...so wasn't Eliot in the right? (*Spoiler*)

[Prinegon]

First of all, I know, Eliot is a creep. His jealouscy speaks out of him, when he wouldn't let Chloe go and he is way out of line. But cope with me a moment.
The main things going against Eliot, are:

• Since he has a romantic interest in Chloe, we doubt his motives. He seems to have his interest in mind, not Chloe's.
  
• We don't know for sure, if there was a romantic past between Chloe and Eliott, but even if, he doesn't get the hint, that this past is over (or chooses to ignore it),
  
• Him being a man he is a threatening to Chloe

But let us set this aside for a moment. Let'S pretent, it was not Eliot giving Chloe a lecture in the Amber-house, it was Joyce. How different would this scene be perceived. If we are honest with ourselves, with the information Eliot has he really has a point. All he knows is, Chloe's life changes dramatically from the moment on, she mets Rachel.
Chloe does drop out of school, she gets attacked, she does break in into the DA's office and Rachel gets assaulted by a thug. If your best friend/ your daughter would undergo such a dramatic change, wouldn't you be alarmed as well? Would you not want to talk sense into your friend or at least ask for the reasons? Wouldn't you go mad as well, if your friend just shuts you out?
If it was Joyce in the office, the argument could have gone a similar way. Even the critizism, that Chloe doesn't spend time with Joyce anymore but only with Rachel could have come from Joyce (we know, she complains about missing her daughter).

If you think the comparison between Eliot and Joyce is too far fetched, since Joyce as a mother has more responsibility over Chloe, just think about Max. Just imagine, Max (or even the Max who got romantical involved with Chloe in Ep 5, doesn't matter) would have given the talk. I am convinced, you would be much more forgiving towards Max than you are towards Eliot. I know, I would be. But why?

Because I know the history Max and Chloe have and I don't know the history between Chloe and Eliot. (But we know, Eliot and Chloe have history together since elementary school, so their friendship might have been pretty close as well). And because Max is a woman and would not be a physical thread to Chloe, but Eliot as a man is. Therefore I am asking myself, if there are double standards here (i am not free of them as well) to be aware of?

[charly4711]

Hmm, he was totally objectively wrong about Rachel getting Chloe into a fight at the mill. It’s also unfair to point out how Rachel didn’t get punished for skipping class when Chloe got expelled, when it’s obvious that it was a first-time offense with Rachel where Chloe had an impressive track record already.

Apart from that, sure you could say he had the right to point out that Rachel maybe wasn’t exactly helping Chloe to lead what most people would consider a successful life. But Chloe has just as much right to tell all critics to go screw themselves, because Rachel was obviously good for her soul, in that moment. In that moment she was just what she needed.

My 2 cents

[AegonB91]

Pointless question. Of course he was right. Same as David, he's right almost all the time. If every girl would listen to David and lock themselves in a room with surveillance cameras 24/7 surely no one would die.

Again, not the point. Think of what Mrs. Grant says all the time. Human rights. And Chloe herself has the right to do whatever she ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ wants.

[fieryace]

Except Joyce didn't follow Chloe to the junk yard, spy on her, and write creepy/obsessive poetry about her. If you assume she did (or Max) in your scenario, then yeah, she'd be a creepy stalker too.

[frankh.]

He's a ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ obsessed freak only thinking about what he wants. And as he realises that his ideas of a life with Chloe don't coincide with Chloe's thoughts, he totally freaks out, finally pushing her around like a angry boy who's toy was taken away! Bring that Psycho away from my Chloe!

[peaboy]

Basicaly, along with Chloe's father afterwards, Eliot's role at that moment was to give the player some more hints about the main character doubts. This said, i think that what he says reflects, in some kind of form, Chloe's conscience. I firmily think, as someone said about the dreams that Max had in LiS (that they where both her conscience and to make the player too think about if they should really save Chloe or Arcadia Bay), that those 2 conversations pretend to have the same effect here. In a short way: Eliot's lecture had to happen because of what i said, but also because we need to see an ending to him... (if that was the best ending... its questionable). Also is role was to question a possible dark side of Rachel (is she a bad influence? and the same, as i am trying to expose, happened to Max about Chloe in LiS, was her a bad influence in Max, or not? That was Eliot's role, afterall, while talking to Chloe... i think...)

Now, im my personal opinion, and creating a diferent debate here (a little off-topic), i question you guys about something i have in mind: doesnt it seem that male (lovable) characters are stalkish? I mean, Warren wasnt so agressive, sure... but both got agressive after the main character seemed to fall in love with someone else...

[mysticfall]

As much as I hate Eliot, I believe he was right, at least to some extent about Rachel. Rachel is surely a manipulative and self centered person, who is capable of and willing to use her acting prowess to get what she wants.

But that doesn't mean Eliot had any rights to have acted that way, nor Rachel didn't have any feelings towards Chloe.

I believe Rachel could be such a person who can act a role and persuade herself to really feel and think the way the character would do.

That means, as long as Rachel finds the idea of falling in love with Chloe and escape the town with her to be favorable, she will genuinely feel all the emotions that can be expected in a romantic relationship.

But for some reason, if she finds it no longer favorable or advantageous to herself, she'll probably dump Chloe and justify her actions in no time. I suspect that's what might have happened in the timeline between BTS and LiS that she ended up having a relationship with Frank instead of Chloe.

I think such a flawed personality was part of the reason that made Rachel's character truly interesting and memorable. The whole fire symbolism relies on her beautiful but destructive character, so if she was depicted as such a perfect girl that LiS implied her to be, I would probably find her character less interesting.

I just wish Deck 9 would have given a bit more role to Eliot that what he implied about Rachel could have some actual impact on the storyline.

Personally, I think his limited role of being just a 'worst version of Warren', and the 'Deux ex Machina' manner of resolving the final crisis were the two most glaring flaws of otherwise excellent episode 3.

[Jeckenn]

Well he might have been right but there is also a right way to do things like that and a WRONG way and Elliot did it the WRONG way, no doubt about that.

[peaboy]

I can agree with you, fender, because i too believe that all of us are manipulative by nature (its like we all are "followers" of Machiavelli in some extent..!). Some more than others. This said, i think that in a deeper sense, we can see the heritage of Sera in Rechel, in her destructive nature (altough that side of the story was told by James who whis a politician and obviously lied about some aspects aswell showed us a darker side of Sera).

We cant be sure about the reasons why Rachel developed feelings about Frank: this prequel failed in that way. The only link i see is that Frank "avenged" the damage Damon did to her (Rachel). This said, i dont know if it isnt, once again, the "Sera heritage" in Rachel (she cant feel complete with just one person...)

About what you, fender, and Jeckenn, are saying about Eliot and his behaviour, i think we can only agree. In real world you have to accept and acknowledge when to stop pursuing someone else and it is wrong to stalk and to lecture the way he did. That is the only reasonable procedure. But it is hard to accept that and he was desperate. If we could learn a lesson, in this videogame, to apply in real life (because that sometimes seems the devs reason (or moto) to do things), is that we simply cant do things like Eliot did.

But, once again, i reafirm: i believe that Eliot's role was more "cinematic" than "real". What i pretend to say is that he acted because of 2 things:
1) We needed something to "close" the "Eliot cycle", this is, his participation in the game;
2) We needed someone to "advice" (alert) Chloe about Rachel and to reveal a "dark" side of her.

(In the above example, i said that the dreams close to end that Max had about Chloe (and specially the dinning momment when Max talks to Max) where somewhat there to influence the player decision whether to save or not Chloe). In this case, i cant believe it has the same function because you are confronted to tell or not the truth...; so, to conclude this, i dont really know if there is a "good" explanation to this...)

[mysticfall]

Originally posted by peaboy:

But, once again, i reafirm: i believe that Eliot's role was more "cinematic" than "real". What i pretend to say is that he acted because of 2 things:
1) We needed something to "close" the "Eliot cycle", this is, his participation in the game;
2) We needed someone to "advice" (alert) Chloe about Rachel and to reveal a "dark" side of her.

(In the above example, i said that the dreams close to end that Max had about Chloe (and specially the dinning momment when Max talks to Max) where somewhat there to influence the player decision whether to save or not Chloe). In this case, i cant believe it has the same function because you are confronted to tell or not the truth...; so, to conclude this, i dont really know if there is a "good" explanation to this...)

Thanks for the interesting read peaboy. I agree with what you said about Eliot's supposed role in the narrative in general.

I only wish they had introduced it a bit earlier, so his 'revelation' could actually have made some visible impact on the story, or at least on Chloe's relationship with Rachel.

As the way it is now, his actual role (in contrast to the intended one) has as much impact to the story as the supposedly lethal dose of heroin Damon injected to Sera - in another word, zero.

[peaboy]

Interesting, fender. I didnt saw the dose as lethal (maybe because i never consumed anything!) What you said was revealing to me. Now im confused: did the reencouter really happened?

As to your wish of an anticipate the encounter, i believe that, afterall, it wasnt possible. Believing that his role was diminute in the narrative, this had to happen this way. It is, in fact, in a quite abrupt way!

If we try to do the parallel beteween Wareen and Eliot (wich seems obvious to me), they both seem to lack a "good" approach (and that is because of the game itself: primarily of the genre, then because the episode-format, and other options...). What i mean by "good" is a undersanting, "long"-lasting relationship with them. Somewhat the "heterosexual" relationship was, at some extent, put aside. It is somewhat possible, but allways limited inside the "main" narrative of the girls.

As i am trying to say, near the end, the boys have their momment. In comparison, Warren's momment can be way more positive than Eliot's. But, in general, we lack a context. Allways. In Chloe's case with Eliot is worse. At least, when playing Max, we know more about her relationship with Warren. More toughts also. Everything had a better plan. (Deck Nine had less time and space to do more with Eliot anyway)

Maybe Eliot's real purpouse is to aware real life threats when you least expect them. Maybe the balloon and the hospital talk was a mere scene to what he intended (to follow Chloe). Maybe, we shall never know. As we know, we are facing a sort of harassment crisis so to speak, and this could be Deck Nine contribution to the theme. Once again: we shall never know.

[BloodySin]

Yes, he was in fact right in the points he made. His delivery, though, was hideous... and I'd say pretty forced and unrealistic. He was established to be a bit weird and to like Chloe more than he should, but the jump from "odd guy" to "full-blown psycho stalker kidnapper" was just cringeworthy. Don't forget it happens in a matter of three days and Chloe shows no signs of being remotely aware, so the build up or development just didn't exist, and their last meeting just felt rushed, as if they were deciding to quickly ditch a character that didn't generate enough interest to be present in a sequel.

PS: The heroin dose wasn't meant to be lethal, it's really easy to notice in the context of the things that are said, like James' text about not hurting Sera and how Damon talks to her. It was only meant to send her back into the habit, which would totally discredit any claim she wanted to make for having contact with Chloe, as per the letter she has a lawyer send to James.

[Prinegon]

Originally posted by fender:

As the way it is now, his actual role (in contrast to the intended one) has as much impact to the story as the supposedly lethal dose of heroin Damon injected to Sera - in another word, zero.

First to adress the missunderstanding. Damon never was tasked to kill Sera, so the dose was not lethal, nor was it meant to be. Sera was sueing James for custody over Rachel, but to be able to win the lawcase, she would have to proove that she is clean, but because of this injection she couldn't. Even if she claimed to have been forced to take drugs, it would have been, like Damon said: "Noone believes a Junkie".

In form of the narrative I agree with you, peaboy:
- Eliot's role was a recap of what happened. He is not an obsticale, since he is defeated by default.
- Williams role prepares for the ending choice of truth or happiness. William should give doubts, wether everybody is a lyer sometimes and that it is still possible to love someone despite the lie.
- Sera's role is to make a case for happiness as counterargument for Rachels search for truth.

To all, who just answered, that Eliot only was seeking for his own benefit and is a way out of line-stalker: I know this, that is why I entered this argument, if he was right despite the fact that his love is unanswered. That is why I compared him with Joyces or Maxines situation.

Objectively I even think, Eliot is wrong. We know the whole story, therefore some of his arguments are untrue. But given the information he could have, I think, he might be acting in the right. He was clearly acting against Chloe's wishes, but he was thinking, Chloe is carelessly putting her life in danger (in which he would have been right), so to protect someone from that it might be okay to act against her wishes.

I don't see the relationship towards Rachel as abusive or manipulated by Rachel. Yes, the relationship is a bit one-sided. It's not a tis-for-tat, Rachel is asking and Chloe is delivering. But this is due to the nature of computer gaming, whe NPC has tasks and the player solves them.
But Rachel has a lot for Chloe to offer. Just compare her letters to Max from the begining of the game with those at the end of episode 2 or 3. Chloe is not overexaggerating when she claimes, Rachel saved her life. Rachel again and again is boosting Chloe's confidence, not for her own benefit, but for Chloe's. I already talked about this at the Tempest play, that I am convinced, the reason, why Rachel forced her into the play is to put her out of her confort zone, to how her, that she is able to do more than she sees herself worth, to give her the feeling of the hype aftter the show, to show her, that social activities can be fun.

To the topic, why Rachel started a love triangle with Frank I commented in other topics and I won't repeat everything right here. But in short: If Chloe lied to Rachel and Rachel found out, why the hell should Rachel care anymore, if she hurts Chloe. If Chloe told Rachel the truth, being together with Chloe is a constant reminder on how her father betrayed her, so it might be hurting Rachel so much, that she wants to escape this relationship.

[mysticfall]

*** SPOILER WARNING ***

Wow, I haven't even suspected once if the dose wasn't lethal, but now I read your posts I began to doubt it.

I totally missed "Don't hurt her" part, since I misread it to mean Rachel, not Sera. In that context, I agree that Mr. Amber's intention was just to force Sera to relapse into her old habit.

But even though heroin is so highly addictive, you can't really gaurantee that a single injection will surely make her an addict again when she's already successfully rehabilitated herself from prolonged drug use.

And heroin leaves the body pretty fast when injected - fast enough for her to attend the court or visit the police station couple of days later, but not fast enough for her to have a calm, rational conversation with Chloe only a few moments later as if nothing really happened.

It means, if what Mr. Amber wanted was just Sera to stay away from Rachel, he'd probably have
to let Damon to catch Sera and do it again whenever she stays sober long enough (probably 3-4 days) to present herself to the custody court, or do another scheme to get her arrested for a drug charge right after such an event.

So I thought what he wanted was injecting her a lethal overdose and making it look like an OD accident.

Probably I got it totally wrong. But I think it's not really certain and at least they did quite poor job with narrative in this specific point. I've watched number of let's play streams after I finished the episode, and many of them including the Eurogamer people interpreted the scene as I did, so I guess it was depicted at least as very confusing.

Like other streamers I watched, I suspected Chloe's final conversation with Sera to be another dream sequence, so I thought it's quite a lazy way of writing since Chloe can't solve her every problems by blacking out and getting advices from dead people.

Maybe it's making more sense Sera wasn't injected a lethal dose, but I'd still say that part was handled quite poorly since it doesn't change that her blacking out solves all her problems in a 'Deux ex Machina' manner.

Anyway, thanks much for pointing it out for me. I'd never have known I might be wrong in Mr. Amber's intention about Sera otherwise.

[BloodySin]

Originally posted by fender:

*** SPOILER WARNING ***

Wow, I haven't even suspected once if the dose wasn't lethal, but now I read your posts I began to doubt it.

I totally missed "Don't hurt her" part, since I misread it to mean Rachel, not Sera. In that context, I agree that Mr. Amber's intention was just to force Sera to relapse into her old habit.

But even though heroin is so highly addictive, you can't really gaurantee that a single injection will surely make her an addict again when she's already successfully rehabilitated herself from prolonged drug use.

And heroin leaves the body pretty fast when injected - fast enough for her to attend the court or visit the police station couple of days later, but not fast enough for her to have a calm, rational conversation with Chloe only a few moments later as if nothing really happened.

It means, if what Mr. Amber wanted was just Sera to stay away from Rachel, he'd probably have
to let Damon to catch Sera and do it again whenever she stays sober long enough (probably 3-4 days) to present herself to the custody court, or do another scheme to get her arrested for a drug charge right after such an event.

So I thought what he wanted was injecting her a lethal overdose and making it look like an OD accident.

Probably I got it totally wrong. But I think it's not really certain and at least they did quite poor job with narrative in this specific point. I've watched number of let's play streams after I finished the episode, and many of them including the Eurogamer people interpreted the scene as I did, so I guess it was depicted at least as very confusing.

Like other streamers I watched, I suspected Chloe's final conversation with Sera to be another dream sequence, so I thought it's quite a lazy way of writing since Chloe can't solve her every problems by blacking out and getting advices from dead people.

Maybe it's making more sense Sera wasn't injected a lethal dose, but I'd still say that part was handled quite poorly since it doesn't change that her blacking out solves all her problems in a 'Deux ex Machina' manner.

You're downplaying the psychological side of addiction. She was a junkie for over a decade and had stopped for one year. A lot of getting over addiction - even to alcohol - is abstaining completely from it. Just hear how she describes what heroin is for her, a complete escape from pain and suffering. The issue isn't her getting high once, but that, as she seems to admit, that she's now going to relapse, which explains why after all she did to see Rachel, she is ready to ditch the effort that quickly.

About the scene with her and Chloe... I'm not sure. We don't get to see how much times passes until Chloe wakes up. It could have been long enough for someone who's been an addict for years to recover enough composure for that talk, I don't know.

Now, about it feeling like it could be a dream... that's a thought I have entertained. Some conspiracy theory here, but every single time Chloe sees William, it's while she's unconscious. Then one time she sees him and has a conversation with him while she's wide awake... or is she? It happens right after she almost hits a truck and swerves off road. Could Deck9 be pulling a major stunt on us and everything after that point is actually Chloe unconscious, hence her talking with William and all that? Coming up next: season two opens with Chloe being in a coma after a car crash.

[mysticfall]

Originally posted by BloodySin:

You're downplaying the psychological side of addiction. She was a junkie for over a decade and had stopped for one year. A lot of getting over addiction - even to alcohol - is abstaining completely from it. Just hear how she describes what heroin is for her, a complete escape from pain and suffering. The issue isn't her getting high once, but that, as she seems to admit, that she's now going to relapse, which explains why after all she did to see Rachel, she is ready to ditch the effort that quickly.

But she didn't have any problem reappearing in one of the epilogues to see Rachel anyway, which means a single dose of heroine can't gaurantee it will destroy her life enough to make her unfit to see her daughter forever.

Originally posted by BloodySin:

About the scene with her and Chloe... I'm not sure. We don't get to see how much times passes until Chloe wakes up. It could have been long enough for someone who's been an addict for years to recover enough composure for that talk, I don't know.

I'm not too sure either, as I'm neither a doctor or an addict :) But I just feel that I'd be worried about Chloe more than Sera, if Chloe was hit on her head like that and left unconscious for several hours, while neither Frank or Sera care to call for a medical help.

I think now I'm nitpitpicking it too much so I'll just drop it. But I strongly believe it could have been written in a better way, regardless of the Mr. Amber's intention.

Originally posted by BloodySin:

Now, about it feeling like it could be a dream... that's a thought I have entertained. Some conspiracy theory here, but every single time Chloe sees William, it's while she's unconscious. Then one time she sees him and has a conversation with him while she's wide awake... or is she? It happens right after she almost hits a truck and swerves off road. Could Deck9 be pulling a major stunt on us and everything after that point is actually Chloe unconscious, hence her talking with William and all that? Coming up next: season two opens with Chloe being in a coma after a car crash.

That's... an interesting thought :)

That Chloe's last conversation with her dad was my personal favorite moment of episode 3. Probably I should make another post about it.