#darvo example

Next, tamraspizz calls me “our little liar.”

“If you can’t handle the pain of another person—someone you love—that raises some serious questions.” (с) tamraspizz

For some reason, that particular sentence really struck a nerve with our little liar. I have a theory as to why, but I'll save that for another time. Here's a quote from my comment under that post:

After that, she composes a “quote” from her own nonexistent comment (I have no idea why she would link to something that doesn’t exist instead of simply writing about “what she meant”).

“What you seem to prefer is the polished version of Astarion: smiling, laughing, and never allowing himself to be vulnerable. His pain makes you uncomfortable. But after more than 200 years of enslavement, it's perfectly normal for him to experience grief, fear, anger, and every other painful emotion that comes with trauma.

To me, the pain of someone you love shouldn't be something that drives you away. If you choose to build a relationship with someone carrying that kind of trauma, you should be prepared to stay with them through it, not reject them because of it.” (с) tamraspizz

It's amazing how one can “turn everything upside down.”

As if a sincere “yes” in response to a loved one’s most important question:

“But if they die and I ascend, I won't have to rely on the parasite to walk in the sun. I'll be free - truly, completely free. Isn't that what you want?”

And helping him so that he can do what he’s decided to do—never suffer from hunger again and enjoy the sunshine—is, according to tamraspizz, choosing the “polished version”; it’s the same as rejecting a person who has experienced trauma, not wanting to see their pain. When I clearly stated that I wasn’t going to stand by and watch a loved one suffer WHEN THERE IS A WAY OUT (a way to relieve their pain). I quote verbatim:

“The phrase itself—“If you can’t handle the pain of another person—someone you love—that raises some serious questions”—implicitly asserts that, when a solution exists (the ability to relieve a person’s pain), the “norm” is the ability to endure that pain. For the sake of… someone else’s “emotional satisfaction.” And the desire to use all available effective means to relieve a loved one’s pain is considered a deviation.”

There’s no timer in the game where Сazador ascends on his own and you might not have time to stop him in Honor Mode; there’s no Astarion in the game who decides on his own to stab Сazador and then cries, after you’ve told him that you’ll support whatever decision he makes and will always be on his side. There’s no such Astarion in the game. And there’s no such scenario either. The persuasion—and, in my opinion, some pretty nasty lines: “I want you to live a life you’re proud of. You can’t be proud of this” = “It doesn’t matter how unhappy you’ll be, it doesn’t matter that you won’t be free from all this suffering, it doesn’t matter that you’ll be doomed to ‘some half-existence, hiding in the shadows for the rest of eternity’—the main thing is that I’ll be satisfied, and you can feel like a good guy for that.”  And “This power will trap you, just like it trapped Cazador”—that’s also utter nonsense, a manipulative, categorical statement.

The trap lies in the Tavs’ minds, in their view of a world where “power” inevitably “corrupts.” Persuasion is influencing a character to get what you want. I can’t reject a loved one by helping him get what he’s wanted all game long, as soon as he learned such a possibility existed. I can tell those who want him to give up his own desires to go to hell, but that in no way equates to rejecting him because of the emotions he feels when he’s forced to give up the sun and being “truly, completely free.” And his pain against the backdrop of someone else’s joy and someone else’s “victory”—yes, I truly won’t allow that in my game.

I agree only with this: “But after more than 200 years of enslavement, it's perfectly normal for him to experience grief, fear, anger, and every other painful emotion that comes with trauma.”

I completely agree that Astarion’s anger—his “SILENCE! How dare you speak his name?”—is perfectly normal for a victim of 200 years of slavery; in fact, it’s more than normal. For people who have experienced PTSD, the reaction to something like this can be very aggressive—even lightning-fast—but Astarion merely raises his voice in response to a triggering insult; nothing more.

And take note of the phrase “version of Astarion”—this is precisely what a projection is. It seems that tamraspizz, like others like her, chooses the “version” that suits her best, failing to perceive Astarion as a whole person and disregarding his desires and feelings. The division of a single personality into “versions”—this behavior is called splitting—is one of the classic and most recognizable defense mechanisms, indicating serious difficulties in perceiving oneself and others. It is the psyche’s inability to hold contradictory qualities of the same person in consciousness; instead, certain “versions” of the same personality are created. The psyche, as it were, “splits” the whole personality into two parts because it cannot tolerate ambivalence. Based on this perception, they also believe that other people will likewise choose the “version” of Astarion that suits them, even though he is the same character, and the player chooses the sequence of events that will happen to that character.  I reject the chain of events that happens to Astarion on the UA path; I reject playing as this Tav, who persuades Astarion and then simply doesn’t care that Astarion will never see the sun, neglects his problems, and goes about doing other things. And Tav stands calmly in the docks scene, as if they’re perfectly fine with it. From an outsider’s perspective, this character’s behavior can only seem malicious. Yes, the player has nothing to do with it—the player can’t do anything about it—but isn’t it also possible for another player to reject this particular playthrough and refuse to “step into the shoes” of and play as someone whose behavior they find repulsive? Tamraspizz is far from the first person to try to claim that “you don’t like UA,” as if the discussion were even about a “desired version” of Astarion for anyone.

Yes, Сazador’s death is cathartic in and of itself. Without a doubt. It’s impossible not to feel catharsis when killing the one who tortured Astarion for 200 years. But then what? Astarion mourns what was stolen from him. Taken away forever. That’s it. Nothing can be brought back; it’s no longer possible to “unmake what you made me.” Astarion will forever remain what Cazador made him. He’ll remain a spawn. Yes, Neil portrayed that beautifully.

A situation that makes him feel bad, and a character who is right there with him and is okay with it—that’s what I’m rejecting when I reject this option, not Astarion’s “version.”

And then she quotes that well-known quote from Adam Smith about “fears,” as if it were some kind of “revelation.”

"So with Astarion, his evil ending is actually him...much of what he does is out of fear. And as a player, you can say to him, "You're right to be afraid." And that sends him to a really horrible place, and that I think is really powerful" — senior writer Adam Smith.

“I bet you'll once again claim that the developers' views are just their personal opinions, conveniently ignoring the fact that they're the ones who created these characters, shaped their personalities, and wrote their story arcs.” © tamraspizz

First, Adam Smith says that “his evil ending is actually him.” This is what Astarion himself desires. Astarion strives for power—throughout the entire game, and even before he learned about the ritual. And the fear is something anyone with PTSD will experience. For people who don’t live in a world of pink ponies, fear is also part of a rational mechanism for survival and adaptation in a hostile environment. That form of “fear” which prompts a person to perceive reality accurately and take steps to ensure their own safety is a useful survival mechanism. Astarion behaves exactly this way; he sensibly looks out for his own safety and increases his chances of survival. On the UA path, he is more afraid, because he is more vulnerable and weaker—and he is still the same Astarion, with the same PTSD. There is a big difference between irrational fear and the rational desire to improve one’s chances of survival.

And as a player, the game did manage to scare me once (it managed to scare me only once, and the character’s facial expressions—as if she’s afraid—are shown out of place in cutscenes from time to time, which looks silly when you’re trying to role-play as a warrior)—with this very diary entry: “Astarion’s fate is sealed. He will be a vampire spawn for the rest of his days” during my first playthrough. Fear is a valuable defense mechanism that warns you not to “go down the wrong path”; a little stress—fear—protects you from greater stress—sudden disaster (which is what happens if you encounter that scene at the docks without spoilers or a warning). So, as a player, yes, I could tell Astarion that he’s absolutely right. He’s right in that he’s making a rational decision to reclaim a full life and gain more power—and, consequently, more security—in a hostile world. Later in the interview, the developers discuss the scene where Astarion burns. In other words, they themselves clearly demonstrated in the game what would happen to him without Ascension, and just how right Astarion is in his desire to Ascend. At least, that’s exactly how it looks to me on screen when comparing both final scenes.

But I haven't found any “really horrible place” in the game's plot that “sends him” there. I guess this “place” is in the same place as the well-developed content for “evil” playthroughs. Continued from Adam Smith's comment:

“I think one of the things that happens on the evil playthrough is I always see this thing where they're like, "Oh, there's no tieflings anymore because I killed the tieflings." It's intentional. Your world is a little emptier because of that, and you are playing a route which is much more selfish and much more, again, afraid. You end up isolated.

SV: It's very hard to show lots of consequences in the evil playthrough that are actually happening.

AS: Yeah, they become emptiness instead.”

Criticism from players regarding how Larian realized “evil” playthroughs in the game was also quite widespread.

Personally, I’m very glad that this “really horrible place”—as Adam Smith called it—doesn’t exist in the game, but I have a different opinion about the non-existent interesting content for “evil” playthroughs. For some reason, the creators of the original BG1 and BG2, as well as many other excellent role-playing games, didn’t find it “very hard” to make a full-fledged RPG with a variety of options and a decent amount of content for the role-playing of various alignments. This interview is worth reading for those who were impressed by the new Divinity trailer and are expecting grimdark from the upcoming game. At the very least, it’s intriguing to see how Larian will handle this genre at all.

While I was writing this post, I received an email notification about yet another piece of “work” by this person. It’s funny—I thought that having personal haters was a perk reserved for major content creators, not for a small personal blog on Tumblr.

And this person's craving for attention is obvious. “As you can see, it attracted quite a bit of attention, which was hardly surprising.” – about her petty comment, which people responded to. 

“People push back”—when someone comes along with a “valuable” opinion along the lines of “You can’t even properly process the writer’s own words” (similar things happened all the time on YouTube channels dedicated to Ascended Astarion). This is what they call “push back.”

“The next morning, I woke up to a flood of messages from the author.” – Oh my gosh, the author showed up later and replied, but there’s a character limit on comments on Tumblr, so you have to write several.

“I reposted my reply, censoring the author’s identity to avoid unnecessary drama.” – with a clear intention that is now absolutely obvious.

I evaluate Tav as a character, and given how much is constantly being directed at Astarion, is a similar personal assessment of another in-game character—that is, how that character comes across when certain lines are chosen—considered “aggression”?

"...you also called Astarion an asshole, and I think it’s fine for me to call the character what I consider them to be" — At that point, I hadn't insulted the author, Tav, or, least of all, Astarion. So what exactly is this AA fan talking about?”

Here's what I'm talking about:

“And let me remind you, if you break up with AA, he spits just as much venom as Spawn does, because at the end of the day, it's still Astarion—an asshole with a terrible attitude.” © tamraspizz

I consider myself more than justified in pointing out Tav’s “terrible attitude” toward Astarion in certain situations and calling this character a “bitch”—which is exactly what they are, in my opinion, in those instances.

She “quickly became fascinated by Astarion as a character” (who, in her own words, was “an asshole with a terrible attitude”). And she “pushes back” against those who don’t like the bitter ending and who didn’t appreciate the “author’s intent” enough.

“Well… the thing is, while I was working on these posts, researching the lore, watching developer interviews, and various video analyses to make sure I hadn't overlooked anything, I stumbled across one video. I happened to scroll through the comments.” – Is that what they call searching for a user’s comments by nickname across different platforms these days? “I happened to scroll through the comments” to find a comment from a year ago under a video that’s also a year old. Unless, of course, tamraspizz is @Mithcoriel herself, or Mithcoriel is one of the people tamraspizz was writing this post with. Remembering a whole year’s worth—wow, I would never have thought to remember all of them by their usernames…

 Here's the full picture of how I'm “attacking them personally”

I responded to an extremely stupid and insulting comment from @octopus-i1n

You can form your own opinion about this “discussion in the comments” by following the link to the video.

@Mithcoriel decided to engage in a discussion with me of her own accord, even though she couldn't read the text of the comment, but still had something to say on the matter: “Sorry if I don't read your whole post, but I just wanted to say: you see Astarion's crying after he chooses not to ascend as a sign that he's miserable?That's ridiculous.”

Is it okay to respond to someone who wants to argue with you without reading what you wrote (which, admittedly, they themselves honestly admit) by saying that they “take only one thing out of context, ignoring all other examples, which changes the meaning of what your opponent said and is not a good-faith argument”? Or is that “attacking them personally” and “getting aggressive”?

I wasn't “attacking” @Mithcoriel at all; I was just discussing the game's plot. Tamraspizz didn't include her comment, to which I replied:

Also, @Mithcoriel seems to have deleted her comment about something along the lines of “self-delusion” and my “fetishes” and “vampire powers.” Of course, I don’t remember exactly what it said, but otherwise I probably wouldn’t have responded that way, putting my opponent’s words in quotes:

If tamraspizz really did visit some Russian Telegram community for consorts, I sincerely sympathize with all of its members. But any fool can make images like that—just by typing text on a black background and taking a photo. My words are my words, and I’m not going to take back a single one of them, but I think those who followed this “discussion” could clearly see what tamraspizz was trying to do with my words.

Tamraspizz tries to project a sense of grandeur and superiority. She positions herself as a “whistleblower” who sees the “true” picture, in contrast to her “misguided” opponents. Her posts are structured like a patronizing lecture.

It seems there’s a need for admiration and validation. She writes certain “exposé” posts, clearly expecting her words to be taken as a compelling argument and to receive likes from antis. There are noticeable fantasies about potentially causing pain, a sense of pleasure in the thought that she’s managed to hurt someone (regardless of whether this corresponds to reality or not; in the mind of such a person, everything comes together into a picture that’s most “emotionally satisfying” for her). Or simply taking pleasure in fantasizing that someone might be suffering. Even my quote along the lines of:

“I honestly believe that this kind of experience could be used to test the effectiveness of antidepressants—whether they work or not.

But that's a sign of good writing, isn't it?”

(In the sense that good writing, in one way or another, evokes strong emotions; the player won’t feel indifferent or bored, and evoking strong negative or distressing emotions can also be a sign of the author’s talent.) Tamraspizz even found a reason to indulge in her own fantasies here:

“Well, I don't think they work...” © tamraspizz

“In the current research, we were interested in the Dark Triad with respect to appropriateness of emotional response to sad, fearful, or happy stimulus. Previous studies have found that especially Machiavellianism and psychopathy have an association with schadenfreude, feeling happy about other's misfortune (Porter, Bhanwer, Woodworth, & Black, 2014).” - A quote from the study I cited, which made her so angry.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886916309461#:~:text=The%20Dark%20Triad%20has%20been,%2C%20happy%2C%20and%20fearful%20stimuli

Belittling opponents. She uses derogatory labels (“our little liar,” accusations of an inability to “read” and “understand”) to try to belittle her opponents and their arguments. This is a way to defend her sense of superiority.

Use of DARVO. She systematically denies her insults, attacks her opponent, and reverses the roles of victim and abuser. This is a calculated tactic to evade responsibility and maintain control over the narrative. The key behavioral pattern of tamraspizz is precisely DARVO as her central tactic.

Deny: She denies the insults I highlighted and pointed out, as well as any misrepresentation of the facts.

Attack: She attacks her opponent, accusing them of being illogical, “toxic,” and unable to read and understand.

Reverse Victim and Offender: She portrays herself as a “fighter against toxicity” and a “whistleblower,” while portraying the other person as an aggressor who imposes “their roleplay” instead of some “narrative” and “slanders” the developers.

The use of traps (“baiting”). Her provocative questions and personal attacks on her opponent are a deliberate attempt to rile them up, so she can then accuse them of “aggression” and “an inability to engage in dialogue.”

I also think that this quote from a psychiatric study: “One of the suggestions is that individuals high in the Dark Triad may understand the feelings that other individuals have (i.e., have cognitive empathy), but they don't show an appropriate emotional response to emotion-evoking stimulus (i.e., lack affective empathy; e.g., Wai & Tiliopoulos, 2012).”

Can explain this paragraph:

“Perhaps the issue is also that the person simply does not read these kinds of emotions in the way they were intended. Strong emotions such as pain, fear, and vulnerability require the viewer to step outside of their own immediate reaction and try to understand what is happening inside the character. You have to see the inner conflict behind the outward expression of emotion, rather than simply judging how comfortable or uncomfortable the scene is to watch”. © tamraspizz

A person with a deficit in affective empathy cannot “read” another person’s emotional state intuitively or naturally. Instead, they look for external guidance—such as “what was intended” or “how to interpret it correctly.” They insist that the only correct interpretation is the one “intended by the author” (according to their interpretation) and “cannot understand” why anyone would see it differently. They cite the interview as “sacred scripture,” attempting to label those with a different interpretation as “people with mental health issues” (“Are you batshit crazy?”). Furthermore, tamraspizz attributes emotions to other people, claiming that they stem solely from a desire for their own comfort—“simply judging how comfortable or uncomfortable the scene is to watch.” As if a player capable of feeling empathy toward a loved one—understanding what happened but not intending to interpret it “correctly” (according to someone’s “orders from above”)—is some kind of “superficial” person who simply doesn’t want to witness a “scene that’s unpleasant to the eye”.

Impulsiveness and a tendency to escalate conflicts. Instead of responding calmly and substantively, she resorts to personal attacks and uses emotionally charged language when she feels threatened.

“Can we finally let him express the emotions and pain he has kept buried inside for so long, instead of turning him into nothing more than a beautiful image?” © tamraspizz

“We” must “let” him suffer from eternal hunger, never even knowing what it’s like not to feel that torment. “Let” him never again be able to turn his face toward the sun and catch its rays, smiling. “We” must finally “let” him burn almost to the bone and then sit, huddled behind crates in the docks, while the rest celebrate their “victory.” “We” must “let” him never see in the mirror—“It’s... me. The ritual gave me back my reflection—after all these years... Hello again. Gods, I missed you.” “We” must “let” him experience all of this, let everything be taken from him again. Otherwise… something “terrible” will happen—Astarion won’t experience the pain and emotions he expresses in that bitter, desperate sob.