn't that is it? It's not an examination, it's a fan theory. And, frankly, it's a slightly offensive one.

Chaps, I really like reading the back and forth here. And it had me wondering for a while...

What is the objective? I'm not too sure I can say what I mean here... I've seen people debate on why Mace Windu's lightsaber is purple, but I know that the real reason is, is that Sam Jackson asked for one.

And, now we have this game with the characters therein. And for the vast, vast majority - they are rather, well shallow. Cartoonish, even. Case in point - It's from the same people that gave you writing like: "He must lead the Murder March to Baldur's Grave' and "Well, if you can defeat the dragon, we don't really need him'. Granted, it's not all that bad, but I largely think the writing team isn't capable and/or was ever inclined to write something as deep as is discussed here.

Especially considering the reason this thread exists in the first place.
I'm by no means asking or telling to not analyze this further, I rather enjoy it. I'm just curious on 'where could this possibly lead?'

First let me say that is so nice to see actual character discussion here. It was a treat to open this threat and be greeted by scrolls of text.

Concerning the relationship of Gale and Mystra, to throw in a third take, I didn't take it completely literally.

When Gale first introduces us to Mystra, it is as a concept, not as a person. She is magic but she is also his whole universe, nothing matters to him more than magic. If you participate in his magic lesson, you get a sense of what the Weave feels like and I wonder if I am the only one who thought this description of harmony and well being felt positively addictive? You can take the scene as a step to start a romance with him and I figured that his romance with magic began in much the same way.

From Elminster's letter we know he was a sensitive child who cried over a rose bush he accidentally set on fire, from his stories we can suss out that he was probably also quite lonely, after all his best friend is a tressym whom he summoned. Imagine what the Weave as described in the magic lesson scene must feel like to that lonely boy, it's a place of refuge, of beauty, of creation and of what ever feels most harmonic to you in the moment. Additionally magic probably was a place of confidence for little Gale because he was apparently always very good at handling it. Mystra as an entity does not have to be a seductress for magic to be a seducer.

So Gale loves his craft, is devoted to it and yearns to be ever better at it, to a point where he does everything to push its boundaries and his own limits in handling it. The result is that Gale ends up with a dark vortex in his chest that devours all his magic and still needs to be fed even more magic, so that he cannot simply rest because that would be his death. All of his life up to this point has been filled with his craft and his academic success and suddenly he cannot deliver anymore. To me that very much sounds like artistic - or in this case magical - burnout and a very skewed work-life-balance.

Here also the place where Gale never being told that he as a person is valuable comes into play. Both Elminster and Tara clearly love Gale but they never actually tell him (unless you go down the God path ironically) it's always "you have a good head on your shoulders" or "examine the problem as a proper wizard should" and I assume it was never different for him. Tara especially is a very bossy cat-auntie, telling him what to do frequently, did you eat enough, your camp is a well appointed ditch, shave that beard, your mom worries ... When she has her emotional outburst after Elminster's visit one of the versions that the scene can end is that she tells you that the two of you shouldn't cause a scene. This sense of what he should do, is very present in much of Gale's dialogue. When you talk with him about Sharan Shadow magic, he sounds tempted to give it a try and sees nothing evil within it but that Mystra forbids it.

I think that part of why he relates to the Tiefling children so much is because he yearns for that time when he could break rules without dire consequences, now as an adult the result of his (perceived) transgression against the rules is firmly lodged in his chest and is killing him. So why is that? Because he was greedy and power hungry? Or because he was made to believe that he only mattered if he was the best, most skilled that is, wizard possible?

If Astarion is "the body" who gets exploited and mistreated as a sex-object, Gale is "the mind", the skilled worker who gets exploited for his abilities and is then shamed when he can no longer deliver. In Act 2 - which generally deals with the characters' believes and faith - Astarion realises he does not want to be seen as an object of sexual desire any longer and Gale realises that he does not want to die for his craft. If he tells Mystra that he does not want to die and that there is more for him in life, (I like his Origin version of the audience much, much better than the companion version, it can have so much more nuance to it.) he is given a way out. Giving away the crown is putting that burning hunger for recognition aside, while taking it and becoming the God of Ambition, is "powering through" but apparently loosing all the love he once held for his craft and its beauty. It's blind, purposeless ambition, seeking fame for fame's sake. I like how in the good ending of his origin, Mystra seems to be genuinely pleased to let him go and have him start his new life. He and his beloved craft are friends again. That's nice and lovely.

So would I say it is a story of abuse - of adults and gifted children alike - yes, but a story of how society ruins skilled, talented people not a story of sexual abuse, that side of the coin is Astarion's. How much Mystra as the goddess of magic is responsible for the toxic atmosphere in wizard academia however, that's another topic.


I think it depends how you define ambition. Maybe saying that he has a bit of an over-achiever mindset fits it better? In his human professor ending he wanted to teach all the subjects at first after all, but the academy wouldn't allow it. That sounded very Gale to me.

In my two completed saves I chose the adventurer ending for him, partly because in both saves he ended up with Astarion and if you romance Spawnstarion you always seem to be flagged as adventuring by the game. In both versions (the origin and companion version) he seems to be very much at ease with himself, but also pursuing knowledge. Most of his personalised lines in the origin are about learning spells. To Halsin he mentions delving into dungeons, taking out rogue shadow mages and studying magical tomes - and in my special case he discusses searching a cure for vampirism with Minsc (and Boo). His companion-adventurer ending sounds the least traditionally ambitious to me. Gale puts more emphasis on learning from life than from books in this one, he takes time for his artistic interest (Which now included knitting, which I absolutely love because it's such a thing for people with a logical mindset and of course there is this connection to creating something with one strand of yarn, just that it isn't weaving it's a different thing.) and Tara scolds him for putting his traditional studies aside. He cares very little for public recognition in this ending but he still likes for his partner to recognise his magical skill.

An artist can be passionate and ambitious about their craft, but they can be both ambitious in an unhealthy and a healthy manner. I think Gale's approach to magic was very unhealthy in the beginning and before that start of the game, in the human endings he has a better approach to magic and life in general. He still seems to be very passionate about it and I have an inkling that his "spot of knitting" results in him producing the most complex lace shawls for the sheer fun and enjoyment of it.

Of course that seems very tame in comparison to the Archwizards you mentioned and I think we don't disagree in content but more in word definition.


You are probably right in that begrudging is the wrong word. I'd go as far as to say that he probably isn't completely comfortable with the whole concept himself yet. If you click the mental-health-tracker in the romance dialogue, he says how making decisions with someone else and not trusting in himself alone is still a very new notion for him. He is much more comfortable with it in the epilogues, especially in the adventuring one.

There were other things I wanted to comment on but I think I'll better post this now as it has already gotten very long and I am unsure for how long my lucky dice for forum posts last today. So just let me close by saying that I very much enjoy this conversation.

I think it's fair to say that Gale's relationship with Mystra isn't meant to be analogous to child abuse in our real world, but it is meant to (nonetheless) be an incredibly toxic and dysfunctional relationship that is arguably still a flavor of abusive if not outright abuse itself.

Gale was (presumably) an adult when he began his sexual relationship with Mystra, but:
1) she was his goddess
2) he had known her since he was underage (so "grooming" allegations can still apply in a manner of speaking, although given the way gods work in the Forgotten Realms it is complicated)

That layers on some definite "ick" no matter how you slice it, because the power imbalance is incomprehensible. Even if Gale "pursued" Mystra, she had every scrap of power, authority, and the position to tell Gale "no," and, quite frankly, should've known better.

Now, Gale did overstep Mystra's boundaries when he sought the Netherese orb, and that is where a lot of criticism of Gale comes into play (and it was an egotistical and self-serving act under the surface), BUT--
1) Mystra never once told him what it was (and Gale never even learns about its nature until Act 3 of the game); yeah, what he did was dangerous, but he had no clue what he was doing. It was foolish, but not malevolent.
2) Mystra had the power to deal with the orb at any time (as she is capable of removing it after the events of the game)
3) Gale only sought the orb once Mystra had shown Gale beyond the veil and told him he could never have it (again a case of "Mystra should've known better than to taunt a wizard with forbidden and unreachable magics")

This means that while, yeah, Mystra could've smited Gale or whatever for disobeying her, she instead left him to suffer with this agonizing, debilitating condition without any possible solution to it, until she later sends Elminster (a grandfather figure to Gale) to tell him to kill himself. This when she could've cured him, given him a heads up, explained what happened, but she never tells him anything. Just leaves him in a lurch.

I do tend to interpret this as "a test" of sorts that Mystra was giving Gale: to see if he would turn out to be another Karsus or whether he just made a mistake. And, depending on the events of the game, those are the two possible roads: either it is that Gale made a mistake, grows from it, or Gale succumbs to his worse traits and overreaches further to become a god.

But a person's romantic partner shouldn't put them through some trial-and-error, twisted mind games like that. That's where their dynamic just becomes gross to me. It is one thing if Mystra remained Gale's cold and aloof goddess with whom he had a strained relationship, instead there's the element of that was his lover too. And I think that goes to explain a lot of why Gale has such an inferiority complex simmering under his blustering ego. He wants to be equal to his partner, knowing he never can. It was never going to work out and was just an exercise in torment.

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.

I'm sorry you feel that way. I was enjoying the exchange and my compliments on the quality of your writing were sincere. While I disagree profoundly it was not my intent to mock. If anything I sought to mock the quality of my own writing. Writing is a talent, a skill and while I think I have good eye for prose I don't express myself as well as I would like to.

You can choose to believe me or not but I think you are expressing yourself well even if I disagree with your conclusions and indeed believe they trivialize a matter that should not be trivialized.

There are other charges in your #1 that seem to pulled out thin air so I will afford them the attention the deserve.

But I think you are doing something a bit worse trivializing the issue:


Let's recognize that this conversation is taking place in context in which political actors are trying to generate anger over false accusations of grooming AND to expand the definition so far that it loses all meaning. For these political actors psychologists, social workers, DEI programs, sex educators, drag storyhour and even the very existence of trans people is being labeled as a form of grooming. We are living in an age where people people are being inspired to acts of violence on the basis of imaginary scenarios like pedophile rings being run out of pizza parlors.



Thanks for the out. I guess. But I didn't ask for one and I'm not granting you one. I do think it is a problem that you have headcannoned that Mystra groomed gale for sexual abuse, abused him and that Larian needs to respond to the character you imagine as if he were as he imagined. Indeed I think you should take their light hearted approach to heart: why are the authors themselves not seeing what you do? Are you right to be angry at the authors for not viewing the story as you do?

To be clear I think it's fine that you have imagined the story this way. It's even fine for you to be angry at the authors for not agreeing with your interpretation. I do think it's problematic to encourage other people to be angry at the authors for not agreeing with your head cannon.




Yes I am aware of the cycles of outrage on Reddit - Mystra is a groomer, Auntie Ethel is a anti-semetic stereotype, anyone who dislikes the emperor dislikes LGBT folk, Shadowheart is a racist etc. I think it's a virtue of these forums that those viruses have not taken hold here. I don't think the writers are to blame for the feeding the anger, the people throwing chum into to the water are feeding the fury.

To be perfectly clear I'm telling to be quiet. By all means ask that support for your preferred interpretation to be added to the game but don't try to stir outrage when people don't see the same shapes in the inkblot.


I think the grooming narrative is poorly supported. Even if it is eloquently expressed. (And, again, that was a sincere statement - you write well) But the idea that someone who believes that the support is thin or lacking is unfamiliar with the concept of implicit story telling, symbolism, subtext, innuendo etc is more insulting than anything I've said. Sometimes a reader fails to read the subtext and sometimes the dragon in the clouds exists only in the eye of the beholder; this is a clear case of the latter.

It's even more insulting when I laid out the flaws of my analysis on the table - my experience was Gale was with him as a non romanced companion and my Tav was a cleric of mystra. If you want to show me evidence I missed I'll reconsider my position but the Arabella comment and the Minsc comment is pretty thin gruel and won't sustain me on the uphill hike you are asking me to take.


Indeed. Even more offensive is invoking weighty concepts like hierarchies of abuse when talking about the shapes you see in an inkblot. If you are going to tilt at windmills you should use a lance and leave the nukes at home. I can only imagine you are going nuclear to cast me in some unfavorable light because it is a bizarre interpretation of my POV. I don't see Gale as an abusive victim. I see him as a victim of his own hubris. Not abused and abused is a not a hierarchical analysis. It just isn't.

But only since we are on the topic I confess this phrase did return to me when you seemed to make a distinction between sexual assault and rape. I tend to avoid the latter word because I know it is more likely to trigger people and because "sexual assault" emphases that this is an assault even when the wounds are not visible.



Indeed it could be because I am too stupid or too poorly educated to understand the high minded ideas that you and the other residents of Laputa deal with. Or perhaps it's because you go nuclear when someone disagrees with you.


Pot, meet kettle. You have given an account of grooming that would indict Isobel-Aylin. There is no real world equivalent but it the closest to the Gale-Mystra romance I can think of would be one of orders of nuns that consider themselves the brides of christ. They encounter divinity at an early age, find solace in it and then marry their god in adulthood.

Are those nuns grooming victims because they encountered their god at a young age?

(google "why do nuns wear wedding rings" and if you love yourself listen to Sister Wendy's description of prayer where she discusses how she asks her god to enter her body. Sadly I can't find the link but it's worth seeking out)


Indeed. Physician, I recommend a heaping dose of your own medicine.

And perhaps add a bit of soul exploring? Why are you so quick to interpret praise as mockery? Playfulness as cruelty? Truly, before I read this response I harbored no ill feelings towards you and enjoyed your contributions.

On Alan Moore. It would take me a few days to find the podcast where he *fully* denounced the Killing Joke and said that the problem was inherent to the comic book format. It won't be easy to find because it was on a podcast about Magik and not about comics but the conversation wondered. Not sure if I'm invested enough in the conversation to find that interview but if you are interested its worth seeking out. I think it was in 2006?

Guys really, can't there be a discussion about an opinion without attacking the person who expresses it? And yes, I would not interpret your tone in message #931620 as playful either, KillerRabbit. The whole message reads aggressive to me. I assume it is because the matter is important to you and you have strong feelings about it and wish the other person to see the error of their ways so to speak.

In regards to Minsc: He is a big lovable oaf but he is not a complete joke, his understanding of the world is just very simple. If you look at his comment about Gale it consists of three parts, a statement of fact, what he previously thought about it and how his thoughts have changed due to what happened to Gale. The statement of fact is "male magic users are kept from positions of power", you don't seem to question this portion, KillerRabbit. His previous thought were "because they previously caused great harm" that also seems to agree with what you wrote. The last portion is Minsc questioning his own reasoning because he now has a different understanding of the relationship a magic user can have with his goddess. This last portion isn't something he states as fact but something he is currently considering. It is - like most companion statements - intended to give you a different point of view on the situation to make up your own mind about it. Coming from Minsc it is also a strong statement because he previously did not hold much regard for wizards and now shows empathy for Gale.

The whole Chosen thing: It comes with its perks but those come at the cost of freedome. Elminster is shown to be uncomfotable delivering Mystra's charge and charm - he is stalling as much as he can - and his parting words, as well as the letter you get in Gale's origin show that he disagrees with Mystra, but he cannot disobey her and Gale understands this. Following Mystra's command and detonating the Orb is also probably the most - or at least second most - disasterous ending you can get for the game. It shows how little regard for human life Mystra has (in Gale's Origin she flat out states this during the audience) and supports what Ketheric says about the gods, that humans are mere coppers in their purses. This holds true for Mystra as well. She might care for Gale to some degree, but "her first love was always the Weave" and she will try to use him as she sees fit when it seems like the quickest solution to a problem to her. But sailorsnoopy wrote a good bit about the inequality of the relaitonship, so I'll leave it at that.

I understand that gods and their worshipers works in a particular way in the Forgotten Realms (and always has), and that it is hard to make real-world analogs to those relationships, but it is still staggering to me to not see any shade of abuse in Gale and Mystra's dynamic.

Like one of the core themes in BG3 appears to be "abuse of power" and that "the gods overreach." While in another Forgotten Realms tale, Mystra might be depicted as a benevolent figure, in this game I think she is neutral at best and cruel at worst.

All the companions in the game are wrestling with damage inflicted on their lives from overbearing and powerful figures. Astarion with Cazador. Wyll with Mizora. Karlach with Gortash and Zariel. Shadowheart with Shar. Lae'zel with Vlaakith (and the Githyanki militarized industrial complex as a whole honestly).

Why would Gale be the one outlier? Because he's not. Gale is, like the other companions, a victim. Or at least I think that was certainly the intention of the game narrative (and it is arguable how well it was depicted, but that I see no other explanation why Gale would be the only one who isn't).

For Gale, he is a victim in his relationship with Mystra. While Mystra isn't (on the surface) as dispassionate and awful as the likes of Cazador or Shar, she is still the main guiding force in Gale's life and ultimately the reason Gale is in his situation (of course Gale's own hubris and ego as well, but those weren't born in a vacuum). She orders him to take his own life because of a mistake. A mistake! And offers no explanation as to what he has done.


And this. Yes. While being a Chosen comes with incredible powers and "perks," it also comes with it a horrible burden of responsibility and servitude.

Anyway, obviously not everyone will see the story and characters the same. We all come into this with our own life experiences and opinions. But I definitely do believe Gale is meant to be a victim of abuse just as the others are--his damage is just a little less apparent and more under the surface.

The reasoning I most often read in regards to this seems to be that Gale *should* have been content with what he had. It sounds very much in the vein of "he was at the top of his career, had the hot girlfriend, why wasn't he satisfied?" There seems to be very little empathy for this kind of situation. I am also very surprised how little empathy there seems to be for the year he spent locked up in his tower - many of us quite recently had a year locked away in our own "towers" as well, depending on the pandemic rules of the country you live in, and for a lot of people this was a horrible experience.

I think Gale's written to be mostly at fault of his own downfall. The other companions are not. Astarion maybe would have been, if his past hadn't been cut. Whether Gale's folly being his own fault is "right" or not is a different matter, but I'm pretty sure Larian intended it to be this way.

We all know by now that they're not very good at being consistent with their own narrative and themes.

Oh for sure. I don't think anyone who discusses Gale's history means to diminish his accountability. He made his own choices. But in a way so is everyone else (aside from Shadowheart and Lae'zel who were children).
Astarion's previous acts as a magistrate got him killed by the Gur, which led to him becoming a vampire spawn under Cazador.
Wyll chose to make his pact to save the city.
Karlach chose to work for Gortash (and he ended up betraying her).
Gale chose to go for the orb.

But it's the proportionality of the consequences of their actions that lend toward an abuse narrative. Astarion was a terrible magistrate, that doesn't mean he deserved to be Cazador's thrall. Wyll even admits he doesn't regret making his pact, but that doesn't mean he deserves Mizora's abusive treatment. Karlach errored in judgment when she chose to work for a man like Enver Gortash--that doesn't mean it was also her fault when he betrayed her.

Likewise, with Gale, he made a horrible mistake when he overstepped Mystra's rules and went for the orb, but that doesn't mean he deserved to suffer from the debilitating and lethal consequences of it--or be told to blow up.

Many of them are victims of their own decisions, their own weaknesses and flaws, but also victims of greater forces beyond their control.

Personally, I think his horrible mistake was not being thorough enough in his research and safety precautions. If he'd known what the orb really was, he probably wouldn't have touched it - and he learned that lesson. He now prefers to let other people munch tadpoles first.

(Edit: Obviously he learned that lesson already without knowing what the Orb really is, but I love how annoyed he is with himself when he finds out the true nature of the thing.)