[Potential spoiler] Why Rachel could still be the storm

[BloodHunterX020]

(This may be an already pitched idea, but still, it's my two cents)

So I've been doing some thinking, and reading over the theories of Rachel being/not being the storm. To me, her scream in Episode 1 was a dead giveaway: this girl was responsible for the storm that destroyed Arcadia Bay. However, I have read other people's arguments against the idea, such as why Rachel would create a storm that would kill Chloe. I think I've got an explanation.

Rachel has been portrayed in BtS as being reckless in her more extreme actions. The forest fire, the destruction of James's glass dinner table, attacking Damon Merrick. When combined with the theory that Rachel has powers connected to nature and the weather, the idea that she is the storm does not seem so implausible. Furthermore, she appeared to be fully conscious in her Dark Room photos. My headcanon is that Jefferson allowed Nathan to perform a photography session with Rachel, except he didn't dose her with enough drug to render her unconscious. Chloe also commented on Rachel's expression in the photo, pointing out her look of extreme anger. If Rachel's dad cheating on her mom was enough to make Rachel torch a forest, it doesn't seem too much of a stretch that she would wish a storm upon Jefferson and Nathan to take revenge. This, now, is where her recklessness comes into play.

It appears to me that Rachel's awareness of the world around her becomes irrelevant in her moments of anger. So when she was in the Dark Room, the only thing she could think about was how Jefferson and Nathan were using and abusing her, not to mention her trust in both of them had been betrayed. Rachel did hang out with Nathan and in her letter to Chloe, she wrote how she met someone who had changed her life: Jefferson. Lastly, I know how it feels to be betrayed by not just someone, but multiple people I thought I could count on. It hurts a ♥♥♥♥-ton, and it made me feel like killing them. Rachel undoubtedly wanted both Nathan and Jefferson dead, and in the most violent way she could think of. Of course, it did not occur to her that the storm she would unleash would threaten innocent lives, put the woman who loves her at risk and destroy the town. Unless she actually knew all that, but didn't care.

Either way, she didn't have the chance to stop what she had set in motion. In an attempt to correct his inadequate dosage of the drug, Nathan overdosed Rachel, ending her life and cementing Arcadia Bay's fate.

[Alex]

"Rachel would create a storm that would kill Chloe." storm didnt killed Chloe and Rachel was a butterfly i think. because if we save town then she appear again? or the butterfly is Chloe?

[BloodHunterX020]

Originally posted by Max Caulfield:

"Rachel would create a storm that would kill Chloe." storm didnt killed Chloe and Rachel was a butterfly i think. because if we save town then she appear again? or the butterfly is Chloe?

No, Rachel was confirmed to be the ghostly doe that led Max and Chloe to her body in the junkyard. The butterfly was theorised to be Chloe.

The storm would kill Chloe because she was meant to die in order to spare the town, or so a lot of people believe. It is my belief that the storm Rachel unleashed was uncontrollable and would not be stopped regardless of Chloe's fate. Maybe it would be were Rachel still alive, but she isn't.

[Alex]

I doubt butterfly is chloe because chloe is alive, then are you implying that max created tornado? and storm wouldnt kill chloe because it headed to town. nathan was supposed to kill her

[BloodHunterX020]

Originally posted by Max Caulfield:

I doubt butterfly is chloe because chloe is alive, then are you implying that max created tornado? and storm wouldnt kill chloe because it headed to town. nathan was supposed to kill her

I'm not saying Max created the storm, I'm saying Rachel did. As for Chloe dying in the storm, I admit I made a mistake there. Rachel didn't create the storm to kill Chloe, she did to kill Jefferson and Nathan, but she was careless enough to put the entire town in harm's way.

[Alex]

Originally posted by BloodHunterX020:

I'm not saying Max created the storm, I'm saying Rachel did. As for Chloe dying in the storm, I admit I made a mistake there. Rachel didn't create the storm to kill Chloe, she did to kill Jefferson and Nathan, but she was careless enough to put the entire town in harm's way.

bae over bay

[11hunter22]

Originally posted by BloodHunterX020:

Originally posted by Max Caulfield:

I doubt butterfly is chloe because chloe is alive, then are you implying that max created tornado? and storm wouldnt kill chloe because it headed to town. nathan was supposed to kill her

I'm not saying Max created the storm, I'm saying Rachel did. As for Chloe dying in the storm, I admit I made a mistake there. Rachel didn't create the storm to kill Chloe, she did to kill Jefferson and Nathan, but she was careless enough to put the entire town in harm's way.

It actually makes sence, I mean Rachel can alter the weather and wind, though she cant controll it. But then why did the storm not appear when you sacrafice Chloe (assuming of course that there will be in fact no storm) . I dont think a storm in intelligent enough to know whether jefferson and Nathan are in prison or not.

[BloodHunterX020]

Originally posted by 11hunter22:

Originally posted by BloodHunterX020:

I'm not saying Max created the storm, I'm saying Rachel did. As for Chloe dying in the storm, I admit I made a mistake there. Rachel didn't create the storm to kill Chloe, she did to kill Jefferson and Nathan, but she was careless enough to put the entire town in harm's way.

It actually makes sence, I mean Rachel can alter the weather and wind, though she cant controll it. But then why did the storm not appear when you sacrafice Chloe (assuming of course that there will be in fact no storm) . I dont think a storm in intelligent enough to know whether jefferson and Nathan are in prison or not.

Yes, it isn't. The storm would strike AB regardless of Chloe's survival or death. Maybe Rachel could have stopped it were she not killed, but that's something we'll never know for certain. I'm only calling it how I see things, and from what I saw in BtS, Rachel did have her own power. I mean, there's no other way to explain the forest fire catching as quickly as it did, the winds that blew when Rachel screamed, the candles flickering as her anger grew and how quickly the fire went out after she got stabbed. The firemen even talk about how weird it is in the hospital if you listen to them. During her time captive in the Dark Room, Rachel wanted to kill Jefferson and Nathan, ideally in the most violent way possible. Any care she might have had for AB went out the window in her final moments. Nothing else mattered to her but to make her abusers suffer.

[Alex]

Originally posted by BloodHunterX020:

Yes, it isn't. The storm would strike AB regardless of Chloe's survival or death.

chloe died in bathroom and where is the storm hm?

[BloodHunterX020]

Originally posted by Max Caulfield:

Originally posted by BloodHunterX020:

Yes, it isn't. The storm would strike AB regardless of Chloe's survival or death.

chloe died in bathroom and where is the storm hm?

Just because we don't see the storm doesn't mean it's not going to hit. Neither Max nor Chloe knew for absolute certain that a sacrifice would save the town. It was as good as a theory to them. Pure conjecture. Nothing was confirmed to them.

[Alex]

Originally posted by BloodHunterX020:

Just because we don't see the storm doesn't mean it's not going to hit. Neither Max nor Chloe knew for absolute certain that a sacrifice would save the town. It was as good as a theory to them. Pure conjecture. Nothing was confirmed to them.

then im glad i saved her

[Usernamehere]

Note: Base game spoilers, just in case someone is playing Before the Storm first before Life is Strange.

I have an important point to mention here: Rachel was killed by Nathan and Jefferson around April of 2013, right? The storm and the freak incidents of nature only happened in October. What explanation is there for the months-long gap? Why wouldn't Rachel conjure the storm immediately?

The answer is Chloe. If the theory of the storm being caused by Rachel's spirit's hunger for revenge is true, then she obviously was holding it back the whole time in order to protect Chloe. But when the incident in the bathroom happened, there was no reason left for Rachel to keep delaying Arcadia Bay's fate, and she set the storm in motion. By the time she learned that Max had prevented the incident by hitting the fire alarm, it was already too late.

While writing this, I realized that maybe Rachel could have helped Chloe and Max evacuate Arcadia Bay in advance in order to prevent unnecessary loss of life, but the reason she didn't is probably because, like you guys said, the storm's entire purpose was to kill Jefferson and Nathan. Evacuating the town would run the risk of letting those two escape with their lives.

It's not completely on the topic, but thanks to these new points, I have a feeling that Rachel would not only choose to sacrifice Arcadia Bay for Chloe if faced with that choice, but she literally is the Save Chloe ending, in a way.