from @funkytrashsuperstructure
I would have attached this as a reblog but the post is so very tall
I agree with all of this; Pebbles' characterization in Gourmand doesn't make much sense, though neither does Gourmand's inclusion in general (narratively speaking). I considered addressing the mischaracterization here (There is literally no reason for Pebbles to think Gourmand WOULDN'T want to ascend; it is his PURPOSE to help them ascend; he is actively annoyed with monk, and yet he STILL directs them to ascend. He only gives up on hunter because they have a deep, fundamental, likely spiritual, sickness. Gourmand is just fat. They're perfectly capable of ascending, at least to Pebbles' knowledge. He cannot read their mind.)
But I chose to ignore Gourmand for this because you can technically argue that none of its Dialogue is legitimate because whether the campaign itself even happened (and to what degree) is up in the air. See Dev Commentary:
Dev Commentary - sh_gor01-white (Defining Gourmand and Community Theories) Will: We had a lot of difficulty early on deciding exactly what Gourmand was going to be about, or if they even had a place in the story. Will: In a way we did both of those things, by putting Gourmand's existence intentionally in question. They are such a bizarre creature! Will: Spearmaster, Rivulet, and even Artificer to some degree have some in-game explanation now. Will: However Gourmand's powers seemed too extreme... how could they have such an endless supply of things? Will: Of course, it's not up to us if you believe Gourmand exists! Watch the ending and choose for yourself what you think. Will: The community's ideas are always so much more interesting to imagine then us just telling you. Will: Never take what we say as absolutes! If you have a better theory for things, go wild!
Will is referring to how Gourmand's ending can imply that Gourmand tells stories and that their campaign itself is One of Those Stories (I think); I would provide better evidence for this but I feel pretty sick rn, sorry. I'm sure you can scrounge around for it yourselves.
I also chose to ignore it because Gourmand's campaign has basically nothing to do with the overarching (Iterator) narrative of Downpour. If Gourmand's campaign didn't exist, I really don't think anything would change. Honestly, it at times feels like Gourmand's Campaign exists purely for Outer Expanse. Gourmand is a vessel to get you to Outer Expanse. Pebbles is the "open Outer Expanse button". It doesn't really make sense for him to do this, but he NEEDS to because otherwise you cannot get to OE. So he makes a stupid joke about Gourmand being fat haha because what he says really doesn't matter.
And if you take this seriously, it clashes with his state in Hunter and his character in general --- but I'm leaning towards the intent being for you to ignore this, because it would be a very stupid decision to include this otherwise.
Like, I don't think the devs really thought about how Pebbles' dialogue impacted his character here; they just thought it was funny and did the job. So it's best to just ignore it, just like it's best to ignore the Gourmand campaign as a whole unless you specifically care about Gourmand. It's a lot easier that way.
It is fun to talk about, though, so I'm glad someone brought it up !!
