lifenet | (no subject)

I have at various points defended the Storyteller as a being that deserves a presumption of good faith. I am recanting that defense. By word and deed, the Storyteller has demonstrated that it is capricious, untrustworthy, and ultimately unconcerned with our survival.

Fact: The Storyteller does not provide useful information. It may be bound by an immense number of rules and restrictions that forbid it from doing so... but in every interaction it has been explicitly unhelpful and unforthcoming.

Fact: Although the Storyteller professes to regret our suffering and travails, it has explicitly forbidden us from setting up any defenses around the mana pool in its temple -- despite enemies having demonstrably penetrated through to the islets and assaulted and captured us in our sleep.

Fact: The Storyteller has openly encouraged me to abandon my principles and beliefs, while pretending it is not doing so. (It has also gone to some effort to mock those principles and beliefs.)

Pretty sure this is a fact: the Storyteller is taking petty revenge on me for calling out its behavior as capricious and untrustworthy.

I want to be absolutely clear that regardless of the Storyteller's intentions, we can only judge it by its actions. While it may mean the best by its own perspective, its perspective of what is 'best' for us clearly does not resemble our own. We must, unfortunately, consider it an enemy by that standard. Furthermore, gods are still fallible.

I am not advocating direct action against it, nor am I saying we have any other alternative at present than to accept we are, unavoidably, its playthings. But we need to know that's what we are, and view our interactions accordingly. We cannot trust it.

And incidentally, if anything suspicious should happen to me after writing this, take that as what evidence you should.

~Roy Greenhilt

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Why law?

They help. Trading, but they don't have to, aren't required. They warn when they can. Things aren't always the same as they are for people. You're acting as if they are one.

I'm acting as if we're people. I mean, if the Storyteller came tomorrow, killed one of us, apologized, and said it was necessary... would you still trust it? Where do you draw the line of broken trust?

We're not all people.

I don't know. It hasn't happened. They haven't done that. So how can I know?

They have asked us to voluntarily leave ourselves exposed to danger, without any reason given. Not even an 'it's necessary.'

That isn't enough for you, so I'm wondering what is.

A lot of my friends are liars.

One of them hurt people, innocent people, and let others take the blame.

One of them is going to. Because he has to. Thinks he has to, even though he doesn't want to, takes no joy in it. End one world to fix his mistake. Halam'shivanas.

It's wrong.

But I still trust them.

...The Storyteller. They're more like me. Maybe that makes it easier.

One of my party is an evil little monster who would probably be one of the biggest apocalypses on the planet if he wasn't stuck with me.

One of them killed so many beings on the planet out of spite and vengeance that the number is probably in six digits if not seven.

One of them's just an idiot, really.

I trust them all because they've earned it. They made mistakes, they did bad things, some absolutely aren't good people, but they have stood by me in doing what we need to do.

The Storyteller hasn't. Even their beneficial deeds are transactional. They've made a lot of good noise about empathy and apologies, but for whatever reason, maybe even a good one that we do not know, their actions have ranged from neutral to self-serving to inscrutably harmful to us. I can't trust that. I can trust certain parameters of that, but I can't trust the being theirself.

You don't have to. Trust is... complicated, I think. But you're telling everyone else not to either.

That's correct. But I should add that we can, I think, trust the transactional benefits we have. Trading stories for favors. But its benevolence, empathy, reliability? I believe those are now officially untrustworthy.

If the Storyteller asked you to jump off a bridge, would you then ask the rest of us to die with you?

???

What bridge?

We have a bridge?

You've clearly never been betrayed before, and are an idiot. Do Roy a favour and shut up.

I know what being betrayed is like.

Would it be a favor? Isn't talking the point of this?

Did betrayal hurt? Is it something you'd wish on another person?

That's essentially what you're advocating, and that's why you're making Roy angry. Upset, even.

No. Those aren't my words.

He wants to make them an enemy. But they aren't, they haven't hurt us. They're kind. I know they are. We should be on the same side. Bad things might happen if we're not.

We can care about our feelings and theirs too.

He sent us into danger and left us to die. Children too, who were defenseless. Someone who leaves the young and the vulnerable in that kind of danger has no right to be called kind.

If Roy shouldn't talk, you've also said more than you should.

Wait, have we explicitly ascertained that the Storyteller sent us into danger?

They very clearly sent us into the caves.

I've heard people make that statement before, but it counters something the Storyteller told me once. That's why I want to establish if we have direct proof.

?

I don't believe so. What did he say?

They strongly implied that the sigils in the caves were anathema to it, and thus by further implication, their power did not extend down there. So by that logic I have been believing another force or power sent us there.

Curious how the Storyteller hasn't cleared their name if that's the case.

Regardless, we have no evidence to either conclusion.

The Storyteller puts great stock into refusing to give direct answers. Either way, it doesn't look good for them, though.