Mostly, I'm not sure how the argument that this is a source of ambiguity works. In the first part of this thread you focused your explanation of Oxana's evil entirely on vibes and historical baggage, saying that of course people would see her as "evil" (your scare quotes) because of all of the assumptions that people have inherited from past-but-not-entirely-past Western cultural and gender norms. (Or, at least, what you describe those norms to be.) Now in the quoted post, the argument is that those same Western ideas about culture and gender make Oxana's "evil" more ambiguous, not less. I confess that I don't understand how such comments are supposed to work together.
This is actually a case of perspective not being clear and us talking around each other. I use evil in scare quotes because I believe its never a useful word in a discussion. More often than not its a gauge of a conversational partners moral boundaries than it is a clear illustration of an idea and even as a gauge it works more as a silhouette than an explicitly stated range of what they find acceptable. I say this because, again, things like homosexuality have been cast as evil, when I would argue they're not. So when the word comes up I'd rather dig deeper than take it at face value. As in :What are we actually talking about?
With this in mind, my comments are not disparate ideas. They're two buckets holding the same water. In the first comment I was unaware of the dev's statements about Evergreen and I clearly say that I was giving an analysis based on the most surface level reading of what she presents, since I had not engaged deeply with her content in any critical, analytical way.
If you see a character on screen that wears all black, has a sinister smile and twirls his moustache, you would assume he's evil. We have inherited that storytelling convention so much that we have a phrase "Moustache twirling villain". The bundle of associations and storytelling shorthand communicates to the audience who this character is without the character having to say or do anything. We know he's evil before he kidnaps a love interest and ties her across a railroad track.
My first comment is basically me taking a guess at what elements make up her moustache twirling outfit, or why players would jump to the conclusion that she's bad - again - absent a playthrough that was intended to be critical. That first comment served no other purpose. I am trying to grasp the storytelling shorthand of a twirling moustache. I am aware when making this comment about her baby habits, not so much the part where she literally transfers her own soul between vessels.
Not to put too fine a point on it or cause a political row, but we have a lot of cultural juice that tie women having control with negative connotations. I have heard
women in my lifetime say something to the effect of "I just don't think women should hold x position". Most traditional churches still do not allow female clergy. A regular talking point of why children become delinquents and criminals today in the year of our lord 2023 is there not being a father in the home. Not simply that one parent is missing. But that specifically the dad is not present. If you do not think these attitudes bleed into media, then you're on some silly shit. Just as one example in the same type of media we swim in, the Drow in the fantasy world RA Salvatore writes for are intended to be an inversion of all things good - an explicitly evil society with moral priorities flipped on their head. It's a female dominated society. In a lot of places and in thoughtless ways, we still associate women's control with deviancy. Why do I bring that up? Well...
My second comment is not meant to say that western ideas suddenly make Oxana's evil "More ambiguous." It's to point out that her way of doing things has a direct comparison to other structures alluded to in the game that are not also immediately identified by the audience as evil even if they are. My point is that what she does and how she operates is not really different from structures or characters that are considered "Good" in game, or that have been written in such a way that are supposed to be viewed as good behind traditional roles. The more subtle point i have alluded to but not stated explicitly until this point is that: storytelling history/shorthand and real world context directly influence how we are inclined to frame behaviors, even when the behavior itself is not that different.
I will point out that even though I have received pushback from
@Alypia and
@Loveless, neither of you have disputed the
substance of my comparison between Evergreen and traditional nobles. You have mostly critiqued what you (incorrectly) believe I am saying or the way I am saying it. When in doubt, you can always ask for clarity.
To me, this is all in good fun and I enjoy the fuck out of cultural discussions of media. I am fascinated not just by how audiences receive material but the tropes authors fall into habitually.
If I was trying to be retaliatory about misreading of my comments, I would point out that Evergreen cannot be both Obviously evil as per your line about her trading items for babies AND intentionally written to be subtly nefarious as per your last comment. These are two mutually exclusive ideas and to make the second comment you would then have to acknowledge that a reasonable player could see ambiguity in a surface read of her. If I were being appropriately charitable, I would recognize that your point is more nuanced than that and you have taken the time to separate how you view her "clothing" and how you view her actions. Please extend the courtesy.
My point is that what she DOES is ultimately not all that different than other actors in the world who are not framed as evil or identified by the audience as such. I'm saying its not obvious that her actions are "Inherently" evil if we are giving passes to other structures of power she exists parallel to. I'm not ignoring what she does. I legitimately don't see how someone can look at Evergreen and say "Evil" and then withold the label from other places where it would also apply.
Strange that I didn't mention Vivianne or bring her up at all in my discussion about storytelling and witches. Now, I may be a mindless rube. But. It may be possible, and I know this sounds insane, that my point is not a thoughtless "vibes" read. It's possible, entertain the idea, that there's a working piece of meat between my poorly proportioned ears, and such an omission could even be intentional.
