Why is it supposed that "there is more to a healthy relationship than lust or physical attraction"? Isn't that a value judgement? Why use the word "healthy"?
And again, why are you presuming all the other replacement couldn't be just as "full" if you bung sex into the equation?
"It deepens Maria's betrayal because she fully replaced her husband"
How? She didn't, the chap even says she didn't, even says she still loves Keldorn. It's ridiculous to suggest that Keldorn, her husband, is more replaced because sex isn't included.
Either way, whatever interpretation you or I put on it, the fact is the writers used "sex" (regardless of who's doing it to who) to portray something.
Which is really the basis of this whole discussion.
@SomeSort and myself believe that it being used to portray or underline the evil alignment of the various characters, that is our interpretation.
You may not believe that, but you do believe it's being used for something as you have just demonstrated.
@Ravenslight I understood it to show Keldorn that Maria's dalliance was not a challenge to his manhood but to show that Keldorn had been negligent in his duties as a father and husband. Or at least that this was a possibility.
Why is it supposed that "there is more to a healthy relationship than lust or physical attraction"? Isn't that a value judgement? Why use the word "healthy"?
And again, why are you presuming all the other replacement couldn't be just as "full" if you bung sex into the equation?
"It deepens Maria's betrayal because she fully replaced her husband"
How? She didn't, the chap even says she didn't, even says she still loves Keldorn. It's ridiculous to suggest that Keldorn, her husband, is more replaced because sex isn't included.
This is easy to answer. When another man has all but become the husband that Keldorn is supposed to be including caring for his child as well as emotionally supporting his wife. It's not ridiculous to suggest this is more replaced. It's a reality. It speaks far more of Keldorn's failures at being a father and husband there for his wife than if she was getting a little sex on the side.
Your seeing Betrayal as a very narrow and single minded idea that can only relay to the idea of sex when the emotional components of a relationship are often the far more important and sustaining parts than the sex.
Why is it supposed that "there is more to a healthy relationship than lust or physical attraction"? Isn't that a value judgement? Why use the word "healthy"?
And again, why are you presuming all the other replacement couldn't be just as "full" if you bung sex into the equation?
"It deepens Maria's betrayal because she fully replaced her husband"
How? She didn't, the chap even says she didn't, even says she still loves Keldorn. It's ridiculous to suggest that Keldorn, her husband, is more replaced because sex isn't included.
This is easy to answer. When another man has all but become the husband that Keldorn is supposed to be including caring for his child as well as emotionally supporting his wife. It's not ridiculous to suggest this is more replaced. It's a reality. It speaks far more of Keldorn's failures at being a father and husband there for his wife than if she was getting a little sex on the side.
Your seeing Betrayal as a very narrow and single minded idea that can only relay to the idea of sex when the emotional components of a relationship are often the far more important and sustaining parts than the sex.
But nowhere does it suggest that all of the above is dependant on whether they have sex. At no point have I suggested that it's not a betrayal without the sex.
The point I'm asking is why is the "sex" part the only thing in this betrayal that matters enough to be specifically mentioned as not happening?
Why not "I never had anything to do with your children, I didn't take them to the circus because we were far too busy having sex"
I'd suggest that rather than be narrow minded about whether they did the deed, which the writers saw fit to mention, the real betrayal is the intimacy that was shared.
And that's where the puritanical streak running through BG2 comes through. It's the writers who bigged up the "no sex" part of this by mentioning it.
No. that's just the part your fixated on. Because the rest did happen and they say as such. but your getting hung up on one little aspect of what happened.
if left to his own devices Keldorn would still kill them reguardless of the issue of sex. It's the Charnames stepping in to smooth things over and speak of compassion that stops it from happening.
@SomeSort Note that Maria did not actually sleep with her partner during the affair. It is even stated that the other man was impotent and it was an affair of emotion.
I was remembering something to that effect, but it's been a long time since I've brought Keldorn in a playthrough. (Perhaps ironic given how hard I was pushing Jahiera's romance, but I bear a grudge against Keldorn for how he attacks Viconia entirely unprovoked.) Anyway, I did a quick search of the dialogue from the sidequest and couldn't find the mention, so I didn't bring it up in case I was misremembering.
As @UnderstandMouseMagic mentions, the fact that Lady Maria never actually had sex only further reinforces the point. Lady Maria is a Madonna, so of course she couldn't *actually* have sex out of wedlock. She's a good-aligned character, and sex is evil and wicked. And if she *had* had sex outside of marriage, the good-aligned Keldorn wouldn't have been free to accept her back again, because sex is evil and Keldorn is the paragon of all that is good in the world.
Actually it can be just as easily argued in the situation of Phaere that the so called "good" romances are the most jealous. Jahiera in particular shows signs of a jealous streak in her romance when not having certain issues over the death of Khalid.
Aerie is pretty much just as bad considering if you have Haer'Dalis in your party things get turned into a love Triangle. To Keep the relationship you basically have to prove your love is only for her and it's Haer'Dalis that backs off on pursueing her. Not Aerie ending the growing relationship with him.
Viconia on the other hand is accepting that sleeping with Phaere can move forward what your trying to do in Ust Natha and protect you from angry reprisals to some extent and she's practical in several respects. With her typical mentality and nature. It makes sense that she does get upset that you don't take the safest and most useful route of sleeping with Phaere.
So the Phaere situation could just be as much considered as a matter of Romantic Idealism vs. Practicality as any so called sense of promiscuity being evil.
Yes, the "good" romances *are* the most jealous of Phaere. That's the point.
Again, the link is between "goodness" and "purity/chastity". And the Phaere situation is a question of what it is worth sacrificing the ideals of purity and chastity for.
The evil character's answer is: anything you want. A moment's pleasure. Purity and chastity are stupid ideals that hold no value for an evil-aligned character, so go get you some if you feel like it.
The neutral character's answer is: survival. Purity and chastity are important, but Jaheira is a practical woman and she's smart enough to recognize you were in a tough situation. If you convince her you had sex with Phaere to try to keep the party alive, she's not exactly thrilled, but she gets it. (If you say you had sex because you wanted to, she kicks your ass to the curb.)
The good character's answer is: nothing. Nothing is worth sacrificing purity and chastity. Even if you are in a foreign land surrounded by enemies, and you're with your five best friends, and the fate of you and your friends literally depends on you sacrificing your purity/chastity, it is still unforgivable to sacrifice your purity/chastity.
As for lady Maria. I never read this implication that it's best that he kill her. The whole thing read like stopping him and getting him to reconcile with her was the moral and good thing to do. Not letting him take jealous revenge on the other man. The implication that he could get away with it was more implied because Keldorn is noble born and so the law gives him allowances to not be punished for certain crimes under certain conditions.
The D'arnise and Roenall quests actually back up that idea that nobles follow a different set of rules and get away things that commoners wouldn't because of their station and influence.
As I mentioned, it's been a while since I've done the sidequest, but I believe if you take Anomen along he mentions something about how not only would Keldorn be in his rights, but the Order's laws actually require it.
This is easy to answer. When another man has all but become the husband that Keldorn is supposed to be including caring for his child as well as emotionally supporting his wife. It's not ridiculous to suggest this is more replaced. It's a reality. It speaks far more of Keldorn's failures at being a father and husband there for his wife than if she was getting a little sex on the side.
Your seeing Betrayal as a very narrow and single minded idea that can only relay to the idea of sex when the emotional components of a relationship are often the far more important and sustaining parts than the sex.
Okay, here's what I don't get. Sure, the other man becoming an emotional replacement to Keldorn is more bad than just sex. That's fine. But this is a false dilemma; there's nothing to say that the man could *either* become an emotional replacement to Keldorn *or* have sex.
Like, if emotionally replacing Keldorn is a billion on the scale of emotional badness, and sex is just a one, then wouldn't replacing Keldorn *and* having sex with Lady Maria still be a billion and one on the badness scale, which is objectively worse?
How does him *not* having sex with Lady Maria make her betrayal worse?
(I'll add: the dichotomy between "the emotional components of a relationship" and "sex" is also a false dichotomy. Every relationship is different and far be it from me to tell other people what works for them, but I'd wager more often than not sex *is* an emotional component that helps sustain a stable relationship.)
@UnderstandMouseMagic "To some extent I suspect that you're interpreting particular bits of information in ways that fit your existing template" This right here, you are making some very large leaps to connect all this.
A while back there was a big debate about whether video games could be art. A large segment of the intelligentsia, accustomed as they were to sneering at the entertainment of the hoi polloi, universally declared that video games simply *cannot* be art. They lack the requisite DNA. Which of course sets off a round of arguments over definitions and the like.
I'll say this: if video games aspire to be art, then they deserve to be subjected to the same level of critical scrutiny applied to other art forms. And "reading a lot into things" is literary criticism 101.
I have to admit I did not read all posts on this and the last page in their entirety, so I might have overlooked some things.
Nevertheless, I think there is a difference that is being overlooked..
While Bioware was not exactly sex-positive, they do not comdemn it per se either. If you have intercourse with your partner, then there is no problem. Having sex outside of a solid partnership is not viewed as good. A bit old-fashioned, sure, but that does not mean that sex=evil.
About Aerie ending the relationship early: She is a naive, idealistic romantic. I always got the opinion that, if possible, she would prefer to wait with all that until marriage. Since you are adventurers she wants to be at a point where she is *sure* that you basicly marry as soon as circumstances allow it, before she is really comfortable with such things.
About the Keldorn quest.. The other man being impotent is actually important to assess his crimes law-wise. Telling Keldorn that gives the old Paladin the possibility to pardon the man (since Keldorns wife technicly did not cheat on him), while also reinforcing what exactly Keldorn did wrong. It shows that *Keldorn* thought sex most important (he has children after all..) and that emotional support is less important than keeping them safe and clothed.
About the prostitutes.. To this day it is an ongoing debate how willing prostitution is. Showing prostitution as bad has *nothing* to do with sexuality per se.
Also, the Drow being so sexual makes kind of sense.. They view emotions as negative and always look towards their benefit. For them sex has three duties: Getting children, controled outled of bodily urges (being overcome by them at the wrong time can be fatal) and finally advancing their agenda.
It is an old cliché that evil has no "positive" emotions, that true love always brings bad persons to the light. And, following this cliché, sexuality becomes a tool which evil persons will use as much as violence. Which annoys me, since I believe that evil characters are much more interesting if they are still fully "human" and not jsut an avatar of bad feelings -_-
Long story, short: Sex is not evil, evil is just more open with sex.
P.S. I always thought that Aeries child was more of an accident, following the fact that the good Avariel just can't stay away from Charnames bedroll at night, making her kinda lusty herself ;-)
The good character's answer is: nothing. Nothing is worth sacrificing purity and chastity. Even if you are in a foreign land surrounded by enemies, and you're with your five best friends, and the fate of you and your friends literally depends on you sacrificing your purity/chastity, it is still unforgivable to sacrifice your purity/chastity.
Another example of different readings Never saw it this way. Purity and chastity? How about taking sex as a part of love relationships? For evil characters sex - is another manipulative tool, nothing else. They use it to get something else out of it. For "good" - is a demonstration of love. The moment you begin to use "I love you" as a manipulative move - you ARE stepping on the evil path, you betray good thing (love, friendship, selflessness) and turn it into an instrument of evil - manipulation.
It's not chastity, it's "turning into a monster" even if for the goal to fight another monster. One can understand and even forgive such a deed but asking to continue to live with the monster as a partner might be a bit too much for many people. And if someone does not even look for alternatives but happily uses the first opportunity to dive into mud of manipulations others - it says a lot about that "someone".
P.S. I always thought that Aeries child was more of an accident, following the fact that the good Avariel just can't stay away from Charnames bedroll at night, making her kinda lusty herself ;-)
considering she's the only romance that can involve courting multiple partners at the same time. You may just be right about that.
If you mean the betrayal that occurred on an emotional level, I would agree with you. The problem is that in this story the “broken law” was made such a focal part of the story. The emotional betrayal was just kind of skimmed over. But the author makes a big point of making sure that you know that no actual sex could have occurred.“Oh it’s not so bad as they never actually had sex.”
I would agree that the damage that can done to a relationship when one person develops true feelings for someone else can be greater than what is done with a simple sexual infidelity.
But the story focused on her breaking a law. Keldorn had to decide her fate because of the law that was broken. When all the facts are gathered, what law did she break? Again, it all just starts to break down for me at this point and starts to feel silly. Can you imagine how busy the forces of the law would be if they had to lock up anyone who ever had lustful or longing thoughts for another person?
Well if you look at places where the idea is promoted that any involvement with a member of the opposite sex outside of marriage is breaking a law, then the law enforcers are very busy indeed. And of course it's women who have to be chaperoned at all times everywhere.
I don't think anybody here is suggesting that should occur, but they do need to be a little more aware of the consequences of suggesting that "betrayal" can be so widely interpretated as to include eveything from taking children to a circus to spending a bit too much time with a person.
About the prostitutes.. To this day it is an ongoing debate how willing prostitution is. Showing prostitution as bad has *nothing* to do with sexuality per se.
Counterpoint: see prostitution in the Mass Effect universe, where Sha'ira the consort is one of the most powerful people in intergalactic politics. (There are plenty of other nuanced depictions of prostitutes, or really strippers since those are the ME sex-workers of choice. There's neither universal approval or rejection, but instead shades of gray. This would be, in my mind, an example of Bioware learning from their earlier experiences-- including BG2-- and improving.)
The good character's answer is: nothing. Nothing is worth sacrificing purity and chastity. Even if you are in a foreign land surrounded by enemies, and you're with your five best friends, and the fate of you and your friends literally depends on you sacrificing your purity/chastity, it is still unforgivable to sacrifice your purity/chastity.
Another example of different readings Never saw it this way. Purity and chastity? How about taking sex as a part of love relationships? For evil characters sex - is another manipulative tool, nothing else. They use it to get something else out of it. For "good" - is a demonstration of love. The moment you begin to use "I love you" as a manipulative move - you ARE stepping on the evil path, you betray good thing (love, friendship, selflessness) and turn it into an instrument of evil - manipulation.
It's not chastity, it's "turning into a monster" even if for the goal to fight another monster. One can understand and even forgive such a deed but asking to continue to live with the monster as a partner might be a bit too much for many people. And if someone does not even look for alternatives but happily uses the first opportunity to dive into mud of manipulations others - it says a lot about that "someone".
I don't think this is a different reading, I think it's just us using different words. This is the concept I'm getting at with "purity". You save sex for love or you render it meaningless.
But look how heavy this interpretation is with moral meaning. Having sex outside of your committed love relationship makes you a "monster"? Sex for survival is "manipulative"? Anyone who engages in sex for survival is doing so "happily" at "the first opportunity"?
(I'm not saying you believe these things, I'm saying these are the underpinnings of Aerie's worldview, and the worldview that says it's important that Lady Maria's friend be impotent.)
I think the Phaere confrontation is one where our in-universe feelings get tainted by our metaknowledge. I mean, sure, we know that it's pretty easy to get out of having sex with her, and there's no real cost to trying. If Aerie were a frequent player of BG2, I think she'd be totally justified in judging Charname quite harshly, because if he had sex with Phaere it's really probably because he wanted to, and he was hoping the situation would serve as justification to help him get away with it.
But from an in-universe standpoint, you're in a society where males are supposed to be wholly subservient to females. You're disguised and worried that something will pierce that disguise-- most likely something has already and you're on edge because some beings in the city already know your true identity. You're surrounded in a nest of evil and you know you won't survive discovery.
Even if you really, really, really didn't want to have sex with Phaere, even token resistance would be a tremendous risk for the health and continued wellbeing of you and your friends. From my standpoint, I think Aerie's reaction is rank victim-blaming.
Even if you really, really, really didn't want to have sex with Phaere, even token resistance would be a tremendous risk for the health and continued wellbeing of you and your friends. From my standpoint, I think Aerie's reaction is rank victim-blaming.
Heh, never could stand Aerie. I will, necesse est point out that Neera doesn't want to know what happened, and that I, either as a Paladin or a NG Fighter, tell Phaere that "I cannot." She assumes a Handmaiden has collared me and blows it off.
The good character's answer is: nothing. Nothing is worth sacrificing purity and chastity. Even if you are in a foreign land surrounded by enemies, and you're with your five best friends, and the fate of you and your friends literally depends on you sacrificing your purity/chastity, it is still unforgivable to sacrifice your purity/chastity.
Another example of different readings Never saw it this way. Purity and chastity? How about taking sex as a part of love relationships? For evil characters sex - is another manipulative tool, nothing else. They use it to get something else out of it. For "good" - is a demonstration of love. The moment you begin to use "I love you" as a manipulative move - you ARE stepping on the evil path, you betray good thing (love, friendship, selflessness) and turn it into an instrument of evil - manipulation.
It's not chastity, it's "turning into a monster" even if for the goal to fight another monster. One can understand and even forgive such a deed but asking to continue to live with the monster as a partner might be a bit too much for many people. And if someone does not even look for alternatives but happily uses the first opportunity to dive into mud of manipulations others - it says a lot about that "someone".
Lots of sweeping statements here.
"For evil characters sex - is another manipulative tool, nothing else. They use it to get something else out of it."
That's patently untrue. In BG Slyth and Kristen are undoubtably evil yet love each other, Irenicus loved Elesime, Pharae loved Soulefain, Tamoko loved Sarevok and he loved her in return, ect.
And why is having sex with Pharae "turning into a monster"? What on earth has that got to do with telling somebody they love them? It's just sex for the good of the group's survival, strikes me as selfless rather than anything else.
And sex being delineated so sharply between being an evil act or a good act depending on who's doing who or the reasons behind it makes no sense. Does it make a woman evil if she holds out for marriage before agreeing to sleep with somebody? Which in the society portrayed is a pretty regular occurance. Does it make a man evil for marrying that women because they want sex? Isn't that manipulative?
The good character's answer is: nothing. Nothing is worth sacrificing purity and chastity. Even if you are in a foreign land surrounded by enemies, and you're with your five best friends, and the fate of you and your friends literally depends on you sacrificing your purity/chastity, it is still unforgivable to sacrifice your purity/chastity.
Another example of different readings Never saw it this way. Purity and chastity? How about taking sex as a part of love relationships? For evil characters sex - is another manipulative tool, nothing else. They use it to get something else out of it. For "good" - is a demonstration of love. The moment you begin to use "I love you" as a manipulative move - you ARE stepping on the evil path, you betray good thing (love, friendship, selflessness) and turn it into an instrument of evil - manipulation.
It's not chastity, it's "turning into a monster" even if for the goal to fight another monster. One can understand and even forgive such a deed but asking to continue to live with the monster as a partner might be a bit too much for many people. And if someone does not even look for alternatives but happily uses the first opportunity to dive into mud of manipulations others - it says a lot about that "someone".
I don't think this is a different reading, I think it's just us using different words. This is the concept I'm getting at with "purity". You save sex for love or you render it meaningless.
Well, considering your reading my previous post - still think it's about reading
This is what I was trying to say: even though that aspect of social life of Faerun was not well thought out (but what was?) sex itself considered neither good not evil thing. The question is - what is it for every character and implementation of it. Good characters sees it as a part of relationship - love relationship. It's a measure of trust - to let someone come so close to you, to gift yourself to that someone, a punchline of commitment. Giving it to someone else in the same time is a betrayal of that trust. The stress here on "trust".
Now, evil characters use anything - including sex - as a tool of manipulation. Viconia in every banter about sex is trying to use it as power play, to dominate, to put everyone on "their place". For Safana - it's to seduce and rob and/or kill - and so on. Stress here is on "using" and "manipulation".
Even if you really, really, really didn't want to have sex with Phaere, even token resistance would be a tremendous risk for the health and continued wellbeing of you and your friends. From my standpoint, I think Aerie's reaction is rank victim-blaming.
The blame here, of course, on the game with not enough dialog options. But (!) let's have a look at that game point. Yes, Solaufein states it very clear - you are nobody, a newcomer, who was not sold to slavery on spot just because they had another need of you (and your gender plays no role). But they also expected of you some level of dignity - otherwise you are no good for the task. You get praised for demonstration of self-respect to a degree.
Now, at this point in game you are either already denied direct orders from Phaere (did you kill that patrol of dwarfs?) or you played along and committed a couple of pure evil deeds.
In first case Aerie is very right to be angry because you suddenly decided to obey in a promise of pleasure for you. And (though with heavy modded game I do not know what is vanilla answers anymore) I believe there is a way to at least try politely and humbly decline the offer (if only as a token to your commitment to your love). (I can also mention the fact that for draw it's all about power and domination and your partners simply do not want your humiliation, but let's stick to the text on the screen).
In second case, when you are guilty of murdering some innocent to keep your cover, you already turned into a monster, and in this case Aerie's reaction would be more in line - "why did I expect you to treat me any different if you betrayed yourself already"?
Considering, Phaere still has need in you (and neither of our companions are stupid not to see it) you are no victim either way.
Not saying it's not as sleazy as hell, but there is a less puritanical approach. But more "Carry On Baldurs Gate" with Sid James than "Last Tango in Nashkel" with Marlon Brando.
From now on, I shall refer to the first game as "Carry On Bhaalspawn" and think of Garrick as Kenneth Williams.
Not saying it's not as sleazy as hell, but there is a less puritanical approach. But more "Carry On Baldurs Gate" with Sid James than "Last Tango in Nashkel" with Marlon Brando.
From now on, I shall refer to the first game as "Carry On Bhaalspawn" and think of Garrick as Kenneth Williams.
Nah, Edwin is definitely Kenneth Williams.
Garrick-- Jim Dale Viconia--Barbara Windsor (that's so wrong but so funny) Jaheira--Joan Sims (that's so suitable can't think why it has never been tried) Khalid--Terry Scott Minsc--Bernard Bresslaw Dynaheir--Hattie Jacques Xan--Charles Hawtrey Gorian--Peter Butterworth
and
Sarevok--Sid James
In an alternative universe, this film should be made.
This is easy to answer. When another man has all but become the husband that Keldorn is supposed to be including caring for his child as well as emotionally supporting his wife. It's not ridiculous to suggest this is more replaced. It's a reality. It speaks far more of Keldorn's failures at being a father and husband there for his wife than if she was getting a little sex on the side.
Your seeing Betrayal as a very narrow and single minded idea that can only relay to the idea of sex when the emotional components of a relationship are often the far more important and sustaining parts than the sex.
Okay, here's what I don't get. Sure, the other man becoming an emotional replacement to Keldorn is more bad than just sex. That's fine. But this is a false dilemma; there's nothing to say that the man could *either* become an emotional replacement to Keldorn *or* have sex.
Like, if emotionally replacing Keldorn is a billion on the scale of emotional badness, and sex is just a one, then wouldn't replacing Keldorn *and* having sex with Lady Maria still be a billion and one on the badness scale, which is objectively worse?
How does him *not* having sex with Lady Maria make her betrayal worse?
(I'll add: the dichotomy between "the emotional components of a relationship" and "sex" is also a false dichotomy. Every relationship is different and far be it from me to tell other people what works for them, but I'd wager more often than not sex *is* an emotional component that helps sustain a stable relationship.)
The impotent line was put in to shift the focus onto the emotional betrayal of a complete replacement. How many people here still fixated on a sexual aspect before I mentioned the impotence line? It intentionally draws the conversation away from sex, because that is all that people would see otherwise. Despite there being so many other meaningful ways for couples to express their love and trust to one another, its always sex that people talk about. Even here you would think that was the only focus of the game the way that people fixate on it.
The impotent line was put in to shift the focus onto the emotional betrayal of a complete replacement. How many people here still fixated on a sexual aspect before I mentioned the impotence line? It intentionally draws the conversation away from sex, because that is all that people would see otherwise. Despite there being so many other meaningful ways for couples to express their love and trust to one another, its always sex that people talk about. Even here you would think that was the only focus of the game the way that people fixate on it.
I'd say that a lot of what we are seeing here is the not games fixation and but our own. To me this quest was designed to illustrate the cost of Keldorn's personal relationships in his rigid pursuit of his place and work as a Paladin. Showcasing his failings to the people that are supposed to be close to him in the so called pursuit of greater good and his trouble with accepting the reality of those failings. His Killing of the pair supposedly by the nature of the law more an attempt to wipe away his own social/moral crimes by hiding them under the perceived persectution of others. Why else would the "good" result end up with him upholding his final promise to Charname before finally giving up his rigid and rigorous pursuit of the greater good to attempt to make amends for his now recognized failings and the darker yet supposedly Lawful(not good mind you) result being his staunch continued following of the same path he's been on for years but showcasing those failings in a showing of some of the blood on his hands as a cost of following that path so blindly?
Even if you really, really, really didn't want to have sex with Phaere, even token resistance would be a tremendous risk for the health and continued wellbeing of you and your friends. From my standpoint, I think Aerie's reaction is rank victim-blaming.
Heh, never could stand Aerie. I will, necesse est point out that Neera doesn't want to know what happened, and that I, either as a Paladin or a NG Fighter, tell Phaere that "I cannot." She assumes a Handmaiden has collared me and blows it off.
Right. It's been a while since I've looked at it, but the Phaere resolution has a degree of reactivity that is really only matched by a few situations in Icewind Dale. IIRC, if your Charisma is high enough, you get one viable conversation option to talk your way out. If your INT is high enough, you get another. If your WIS is high enough, you get a third. I think there's one that's available regardless of your stats. Basically a lot of ways to not go through with it and still not get discovered.
But like I said, this is metaknowledge. The developers really, really didn't want to create a situation where they forced the players to have sex with someone or get locked out of content, so they created a ton of outs. But from an in-universe standpoint, trying to get out of it would have to seem extremely risky to Charname given what he knows at the time.
I think it's entirely reasonable-- and even noble-- for Charname to say it's not worth the risk, to prioritize the safety and well-being of his companions over his own personal sexual desires (or lack thereof). That strikes me as a downright selfless, altruistic action.
Even if you really, really, really didn't want to have sex with Phaere, even token resistance would be a tremendous risk for the health and continued wellbeing of you and your friends. From my standpoint, I think Aerie's reaction is rank victim-blaming.
The blame here, of course, on the game with not enough dialog options. But (!) let's have a look at that game point. Yes, Solaufein states it very clear - you are nobody, a newcomer, who was not sold to slavery on spot just because they had another need of you (and your gender plays no role). But they also expected of you some level of dignity - otherwise you are no good for the task. You get praised for demonstration of self-respect to a degree.
They *also* just asked you to murder Soulefein, (Phaere commands you to have sex with her when you are returning with his Piwawfi cloak), a gifted fighter who had served the family for years, which I suspect would serve to only reinforce to Charname just how disposable he is, too.
Now, at this point in game you are either already denied direct orders from Phaere (did you kill that patrol of dwarfs?) or you played along and committed a couple of pure evil deeds.
In first case Aerie is very right to be angry because you suddenly decided to obey in a promise of pleasure for you. And (though with heavy modded game I do not know what is vanilla answers anymore) I believe there is a way to at least try politely and humbly decline the offer (if only as a token to your commitment to your love). (I can also mention the fact that for draw it's all about power and domination and your partners simply do not want your humiliation, but let's stick to the text on the screen).
In second case, when you are guilty of murdering some innocent to keep your cover, you already turned into a monster, and in this case Aerie's reaction would be more in line - "why did I expect you to treat me any different if you betrayed yourself already"?
I mean, Charname has several points where he's free to disregard Phaere's direct orders... provided he can plausibly convince her that he carried them out. So the sex would likewise be totally optional, provided you can convince her you did it. Which... I mean, I'm not really sure how the mechanics of that would work.
Considering, Phaere still has need in you (and neither of our companions are stupid not to see it) you are no victim either way.
Yeah, really going to have to disagree with this one. If someone puts you in a situation where there is an implicit threat of violence hanging over your head if you don't have sex with them, then you're a victim. Murdering the last person to displease someone certainly sends a message that perhaps it's best not to displease that person.
I mean, even if you think you can probably get away with not having sex with Phaere without setting her off, (after witnessing her command you to murder Solaufein over a personal slight)... how sure are you? Are you like 66% sure that saying no to Phaere won't result in the death of everyone in the world that you care about? 75% sure? 90% sure? 95% sure? How sure would you need to be to turn down sex with her?
And even beyond concerns about what Phaere herself will do, you're in a disguise whose integrity relies on your ability to act convincingly. Even if Phaere accepted that you didn't want to have sex with her, who is to say she might not start digging up more details on this Drow male who behaves in such an un-drow-like manner.
The whole situation with Phaere is stupid-coercive at best and downright rapey at worst, and blaming someone for not doing enough to get out of stupid-coercive-perhaps-bordering-on-rapey-sex seems like a not good thing to do.
You know. There is also a simple psychological effect going on here that they may have played out very well in the case of Phaere. The simple fact that certain characters may be blaming Charname for the action they take simply so they don't have to admit to themselves they would take the same action and can keep a moral high ground since it wasn't a situation they were put in directly. This is actually a very common human trait that comes up quite a bit in moral quandaries.
Even if Phaere accepted that you didn't want to have sex with her, who is to say she might not start digging up more details on this Drow male who behaves in such an un-drow-like manner.
Actually, that would be very drow-like behavior - constantly checking the rope, testing the borders. And from male as well as from female.
Charname is in the position now, where Paere is already owe him a lot and needs him (eliminating Solaufein by her order made her even depend of Charneme's silence now). So, no, I do not think a question would be out of place here. Like in any power play game wording is everything, and refusal has to be very specifically formulated, but some disagreement was possible in the beginning of the Underdark quests - and sure is possible now, when your name is known and Phaere compromised herself.
The whole situation with Phaere is stupid-coercive at best and downright rapey at worst
Obviously, because this is how drows use sex - to demonstrate power and establish domination. But (!) Charname is not such a victim here - for all the reasons above he can say "no" if only - I'll repeat myself - to demonstrate commitment to the loved one and agree under the open pressure.
The problem here is that you as a gamer and roleplayer can interpret situation any way you want. You can play a helpless rape victim or find enough reasons not to be a victim. But the game - and NPCs! - can not react to the thoughts. Developers obviously wanted to leave for faithful Charnames way out - and they did. Hence - not such flexible reaction of companions. As far as companions concerned, your agreement to sex is on you. Though, again, it's up to you as a gamer to interpret - whether it's genuine look from companions side at the situation as clearly resolvable, or, as @fateless suggests, hypocritical pretense for holding high-ground. BG is all about freedom of interpretations. My companions are genuine, yours - hypocritical, and both of us have rights and reasons to see them so
phaere is actually in a position to get rid of Soulefein and get away with it on two fronts. One she can say you acted out on your own and probably get away with it overall or suffer a minor drawback (she may even have false witnesses to this effect considering she set up the whole scenario for you to be able to get rid of him). But also she's in a position that does have some authority and as plotting as she is may have something that if you do try to bring it up against her ready to point the finger elsewhere or "prove" that Soulefein was doing something deserving of his death to actually bring her praise and reward.
The only point you ever really have over her is with the eggs. Which you can actually use to her demise.
otherwise when it comes to Drow it's probably best to do even as the Drow are shown to be doing in your dealings with them which is assuming they are plotting how to get rid of you even as they are using you against their rivals or to forward their own plots.
BG2 is actually very overly lenient in the effort that it takes for you to be revealed in Ust Natha. Practically to the point of you having to remove your own disguise or attacking everybody in sight on a meta level. Even while the story actually presents this atmosphere that you can be discovered at any moment. The mechanics and the story don't actually match up well and our meta minds take advantage of that way too much and in several respects the NPC's respond to way too little.
Comments
Why is it supposed that "there is more to a healthy relationship than lust or physical attraction"?
Isn't that a value judgement?
Why use the word "healthy"?
And again, why are you presuming all the other replacement couldn't be just as "full" if you bung sex into the equation?
"It deepens Maria's betrayal because she fully replaced her husband"
How?
She didn't, the chap even says she didn't, even says she still loves Keldorn. It's ridiculous to suggest that Keldorn, her husband, is more replaced because sex isn't included.
Either way, whatever interpretation you or I put on it, the fact is the writers used "sex" (regardless of who's doing it to who) to portray something.
Which is really the basis of this whole discussion.
@SomeSort and myself believe that it being used to portray or underline the evil alignment of the various characters, that is our interpretation.
You may not believe that, but you do believe it's being used for something as you have just demonstrated.
Your seeing Betrayal as a very narrow and single minded idea that can only relay to the idea of sex when the emotional components of a relationship are often the far more important and sustaining parts than the sex.
I agree. It did get that point across to me as well.
At no point have I suggested that it's not a betrayal without the sex.
The point I'm asking is why is the "sex" part the only thing in this betrayal that matters enough to be specifically mentioned as not happening?
Why not "I never had anything to do with your children, I didn't take them to the circus because we were far too busy having sex"
I'd suggest that rather than be narrow minded about whether they did the deed, which the writers saw fit to mention, the real betrayal is the intimacy that was shared.
And that's where the puritanical streak running through BG2 comes through. It's the writers who bigged up the "no sex" part of this by mentioning it.
if left to his own devices Keldorn would still kill them reguardless of the issue of sex. It's the Charnames stepping in to smooth things over and speak of compassion that stops it from happening.
As @UnderstandMouseMagic mentions, the fact that Lady Maria never actually had sex only further reinforces the point. Lady Maria is a Madonna, so of course she couldn't *actually* have sex out of wedlock. She's a good-aligned character, and sex is evil and wicked. And if she *had* had sex outside of marriage, the good-aligned Keldorn wouldn't have been free to accept her back again, because sex is evil and Keldorn is the paragon of all that is good in the world.
Again, the link is between "goodness" and "purity/chastity". And the Phaere situation is a question of what it is worth sacrificing the ideals of purity and chastity for.
The evil character's answer is: anything you want. A moment's pleasure. Purity and chastity are stupid ideals that hold no value for an evil-aligned character, so go get you some if you feel like it.
The neutral character's answer is: survival. Purity and chastity are important, but Jaheira is a practical woman and she's smart enough to recognize you were in a tough situation. If you convince her you had sex with Phaere to try to keep the party alive, she's not exactly thrilled, but she gets it. (If you say you had sex because you wanted to, she kicks your ass to the curb.)
The good character's answer is: nothing. Nothing is worth sacrificing purity and chastity. Even if you are in a foreign land surrounded by enemies, and you're with your five best friends, and the fate of you and your friends literally depends on you sacrificing your purity/chastity, it is still unforgivable to sacrifice your purity/chastity.
There's the moral judgment writ large. As I mentioned, it's been a while since I've done the sidequest, but I believe if you take Anomen along he mentions something about how not only would Keldorn be in his rights, but the Order's laws actually require it.
Like, if emotionally replacing Keldorn is a billion on the scale of emotional badness, and sex is just a one, then wouldn't replacing Keldorn *and* having sex with Lady Maria still be a billion and one on the badness scale, which is objectively worse?
How does him *not* having sex with Lady Maria make her betrayal worse?
(I'll add: the dichotomy between "the emotional components of a relationship" and "sex" is also a false dichotomy. Every relationship is different and far be it from me to tell other people what works for them, but I'd wager more often than not sex *is* an emotional component that helps sustain a stable relationship.)
I'll say this: if video games aspire to be art, then they deserve to be subjected to the same level of critical scrutiny applied to other art forms. And "reading a lot into things" is literary criticism 101.
Nevertheless, I think there is a difference that is being overlooked..
While Bioware was not exactly sex-positive, they do not comdemn it per se either.
If you have intercourse with your partner, then there is no problem. Having sex outside of a solid partnership is not viewed as good. A bit old-fashioned, sure, but that does not mean that sex=evil.
About Aerie ending the relationship early: She is a naive, idealistic romantic. I always got the opinion that, if possible, she would prefer to wait with all that until marriage. Since you are adventurers she wants to be at a point where she is *sure* that you basicly marry as soon as circumstances allow it, before she is really comfortable with such things.
About the Keldorn quest.. The other man being impotent is actually important to assess his crimes law-wise.
Telling Keldorn that gives the old Paladin the possibility to pardon the man (since Keldorns wife technicly did not cheat on him), while also reinforcing what exactly Keldorn did wrong. It shows that *Keldorn* thought sex most important (he has children after all..) and that emotional support is less important than keeping them safe and clothed.
About the prostitutes.. To this day it is an ongoing debate how willing prostitution is. Showing prostitution as bad has *nothing* to do with sexuality per se.
Also, the Drow being so sexual makes kind of sense..
They view emotions as negative and always look towards their benefit. For them sex has three duties: Getting children, controled outled of bodily urges (being overcome by them at the wrong time can be fatal) and finally advancing their agenda.
It is an old cliché that evil has no "positive" emotions, that true love always brings bad persons to the light.
And, following this cliché, sexuality becomes a tool which evil persons will use as much as violence.
Which annoys me, since I believe that evil characters are much more interesting if they are still fully "human" and not jsut an avatar of bad feelings -_-
Long story, short: Sex is not evil, evil is just more open with sex.
P.S. I always thought that Aeries child was more of an accident, following the fact that the good Avariel just can't stay away from Charnames bedroll at night, making her kinda lusty herself ;-)
Never saw it this way. Purity and chastity? How about taking sex as a part of love relationships? For evil characters sex - is another manipulative tool, nothing else. They use it to get something else out of it. For "good" - is a demonstration of love. The moment you begin to use "I love you" as a manipulative move - you ARE stepping on the evil path, you betray good thing (love, friendship, selflessness) and turn it into an instrument of evil - manipulation.
It's not chastity, it's "turning into a monster" even if for the goal to fight another monster. One can understand and even forgive such a deed but asking to continue to live with the monster as a partner might be a bit too much for many people. And if someone does not even look for alternatives but happily uses the first opportunity to dive into mud of manipulations others - it says a lot about that "someone".
And of course it's women who have to be chaperoned at all times everywhere.
I don't think anybody here is suggesting that should occur, but they do need to be a little more aware of the consequences of suggesting that "betrayal" can be so widely interpretated as to include eveything from taking children to a circus to spending a bit too much time with a person.
But look how heavy this interpretation is with moral meaning. Having sex outside of your committed love relationship makes you a "monster"? Sex for survival is "manipulative"? Anyone who engages in sex for survival is doing so "happily" at "the first opportunity"?
(I'm not saying you believe these things, I'm saying these are the underpinnings of Aerie's worldview, and the worldview that says it's important that Lady Maria's friend be impotent.)
I think the Phaere confrontation is one where our in-universe feelings get tainted by our metaknowledge. I mean, sure, we know that it's pretty easy to get out of having sex with her, and there's no real cost to trying. If Aerie were a frequent player of BG2, I think she'd be totally justified in judging Charname quite harshly, because if he had sex with Phaere it's really probably because he wanted to, and he was hoping the situation would serve as justification to help him get away with it.
But from an in-universe standpoint, you're in a society where males are supposed to be wholly subservient to females. You're disguised and worried that something will pierce that disguise-- most likely something has already and you're on edge because some beings in the city already know your true identity. You're surrounded in a nest of evil and you know you won't survive discovery.
Even if you really, really, really didn't want to have sex with Phaere, even token resistance would be a tremendous risk for the health and continued wellbeing of you and your friends. From my standpoint, I think Aerie's reaction is rank victim-blaming.
"For evil characters sex - is another manipulative tool, nothing else. They use it to get something else out of it."
That's patently untrue. In BG Slyth and Kristen are undoubtably evil yet love each other, Irenicus loved Elesime, Pharae loved Soulefain, Tamoko loved Sarevok and he loved her in return, ect.
And why is having sex with Pharae "turning into a monster"? What on earth has that got to do with telling somebody they love them?
It's just sex for the good of the group's survival, strikes me as selfless rather than anything else.
And sex being delineated so sharply between being an evil act or a good act depending on who's doing who or the reasons behind it makes no sense.
Does it make a woman evil if she holds out for marriage before agreeing to sleep with somebody? Which in the society portrayed is a pretty regular occurance.
Does it make a man evil for marrying that women because they want sex?
Isn't that manipulative?
This is what I was trying to say: even though that aspect of social life of Faerun was not well thought out (but what was?) sex itself considered neither good not evil thing. The question is - what is it for every character and implementation of it. Good characters sees it as a part of relationship - love relationship. It's a measure of trust - to let someone come so close to you, to gift yourself to that someone, a punchline of commitment. Giving it to someone else in the same time is a betrayal of that trust. The stress here on "trust".
Now, evil characters use anything - including sex - as a tool of manipulation. Viconia in every banter about sex is trying to use it as power play, to dominate, to put everyone on "their place". For Safana - it's to seduce and rob and/or kill - and so on. Stress here is on "using" and "manipulation".
Not sure how clear I am with my definition. The blame here, of course, on the game with not enough dialog options. But (!) let's have a look at that game point. Yes, Solaufein states it very clear - you are nobody, a newcomer, who was not sold to slavery on spot just because they had another need of you (and your gender plays no role). But they also expected of you some level of dignity - otherwise you are no good for the task. You get praised for demonstration of self-respect to a degree.
Now, at this point in game you are either already denied direct orders from Phaere (did you kill that patrol of dwarfs?) or you played along and committed a couple of pure evil deeds.
In first case Aerie is very right to be angry because you suddenly decided to obey in a promise of pleasure for you. And (though with heavy modded game I do not know what is vanilla answers anymore) I believe there is a way to at least try politely and humbly decline the offer (if only as a token to your commitment to your love).
(I can also mention the fact that for draw it's all about power and domination and your partners simply do not want your humiliation, but let's stick to the text on the screen).
In second case, when you are guilty of murdering some innocent to keep your cover, you already turned into a monster, and in this case Aerie's reaction would be more in line - "why did I expect you to treat me any different if you betrayed yourself already"?
Considering, Phaere still has need in you (and neither of our companions are stupid not to see it) you are no victim either way.
Garrick-- Jim Dale
Viconia--Barbara Windsor (that's so wrong but so funny)
Jaheira--Joan Sims (that's so suitable can't think why it has never been tried)
Khalid--Terry Scott
Minsc--Bernard Bresslaw
Dynaheir--Hattie Jacques
Xan--Charles Hawtrey
Gorian--Peter Butterworth
and
Sarevok--Sid James
In an alternative universe, this film should be made.
But like I said, this is metaknowledge. The developers really, really didn't want to create a situation where they forced the players to have sex with someone or get locked out of content, so they created a ton of outs. But from an in-universe standpoint, trying to get out of it would have to seem extremely risky to Charname given what he knows at the time.
I think it's entirely reasonable-- and even noble-- for Charname to say it's not worth the risk, to prioritize the safety and well-being of his companions over his own personal sexual desires (or lack thereof). That strikes me as a downright selfless, altruistic action.
I mean, even if you think you can probably get away with not having sex with Phaere without setting her off, (after witnessing her command you to murder Solaufein over a personal slight)... how sure are you? Are you like 66% sure that saying no to Phaere won't result in the death of everyone in the world that you care about? 75% sure? 90% sure? 95% sure? How sure would you need to be to turn down sex with her?
And even beyond concerns about what Phaere herself will do, you're in a disguise whose integrity relies on your ability to act convincingly. Even if Phaere accepted that you didn't want to have sex with her, who is to say she might not start digging up more details on this Drow male who behaves in such an un-drow-like manner.
The whole situation with Phaere is stupid-coercive at best and downright rapey at worst, and blaming someone for not doing enough to get out of stupid-coercive-perhaps-bordering-on-rapey-sex seems like a not good thing to do.
I totally get your point about "on all other cases we can pretend to obey, but with sex it's impossible", but questioning was allowed from the start. Actually, that would be very drow-like behavior - constantly checking the rope, testing the borders. And from male as well as from female.
Charname is in the position now, where Paere is already owe him a lot and needs him (eliminating Solaufein by her order made her even depend of Charneme's silence now). So, no, I do not think a question would be out of place here. Like in any power play game wording is everything, and refusal has to be very specifically formulated, but some disagreement was possible in the beginning of the Underdark quests - and sure is possible now, when your name is known and Phaere compromised herself. Obviously, because this is how drows use sex - to demonstrate power and establish domination. But (!) Charname is not such a victim here - for all the reasons above he can say "no" if only - I'll repeat myself - to demonstrate commitment to the loved one and agree under the open pressure.
The problem here is that you as a gamer and roleplayer can interpret situation any way you want. You can play a helpless rape victim or find enough reasons not to be a victim. But the game - and NPCs! - can not react to the thoughts. Developers obviously wanted to leave for faithful Charnames way out - and they did. Hence - not such flexible reaction of companions. As far as companions concerned, your agreement to sex is on you.
Though, again, it's up to you as a gamer to interpret - whether it's genuine look from companions side at the situation as clearly resolvable, or, as @fateless suggests, hypocritical pretense for holding high-ground. BG is all about freedom of interpretations. My companions are genuine, yours - hypocritical, and both of us have rights and reasons to see them so
The only point you ever really have over her is with the eggs. Which you can actually use to her demise.
otherwise when it comes to Drow it's probably best to do even as the Drow are shown to be doing in your dealings with them which is assuming they are plotting how to get rid of you even as they are using you against their rivals or to forward their own plots.
BG2 is actually very overly lenient in the effort that it takes for you to be revealed in Ust Natha. Practically to the point of you having to remove your own disguise or attacking everybody in sight on a meta level. Even while the story actually presents this atmosphere that you can be discovered at any moment. The mechanics and the story don't actually match up well and our meta minds take advantage of that way too much and in several respects the NPC's respond to way too little.