You seem to missunderstand me ... I wasnt trying to say that Narrator "represents" and active force ... Narrator "represents" our inner voice from start to end ... BUT if our own thoughts, our inner voice, are affected by some "active force" ... then our inner voice should act acordingly to that affection.
I understood fine: you are applying an in-game, in-universe detail to the narrator - in this case, the inner thoughts of the player character. You're missing the point again. Go back, read what I wrote again, and try to obtain it this time. There's no point in me repeating myself when you didn't obtain it (and from your response, did not appear to understand what was said) the first time.
I quite honestly cant agree with this statement either ... You cant tell if writing was bad until you know full story ...
Again: the story is irrelevant, as are the details of it. I mapped out why this is the case in my previous post. I'm not talking about the story or its details; I'm describing a very clear series of cases which, if met, have a direct conclusion, and this is external to the story and its details. These conditions are met by this game, and so the conclusion follows. You either ignored that, or didn't understand it; go back and try again please - there is no way to have a productive conversation if you are not on the same page... and it seems you aren't.
==
But until story reveals the fact that it is not a narrator, it should act like one.
It is obvious from the outset that this voice is not reliable external narration. There is nothing pretending to be otherwise here. The problem is that, at the same time, while it is very obviously being an in-universe entity with motives and opinions, we are *also* being
required to
simultaneously accept it as our actual narrator, and being
required to trust it as a reliable external narrator for many other things. It
cannot be both, they are mutually exclusive concepts, but it is being made to act as both, and so it falls apart. This is a problem.
The MOMENT that voice starts describing anything, it's obviously dripping with bias and motive... there is no surprise here, it's not hidden. There is nothing that you are being theoretically 'spoiled' on, because it's very obviously and deliberately made clear from the very beginning. It's just done in a very bad way.
==
I mean, if you ARE supposed to believe that sweet and seductive voice is your own mind ... there is no better way to sell the idea, than through Narrator. :-/
Again: It is not the game's place to tell me what my own character is thinking or feeling. It can, and should, give me information about sensations I'm experiencing, or perceptions I have, but it should not, ever, be trying to tell me that these are *my* thoughts - The game does not know what my character thinks or feels about anything unless I tell it, and it cannot presume to.
How would you like to describe any of your feeling or thinking, when they are affected by some magical influence ... while leting player to decide them? O_o
There are a myriad of ways to do this well. Just as any moderately competent DM. Telling players how their own characters feel about something, or what they think about something, is a total, kick them from the table, cardinal sin. You don't do that. You never do that. It's not your right and it's not your place to do that, under any circumstance.
What you DO do, is you tell the player about sensations they receive and impressions they get; you provide them with sensory data, but you don't tell them what they think.
There's a difference between:
"You go to climb the ladder, but as you get there, you look around, and you think better of it. You don't really feel like climbing, and you think you'd rather wait down here for now."
"As you go to climb the ladder, you're struck by a sense that you shouldn't. The thought sticks in your mind, at odds with your choice to follow your friends, a moment ago. You don't know where it comes from, but the sense, that you should wait, lingers in the back of your mind."
There is, in fact, a very important difference between those two phrases - sensitivity to the agency of the personal character - but it's a difference that both Larian, and possibly you as well, Rag (?) - seem to be blind to. And before you suggest it - no, there's not an element of one of these 'spoiling' a secret, or revealing something that the other keeps hidden; in
both cases it's directly obvious to the player that they are being influenced in some way.
