[Meta thread] Lord Windos' PokeRole Adventure : Celadon City Vandels

[Dragonstrike]

Spoiler

Quick update for you, Dragonstrike: when I wrote this part of my last post -

' The long and short of it is this: I couldn't afford to let you in on my plans. Not for my sake, not for yours, and.....not for the plans. Because.....*Sighs* ......I couldn't risk you, Weavile, or Kingdra fucking shit up again and ruining my one chance of getting my Lucy back, like back in the Dragon Shrine. '

I meant for those 'Not for....' parts to be taken as more like 'Okay, these are also reasons why I didn't include you, but they aren't the main ones, nor the most important (for a given value), compared to the Big Reason, which is really really shitty but regrettably true, which makes it all the shittier for me and you.' It was meant to convey that Taylor was thinking of everyone's/thing's safety in her decision, but that it wasn't her primary, driving motivation for keeping him out of the loop ('I'm not keeping him out not JUST because I want to keep him safe, but that I think he'll fuck up/could fuck up/fuck things up regardless of quality/not be up to the task/etc. and put EVERYTHING in danger, which also includes him.', in sum) - or at least its not to her consciously, past and/or present.

After all, it HAS been established she's feeling incredibly conflicted and guilty about Reiner and what's happened to him, so that is probably scewing her perspective and reasoning/recollection of past events by a none to insubstantial amount.  Which begs the question of why she's so guilty, remorseful, repentant, and torn up about things in the first place (besides thinking Reiner was gone forever for the longest time, ofc, but she's a tough girl too, so...) as if she wasn't she most likely would have stuck to her original post escape plan of lying about everything to save face/prevent shitstorms (Which would have necessitated a Bullshit Roll for Reiner, btw)......

However, your interpretation of the post intrigues me enough that I'm willing to simply just accept that as the canon context, as it does add a lot of nuance to Taylor that isn't just plainly spoken. SO, Imma ask you this: Would you prefer to go by my definition of her phrasing, or yours?

Hmmmm...well, tbh, the the use of 'not' in that phrasing was what lead me to interpret it that way.  And while I did raise an eyebrow at first, I figured it could be justifiable, so I tried to think of a way it could be and work that in.

She IS speaking her mind, though, so my interpretation might not be entirely accurate to that.  I could suggest rephrasing it without the use of 'not' to make that a little clearer, though.  Her main reason does kinda cover all three other categories as well, and that could be used in the reasoning to make it a bit clearer.  'Cuz if there's even one major screwup, then they likely both get caught (and probably punished severely for repeat offenses) and the entire plan goes to pot.

And as far as editing my own post goes, it wouldn't be too difficult for me to accomodate for that change/clarification, either. Would really only have to edit the quoted section slightly and delete a paragraph in my post.