If you are playing Baldur's Gate III Early Access, as I am, you will have noticed in Patch 4 there is a new scene with Lae'zel and that adorable tiefling couple. The tieflings are talking about having a cat as a pet, since dogs aren't allowed in the city of Baldur's Gate, and Lae'zel asks what a cat is.
Watching this, you might wonder, why aren't dogs allowed?
The answer to this question can be found among the books in the Arcane Tower in the Underdark:
No animal larger than a peacock may gain entry to Baldur's Gate.
It's a city restriction, and it seems to be unpopular, at least with bear owners. What they will do if you're a druid and turn into a bear or a badger while in the city is anyone's guess. 😉
Obviously there are no toy dogs in Faerun, thus no dogs allowed in Baldur's Gate.
Long, long ago, when Elder Scrolls Online first appeared (2014), I fell in love with a character named Darien Gautier.
(Darien is voiced by Jon Curry, of Zevran Arainai fame (he's also the American-accented Inquisitor in Dragon Age: Inquisition, and you've probably heard his voice in a bunch of other BioWare and Bethesda games). So if you easily fall in love with voices, like me, you know where I'm coming from here.) And---miracle of miracles---he fell in love with me!!!
(YES, although Zenimax won't let you flirt with ANYBODY ELSE, you CAN flirt with Darien. Bless the person who made this possible by working in some flirt dialogue choices. You are my hero.) So when y'all are about to go up against the huge, final boss, you can get dialogue like this:
(happy sigh) And you get dialogue about what we're going to do when the fight is over:
As the "beautiful hero of Coldharbour," I was definitely looking forward to a drink and a neck massage. And there was no reason to expect I wouldn't get it. From the moment we became a couple, Darien had been saying we'd be together, that we'd find each other after the battle, no matter what:
So my character is quite invested in this relationship. As well as saving the world, of course. Y'know. That, too.
*big, dramatic boss fight* *yay victory*
And then.....
DARIEN DIED.
*sobbing*
Except we couldn't find his body so THERE WAS HOPE.
I played all the different sides of the ESO conflict, and I waited.
2015
One day, I was reading all the books in Orsinium, because that is something I do. (There is Important Lore to be found. Shut up.)
ANYWAY, in the library of the Temple of Ire, I came across this:
Me: *high pitched dolphin shrieks* THIS IS DARIEN ISN'T IT IT'S GOT TO BE DARIEN OMG
*turns over page*
Me: *more high pitched dolphin shrieks* IT DARIEN!!!
I told everybody on Twitter. Darien was trying to come back to me.
And I kept the faith.
2016
I wander into a Mages' Guild library in Anvil, and there is fellow Darien fangirl Gabrielle Benele, looking for Darien. I'm all like, "I HAVE A CLUE FOR THIS!!!"
So it's not just me. A Darien rescue could be on the cards.
And since then I've been waiting.
Waiting.
2018
In 2018 came the release of ESO Summerset. I was really hoping I'd learn more about Razum-dar, the charismatic Khajiit. Maybe even be able to flirt with him!
But no.
Nope.
Raz is present, but there's very little personal interaction.
And then I heard the Golden Knight's voice and I was like.... Is that...??!!
IS THAT...??!!
Meridia herself confirms that, YES, THE MYSTERY IS FINALLY SOLVED.
Now, you can see by this timeline that Zenimax Online has been playing a very long game here. Respect. I'm disappointed I still cannot flirt with Razum-dar, but RESPECT for remembering that there are Darien fangirls awaiting Darien's return. And for giving us some love:
It was truly nice to interact with him again.
So I did NOT expect him TO DIE AGAIN.
Even though it's been long enough that none of this should be "spoilers," I'll skip over exactly HOW he dies and just mention the important bit: THIS TIME THERE WILL BE NO BODY.
I'm like, NO. YOU CANNOT DO ME LIKE THIS, ZENIMAX.
So I hold out hope that somehow Meridia will give him back to me.
Then, at the end of Summerset, I hear a mysterious book has teleported to the victory celebration.
IT'S DARIEN I KNOW IT'S DARIEN
You may want to mute the sound on this clip as you read. That's Rigurt's laughter in the background. (I adore Rigurt the Brash, it was so cool to meet him again, though his maniacal laughter can be unsettling in this context. The context of IMMA STAB THAT DAEDRIC BITCH.)
All I can say is this better not be the end of Darien Gautier.
Bethesda has announced the upcoming release of ESO ELSWEYR in June 2019. I have wanted to visit Elsweyr since Oblivion (2006) so, yeah, I'm gonna be there.
And my two greatest hopes for this expansion are:
1) I GET TO SHIV MERIDIA. IN THE FACE. TAKE THAT, GLISTER WITCH. GIVE ME MY DARIEN BACK.
2) I get to flirt with some Khajiit. Preferably Razum-dar. But, hey. ANY flirting would be nice.
Because, on that second point, I don't understand why I can wander the open world killing everything in sight, but I can't flirt with anyone. WTF, Zenimax Online/Bethesda?? What's up with that??
I mean, there are tons of games on the market where I can kill things. And some days, that's all I want. Give me a bow and point me toward the draugr.
But what makes an RPG game like Elder Scrolls endure, what makes it re-play-able, what gives it legs and positive word of mouth, is Emotional Investment. I want to care about the characters and the storyline. Throw in some flirting/personal stuff so I can pretend it's not just a linear path, it's something I chose, and thus I affected the world, or our little corner of it.
Solas: No I didn't. I'd never have sex with you under false pretenses.
Inquisitor: Yeah, you didn't TAKE me---like you PROMISED, by the way---instead you TOOK ME IN. TOTALLY BAIT AND SWITCH.
Solas: I never promised to have sex with you.
Solas: Okay. Maybe... that MIGHT... have implied we were going off to have sex. But---
Inquisitor: And when we walk off screen, what happens? THIS:
Inquisitor: I think we're going for romance but instead you tell me something I valued IS CRAP and then BREAK UP WITH ME FOREVER. I mean, I know you're a Trickster God but that is some Fade-level deception right there.
Solas: I do have a beautiful voice, though.
Inquisitor: Yes. Yes, you do. You bastard.
Solas: So you're still going to romance me again on your next play-through, right?
So y'all already know I'm re-playing (for the umpteenth time) Dragon Age: Inquisition.
Whenever you begin a game, there are a few training quests you have to do, to familiarize the player with how everything works. One of these quests involves the quartermaster, Threnn.
Threnn is a Loghain supporter. In her dialogue, she talks about how Loghain was a hero---he didn't betray the Grey Wardens at Ostagar, he saved his own troops.
Me: No, no, no! That's not how that went!
Because, y'know, I played Dragon Age: Origins. I was there! But that's just one crazy bitch person. Doesn't matter. Shrug it off.
Then Solas gives us a "both sides" viewpoint on Ostagar.
Both sides are the truth??
Me: NO, SOLAS, YOU LYING SACK OF WEASELS, THAT'S NOT HOW TRUTH WORKS!!
Again, I was there. Loghain didn't withdraw his troops to save them. He withdrew his troops as part of his betrayal of the Grey Wardens.
This pet peeve has grown, and just become more irritated, over the years of my playing this game. (And maybe it's been exacerbated by the real-world war on facts and truth and both-sides-ism.)
ANYHOW.
One of the play-throughs I currently am running (yes, I said "one of," don't judge me, shut up), has Anora ruling alone as Queen of Ferelden, Alistair dead (or drunk), and Loghain as the Grey Warden who helped end the Fifth Blight.
Aside: Do you ever get that loading screen that says something like, "Experts disagree if the Fifth Blight was truly a Blight"?If you do, do you also yell, "It was SO a True Blight!" at the screen and feel personally offended?
So anyway, Loghain Mac Tir is my Warden. This means all-new cut-scenes for me, new dialogue. WHOOT!!!
Then suddenly, THIS:
You can imagine my surprise. After all this "Loghain was a hero" crap, LOGHAIN HIMSELF ADMITS HE BETRAYED THE GREY WARDENS.
And later in the Fade:
Loghain AGAIN admits his guilt in everything that happened to Ferelden in Dragon Age: Origins.
I'm like, YES!! FACTS ARE FACTS! IT IS POSSIBLE TO KNOW THE TRUTH! THANK YOU, LOGHAIN!
Loghain knowing he is guilty and having repented is kind of touching. It leads to Loghain getting the best send off as Person Chosen To Fight The Nightmare.
Is that beautiful and heroic or what? In his end is his beginning---once again a noble, self-sacrificing warrior. And most people would never hear this because, I'm thinking, for the majority of players, Loghain didn't survive Dragon Age: Origins.
As far as epic farewell lines go, the only other one that comes close is Sarcastic (Purple) Hawke's, "WHY IS IT ALWAYS SPIDERS?!!"
But getting back to Loghain, his being the best send-off is especially cemented by Varric speaking his epitaph:
I rest my case.
Also, if you're wondering what Varric is talking about when he refers to Loghain's early life, you need to read The Stolen Throne. Loghain was a hero before he became a villain. (The books also explain why Loghain hates Alistair, something poor Alistair doesn't even know.)
I just like this clip because of the truth of the lore. No one alive remembers the Deep Roads at their height, thus even the dwarves don't remember the dwarves.
I giggled when I heard the surgeon NPC say this. Surely someone, somewhere has used this as a smutty literature fanfic prompt? I just adore Bioware. (And Dragon Age.)
(Sorry it's so dark, but it's the words that are important.)
Recently I decided to replay Dragon Age: Inquisition and, amazingly, since I've played it through SOOOOO many times (over 20 and I stopped counting), I'm actually finding new cut-scenes.
For example, I never got this scene before, so thought I'd share in case anyone else was like me.
I generally don't get Vivienne's personal quest until late in the story, and apparently I never speak with her after Bastien dies, after the scene where she talks about funeral planning. I just go straight for the main story ending. I didn't realize Vivienne had more to say. And I thought she liked me....
Cat: The canned food goes on my white plate. Treats go in my orange dish. This canned food is in my orange dish. It is not a treat.
Me: But you love your canned food.
Cat: Yes.
Me: ...
Cat: ...
Me: ...
Cat: I'm still not eating it.
Me: Right. I'll scoop it out and put it on the white plate. Geez. Are you an excellent driver, too?
Cat: I do not get that reference.
Me: Sorry. It's from Rain Man.
Cat: Remember, you are speaking to a cat.
Me: Oh. Yeah.
Cat: And I prefer Dustin Hoffman in Marathon Man.
Me *hands over the now filled white plate*: If you wake me up tonight with a clawed paw on my cheek going, "IS...IT...SAFE?" I am cutting your TV time right down to zero. Now eat your canned food.
I have noticed lately a trend in which the word "damsel" is used as short-hand to mean "damsel in distress."
As in:
"I need you to scream for me."
"Like a damsel?"
Or:
"I imagined a story where I didn't have to be the damsel."
This chaps my hide.
"Damsel" is not an intrinsically pejorative word. It simply means "young, unmarried woman." The word itself has no relation to powerlessness.
In fact, according to the New Oxford American Dictionary, the word damsel comes to us (by way of French) from the Latin domina which means mistress, as in a female master.
So the entire foundation of the word damsel is rooted in power.
It just happened to share the same first letter as the word distress, and thus someone, who confused alliteration with wit, coined "damsel in distress."
To conflate the "damsel in distress" trope with the actual word "damsel" is NOT A GOOD THING.
Because -- remember, damsel by itself just means woman -- what you're actually saying is:
"I need you to scream for me."
"Like a woman?"
Or:
"I imagined a story where I didn't have to be the woman."
When the word those screenwriters were really looking for is VICTIM.
"I imagined a story where I didn't have to be the victim." That is what Dolores should have said in the most recent episode of WestWorld. The show has rubbed our faces, across multiple episodes, in the victimization of Dolores, beating us over the head with how she is intended to be raped and murdered. That's her storyline, because that's all the men who visit WestWorld want -- to rape and murder an innocent farmer's daughter.
But her being a woman isn't the thing that needs fixing. She can be a woman -- a damsel -- who fights back. She can be a damsel hero. A Big Damn Damsel Hero.
What she wants fixed is her role of victim falling foul of evil, murderous men.
And the word WOMAN is NOT a synonym for VICTIM.
I don't care that what you really meant to refer to was the trope. What you're SAYING and what people are HEARING -- whether consciously aware of it or not -- is that women are victims. They have no other role. They can't be heroes. Women are by default "in distress"-- so much so that you don't even have to add the "in distress" part, you just say woman and the audience will fill it in on their own.
Oh, and only women can scream, apparently. That's adult women for ya, sniveling, crying, screaming. Men never do that.
I've only seen the trailer for that Tarzan movie, not the movie itself, but apparently the scream/damsel exchange was considered important because it's in said trailer. WHY?? Why does that merit a spot in the trailer? That's how our heroine is defined, is it? Ooh she's better than Ordinary Women, she's not a damsel!
Of all the comebacks she could have snarled, and this being a period piece, she could have spouted some very worthy phrases of disdain (I SAID GOOD DAY, SIR), all she does is throw shade on damsels?
You can do better, screenwriters.
If for no other reason than the fact that "I imagined a story where I didn't have to be the damsel" is an ehh line given strength by the situation, but "I imagined a story where I didn't have to be the victim" is MOVING, with call-backs to all the scenes of victimization we've witnessed before, where Dolores, Special Victim Extraordinaire, takes back her power and violates her programming to defend herself.
Eschewing stereotypes and trope trigger words in favor of being ACCURATE is just BETTER WRITING.
I only recently was able to watch STAR WARS: THE FORCE AWAKENS. And I have a question about the Star Wars universe, in general.
Why is it always planets?
Original Star Wars (the 1977 movie) had the Death Star and destroyed Alderaan and I get that. Special effects of that type were totally new, and it made an impact. It also proved how irrevocably, irredeemably EVIL the Empire was.
Except of course, it WASN'T irredeemable. Somehow the most irredeemable character WAS REDEEMED. (Don't get me started.)
Back to the Death Star.
Even though it had a total major design flaw, the Empire decided to rebuild the Death Star for Return of the Jedi.
I guess because thinking you can repeat the exact same motions and they'll result in a different outcome is one definition of madness and the Empire is pretty insane? I dunno.
Anyhow.
Death Star 2 is also destroyed. And in spectacular ignorance of the saying, "the bigger they are, the harder they fall", the First Order decides that the problem was IT WASN'T BIG ENOUGH.
So now we have Starkiller Base, which can destroy five planets at a time, in contrast to the Death Star's measly one.
Which I suppose makes the First Order MOAR EVIL.
But honestly, did we need that?
The human brain can only process so much. Does the audience feel five times the shock as we did at the annihilation of Alderaan? Do we have time to feel *anything* before the plot moves on?
I believe we felt for Alderaan because we felt for Princess Leia. There is no emotional touchstone for those five planets. They're just fridged. They existed to be killed. And it's a waste, because they don't provide any particular motivation for our main characters that those characters didn't have already.
Not even the special effects justify it. We see awesome special effects all the time now. It's not 1977 anymore.
You may scoff, and say these quibbles are outside of the movie's reality. And you'd be right.
But I've got a problem with Starkiller Base WITHIN the reality of the movie.
Let's say I'm General Hux (because I'm assuming he's more likely to make calculated, strategy-based decisions on behalf of the First Order than Kylo I-do-what-I-want Ren). I would think the entire concept of Starkiller is a Really Bad Move strategically.
I get that the people on those planets are A Problem. And the First Order wants to Make An Example.
BUT WHY DESTROY THE PLANETS?
Each of those planets has flora, fauna, and mineral wealth. They have infrastructure, machines, factories, libraries. Why destroy all those resources when you could use them to strengthen the First Order?
ALSO
If you wipe out a galaxy, doesn't that make traveling in that area more difficult? Like those "Last Gas for 100" miles signs? Take away all those planets and you impair the First Order's future logistics for shipping, refueling, and combat staging.
So I'd be ordering the brain trust that designs Evil Weapons to create a contagion - and requisite delivery system - that kills people, dissipates rapidly, and leaves the animals/ecosystem/infrastructure and other planetary wealth intact.
Because that is totally what the First Order needs. It would make empire building much cheaper, easier, AND more difficult to fight against because the delivery system could be mobile, and there could be multiple iterations, because it wouldn't have to be THE SIZE OF A PLANET ITSELF.
I was just getting warmed up on how this could actually work, and how you could make the special effects for that shit really scary, and it wouldn't have the same science-related problems that planet explosions have, but I've deleted it all because really, who needs that sort of Evil? And maybe that's the problem.
Maybe these thoughts are TOO EVIL for the Star Wars universe.
*sigh*
This is why I write Happily Ever After Romance.
Because at heart I'm really a Psychotic Space Ginger. *headdesk*
I just discovered that a lovely person named Jumime wrote a fantastic review of Desert Tryst on Audible UK and it is just so perfect that I am going to share it with y'all:
"Short+Sweet+Hot, like a chilli Chocolate Brownie!"
Would you consider the audio edition of Desert Tryst to be better than the print version?
I haven't read the print version, but judging by the narration, I think it would be as good as the audio edition.
What did you like best about this story?
I liked that you can feel the connection and chemistry between the main characters and that plenty of backstory is given for them, despite the short length of the novel. I also liked how sweet a character Thomas was, it's easy to see why Dmitiri would be drawn to him.
What about Greg Tremblay’s performance did you like?
He's a fantastic narrator, my favourite by far. He really brings the characters to life, making each voice distinctive and adding real emotion to his performance.
Did you have an emotional reaction to this book? Did it make you laugh or cry?
I definitely laughed at points, especially at Dmitri's internal musings, but mostly I aawww-ed at how these guys clearly want each other and have this chance to make it happen. I also really sympathised with Dmitri's hard life and upbringing and how, despite that, he's a strong character who's a good man at heart, if not in deed.
Any additional comments?
I like the fact that this is a short story because it's very well written and narrated, it avoids unnecessary 'padding' as some longer novels are prone to using to fill their stories and I can listen to it all in one sitting if I choose, as opposed to sometimes having to spread it out over a couple of days. I'm notorious for listening to a single book repeatedly. That being said, if a full-length sequel to this was written, I'd be all for it. Well done Susanne, this book is on my favourites list :)!
Why, look! A *lovely* review of DESERT TRYST in AudioFile Magazine! *much happy dancing ensues*
"Narrator Greg Tremblay impressively portrays the two men in alternating chapters." "...the buildup to their belief in each other and passionate love is satisfying for listeners to hear. The New Mexico desert provides an evocative setting for this short yet enjoyable story."
