(no subject)

[greatcleavage]

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

Comments

[solperierat]

You only just figure this out, genius?

[greatcleavage]

Specifically, I have only now encountered decisive first-hand evidence. Up till now there was enough room for doubt, and as a principle I believe offering the benefit of the doubt where possible and reasonable is the best choice.

[hellawrath]

TLDR

[greatcleavage]

What?

[stoleyoursweetroll]

You got a pretty skewed idea of exactly how much a god is responsible for, huh? I've found 'em much more helpful than any Daedric Prince I've come up against.

Seems to me like you got some skewed ideas in general, though. Why you calling the Storyteller an "it," dryskin? Nothing qualify as a person unless it's got a face like yours?

[greatcleavage]

I thought the Storyteller didn't have a gender?

[hellawrath]

Too Long Didn't Read

pretty sure like 90% of the population knows better than to trust em, you didn't have to use up half the rock on that

got a great deal on charcoal n paper tho if you're into memos nobody reads

[greatcleavage]

My experience in discussion has been that most distrust has not been based on concrete, direct, demonstrable adverse action on the Storyteller's part. Evidence counts more than gut feelings and assumptions.

In the meantime I do not intend to abandon my principles. No matter how much that may gall everyone, myself included.

[hellawrath]

weird how we ended up bein right anyway, almost like we actually had evidence

what the hell kind of principles do you have that the rabbit gave enough of a fuck to raise a stink about them

sigh... thanks ljjuggler

[greatcleavage]

I had yet to be presented with anything conclusive. If there is further conclusive evidence we should share it, which is the primary reason I wrote this down. If I appeared here only to be immediately told, 'the Storyteller refused to let us fortify despite our vulnerability to attacks, no reason given,' I wouldn't have needed much convincing to distrust them.

As regards principles I suspect they mean that I should stop working towards Law and Good, as those ideals are perceived as incompatible with survival. Explicitly they seemed to argue that I should be okay with Evil acts perpetrated by or against us.

[stoleyoursweetroll]

How's that got anything to do with using "it?"

Don't know about your backwater homeworld, but over in Tamriel, we've got words for civilized communication. You use he or she or they when you need to talk about thinking, feeling folks instead of dustbin or livestock. You familiar with these revolutionary concepts, or am I going too fast?

i was like who dat

[hellawrath]

see you really need to work on your presentation. make it snazzy, maybe include some powerpoints? or let somebody less wordy make a list of shit we know about the rabbit so your actual intel doesn't get drowned in bullshit.

boy howdy, in capitals and everything. bro. homeboy. they're a god. they don't give a fuck. pretty sure we don't either, as long as you're doing your part like everyone else. you pissed em off some way and think it's bc you're too good for this world, too pure. that's whack.

and that last part doesn't sound like them.

[and now she has to go wake up Taako from his afternoon nap because somebody is WRONG on the ROCK]

[greatcleavage]

There is not a set usage. We would likely refer to a dragon as 'it' if we didn't know its gender, for example, and dragons are sentient and sapient beings.

If the point you're trying to make, however, is that the established and preferred usage for the Storyteller is 'they', than I apologize and will use that in the future.

[greatcleavage]

You can't complain that I didn't listen to other people if you're immediately then going to dismiss my direct experience.

If gods didn't care in one way or the other, I can assure you the worlds would probably be a LOT better off. The only real relevance to us, however, is the results we have to deal with.

[stoleyoursweetroll]

Would we? Funny. I've never known Paarthurnax, Durnehviir, or even Alduin as anything but "he."

Know what sort of people I've seen use "it" for sapients? The sort of folks who call me "lizard." Who say an Argonian isn't fit to live in their city or that a Khajiit can't be allowed to trade within their walls, because we're nothing but talking animals. This cute little "we have to use it" thing, strangely enough, only ever seems to apply to things that look different from you races of men. How you talk when you aren't thinking gives away a lot about the assumptions you hold, land-strider. Try to avoid not thinking.

Anyway, your obvious disdain for nonhumans aside, I think you maybe expect too much, dryskin. Jarl, Daedric Prince, divine, mortal... no matter what someone is, nobody lives purely and completely for someone else. There's no such thing as a strictly altruistic existence. The Storyteller is not our keeper or our egg-tender. What they have with us is a business relationship.

[greatcleavage]

I am extremely baffled by both your projection of your issues on me based on a divergent linguistic experience I have already apologized for, and your rejection of the notion of Good as a concept in its entirety. That being said, if you are prepared to enter into a business relationship with an entity that is prepared to willingly sacrifice us without cause given, I'm not here to stop you.

[stoleyoursweetroll]

You're starting down a pretty insufferable road, hero. I've already had my share of encounters with do-gooders who care more about being right than not doing harm.

I'm just saying, you're being downright naive if you expect everyone around you to abide by your moral code. If you deal with the Storyteller knowing they're a person with their own agenda and you're negotiating an exchange, not making a demand, then you won't have any problems. I mean, we're all getting the stuff we ask them to bring in for us, no? You wouldn't be writing on this board now if the Storyteller couldn't be bargained with reasonably.

[forgetmenow]

No.

[...Well, it's a... succinct response?]

[greatcleavage]

If you're comfortable trusting a being that literally does not care if you live or die, that is your choice.

[greatcleavage]

Except their actions are capricious and arbitrary, or at least give all appearance of being so, making the difference a nonentity.

They literally insist we remain open to attack for no reason given. You remember the apes kidnapping us from our homes in the night, right? We are being forced to permit that possibility at all times. How is this okay?

[stoleyoursweetroll]

And how have they done that? Forbid you to patrol the islets? Threaten anyone giving self-defense lessons with tarring and feathering? Ban the very concept of banding together to schedule a night sentry? Stop giving us supplies to fix up and fortify our homes? You're making a pretty big claim, but I'm not actually in the know about what the Storyteller did, here.

[forgetmenow]

They care. Things wouldn't be the way that they are if they didn't care.

[greatcleavage]

And I am telling you directly that the Storyteller has refused to allow us to fortify the mana pool by their temple, thus leaving us open to intruders who can readily assault and kidnap or kill us, as has already occurred once before. Without giving cause.

Compromising our ability to defend against known, potentially lethal threats without given cause is not an act that shows care or concern.

[forgetmenow]

Not giving cause doesn't mean there isn't cause.

There are other ways of defense. Other ways to help.

[greatcleavage]

In this specific case, prepare fortifications around the temple mana pool to guard against intruders and better defend against assault.

Which I would be fine with if there was a reason given. Or even if we were told there is a reason and that cannot be told to us. That there was not one says that either there is no reason, that the reason will not be communicated to us, or that the reason cannot be communicated to all of us. However you break that down, the end result is that the Storyteller insists we maintain a weakness in our defenses that has already been breached once.