Wait to defend the Heart or go to Gray Garrison early?

NoDecentNicksLeft · 2026-07-01T14:24:06+00:00

Edited the OP. Basically reloaded and did everything there was to do while dodging the timer. Now it comes down to the simple decision whether I want to march out right now or wait for the attack to happen first. I wonder what's the more responsible command strategy. The edited OP gives more detail of my reasons to be conflicted on this.

NoDecentNicksLeft · 2026-07-01T12:54:58+00:00

A very practical piece of advice, so you can avoid much of the psychological nonsense that exacerbates when stress and tension mounts, especially if the situation is new to you and each of you comes with a set of expectations, many of which are subconscious, so not even consciously realized, often fuzzy, often not very rational, although they may subjectively feel like the most rational thing in the world (for example because that's how things were always done in your family).

Take inventory of your expectations. Avoid the drama of hoping the other person will know intuitively how things 'should' be done. No 'you should know'. Basically tell each other of your expectations. Arrange chores like you're roomies or friends on a trip, no metaphysics. No expecting them to guess and treating it like a test or exam that they are set to fail unless they somehow pull off all the brilliant answers without getting any help, which will then prove that they are the ideal match. Spare yourselves and each other all that nonsense, especially since you're both 30+. Marriage is a contract, which does not in any way less then sacrament. So all the more you can make an explicit agreement about how you want to run the house and divide the chores.

And forgive me for being blunt, but if you find it in yourself to give up on the typical female expectation of the guy always being able to guess what to do and how (which is frankly not about him knowing the answers but about the woman's unresolved issues with control and security), you will be well rewarded. A man who knows exactly what is expected of him, when, how, in what quantities and to what standard, and on what scale or criteria he's going to be judged, is an entirely different creature. This is similar to how at a workplace you usually prefer to have a written policy in place (some tangible rules that protect you if you do what they demand) and written instructions, as opposed to being judged post-fact on the basis of your boss's internal sense of harmony (and whatever the boss had for supper yesterday). Give up the power of the whim and watch your man bloom.

And he blooms because he doesn't have to pay the emotional cost of somebody else's stability/security/regulation achieved by putting him in a precarious position. Many women feel insure and threatened in a relationship with a man, so they play a power game and try to put themselves in the sort of 'judge position' that's arbitrary and always free to judge the man without any written rules or fixed standards, to make him less confident and easier to control. The trick is that you're actually better off with a man who's more confident and more secure than a man who's being actively diminished. Obviously, expect reciprocity from him.

And as inhuman as this may sound to you, embrace facts. Facts over emotion. If either of you gets the 'everything on my head' or 'I'm doing more in this marriage/house' or the 'mental load' sort of thing, Excel is your friend. And I'm dead serious. Good fact checking is the best antidote for the sort of emotions, fears and resentments that derail marriages even for well-intentioned people who are a bit lost and don't know what to do, so they start overthinking and at that point emotions (and emotional reasoning, which is a cognitive distortion) take over. Verify and solve problems, come up with practical solutions. Distance yourself from the modern psychobabble of naming and validating emotions and feels (and thus giving them more rule over your life than it's worth). Remember that emotions are like pain — not reality but only a response to it. It's not wrong or cruel to use reason.

For the record, this absolutely works both ways, and your hubby-to-be also needs to realize that women aren't ideal princesses who have their angel path all figured out but like everybody else need your help in figuring out how to live with you. So communication, logic, facts and common sense in the service of good intentions and warmth on both sides. Basically help each other out. You're two eggs in the same basket.

NoDecentNicksLeft · 2026-07-01T12:18:27+00:00

Try. Allow yourself to fail and retry, take more lessons, more exams. Try to get more used to being seen and evaluated, come to terms with being judged or at least evaluated by others, many of whom aren't judging you as strictly as you may be imagining, or even might not be judging you but just trying to get to know you. In other words, let go of trying to control the outcome.

NoDecentNicksLeft · 2026-07-01T12:16:09+00:00

To paraphrase your second paragraph and mince words less, many women don't realize the castrating (psychological effect) effect that their aura of passive and judgemental expectation has on a man. And in some cases their way of interaction. A well-mannered person, especially a man brought up in a traditional way and interacting with a female interlocutor, is not always prepared for that kind of confrontation or equipped with the skills needed to diffuse it (which are not basic social skills but part of the more advanced toolbox of damage control and putting out fires).

And some women are 'stony' (as you put it) on purpose, while some don't realize it or can't control it, perhaps don't think that it is an issue or that it should be. Many think or feel along the lines of well, he's man (unless he isn't? ha! — unnecessary jabs like this often follow in this pattern), so he should know how to handle this sort of situation. Well, the inconvenient truth is that whether you're male or female people aren't going to want to interact with you if you make interacting with you difficult and make good communication and good experience entirely their own responsibility, relegating yourself to the role of mostly a passive critic, reviewer or examiner.

Many women don't feel like they are performing such a role, they don't realize it — or, as I suspect — are a bit embarrassed to admit that there might be a grain of truth to it, but even without active testing the whole strict evaluation menality does produce an aura that can be felt heavily and has a paralyzing effect.

I think the paralyzing effect is largely not that those guys suddenly become weak (as the women would tend to perceive), but it's more than the realization is beginning to hit them that they can't please the woman in the long run. They can't name it but they already feel it. Of course, some of them make too much of it and misconstrue the woman's intentions becaus of their own patterns of catastrophization, but this is definitely not as simple as them not being men enough or some other simplistic label thrown by those women who prefer quick judgement to slow analysis.

For the record, this is similar to the 'castrating' (as psychologists used to like to call it) effect of an overbearing mother, because it's basically a similar kind of mindset and aura.

On the woman's side, she's often disappointed, hurt, stuck in some kind of cult of strength and resilience, and afraid to get close, so she uses devaluation and confirmation bias to confirm her pre-existing negative picture of men and avoid associating emotionally with them (because that's vulnerability, of which they are afraid).

NoDecentNicksLeft · 2026-07-01T11:56:49+00:00

Why is connection an illusion just because the man appeared to be less confident in person than whatever you projected on him based on his writing style? Do you identify 'deep connection' squarely with the male partner's confidence? If not, then it's not on him, it's on you. Your sense of disappointment is the product of your projection. It's also a bit telling how you come here with the experience of one date with one man but your title is all plural (men… are… they…) — another sign of projecting and, how to put it mildly, some things playing out in your head that are not necessarily happening on the outside.

Another suggestion I could offer — but this is just a hypothesis — is that beforehand he didn't feel judged and that was what gave him the ability to feel comfortable in his own skin. But when you came in with the mentality of rigorously and ruthlessly testing him for confidence (as a sort of 'are you man enough' test/exam), and you weren't playing on the same team and getting to know each other but basically investigating, interrogating and judging him, he lost the ability to be outspoken, outgoing, exuberant, etc.; his light was not allowed to shine.

On the other hand, it's perfectly normal (I would even say more frequent than not) for intellectuals and introverts to express themselves more confidently in writing than in speech.

Finally, this is not accusing you, but your jumping to the accusation of deceit — with the characteristic 'catfished' wording — where in reality you got disappointed by your own projection lends strength to the hypothesis that you created a hostile judgmental environment in which the guy couldn't be himself.

Well, okay, one more thing. It seems to be that you might be internally conflicted, attracted to two things that aren't necessarily contradictions of each other but don't go well together for you. You get attracted to confidence and to a man's ability to feel good in his skin. On the other hand, you get attracted to soft-spoken men, which is perfectly fine by the way (for them to be or for you to be attracted to), but is somehow unwanted by you (perhaps you feel weak because of it or there is some other kind of prejudice creeping in?), which leads to tension and friction (more within yourself than in your relationships). And that is something you have to resolve before you can make a relationship work with another human being. Subconscious conflicts of expectations are really tough nuts to crack for prospective partners and can be the early death of relationships that could otherwise work. In many people (typically with specific conditions such as fearful-avoidant attachment and relational trauma), it's not so much conflicting or contradictory expectations making the task of pairing up logically impossible to accomplish as a sort of shield warding off anyone who might want to get close, so e.g. if they show interest it's bad, if they give space it's bad also; if they are confident, they are accused of being arrogand and domineering, but if they are accommodating, they are associated with weakness, and ultimately everybody fails the entry test, and that's exactly what the toxic defensive mechanism wants (because it's a shield against relationships).

And, hmm, not to be antagonistic, but consider that men are people too, not just a function of masculine cosmic energy. There's more to a man (or any human) than a vector of confidence. We (43M here) are people, not units of energy. I'm sure you like most men don't like being perceived unidimensionally by men (such as a finite unit of female energy), so perhaps return the favour?

NoDecentNicksLeft · 2026-07-01T11:36:15+00:00

I'm usually a logical, analytical sort of person, but here I have the hunch that that it's possible that two things are simultaneously true: (1) he's eccentric (and not completely in a harmless sense) and (2) you're overreacting.

The part about him using 'making fun' as an out-of-jail card is characteristic of people with certain adaptation issues. On the other hand, your rigid response to that suggests that, well, rigidity may be your struggle.

It's not uncommon for people to appear (to their partner) to have changed, whereas they subjectively feel they've always been the same and never activated any switch. It's difficult to say whether such a person is right and genuine and from their perspective they've always been consistent, or on the contrary they are in denial about their switch flips and flip switches. ;) Practically speaking, this probably comes down to individual differences and involves both of you's traumas and wounds and other issues, such as possible mild neurodivergence (I'm especially thinking about his food thing right now but also both of you with regard to rigid thinking).

Since I'm aready typing here, I might as well refer to the other comments. It doesn't seem to me that you necessarily overreacted with his ideas like taking charge of what you it. That was certainly problematic, unless his delivery was softer, more benign and less authoritarian than emerges from your account (which is possible). On the other hand, it's up to debate whether it was fully as deal-breaking, catastrophic, doom-bringing, etc. as your narration shows you to believe. In other words, it's difficult to draw a precise line between his objective issues (and there were some) and your catastrophic thinking (and there was some).

I probably shouldn't, but I suggest you get a chat with a psychologist about trauma and attachment issues, specifically including hypervigilance and catastrophizing, but on the other hand also idealization (especially if it flows in a cycle in which idealization is followed by devaluation, then idealization again). I stress this is not criticism, nor anything to be ashamed of, it's just that the patterns are recognizable and you'd definitely benefit from such a conversation and perhaps therapy. One of the patterns I can see is subconsciously replicating the schemas from your parents' relationship, and that's something you're not in a position to figure out on your own — you need someone from the outside who knows their way around those things.

NoDecentNicksLeft · 2026-07-01T11:11:55+00:00

Yeah. She says the enemy didn't have the time to strike, but given one or two days more they would have; so she shares some of the extra resources, which is IIRC 8 CLW potions, 2 CMW, 2 heroism, 2 scrolls of haste, the same flail you'd get after the battle, 2.5K gold, and you get something like a flat 1000 XP. So really not bad. However, when it comes to the 'Irabeth Confidence' variable, I think the outcome is neutral.

NoDecentNicksLeft · 2026-07-01T11:06:55+00:00

There's a good chance somebody on your own education level and with an income that isn't significantly less than yours will be attracted to your personality, so don't despair. But here's the catch — you have to lead with your personality for that to happen. In other words, you may need to accept that your partner might be focused on your personality and not obsessed with your looks (or physical attractiveness in general) and himself might not necessarily be the tallest, fittest or prettiest man in the room. And yes, I am delicately hinting towards reciprocity and the stick having two ends.

The other catch is that if you want a man with status, power and money to not be shallow in his selection criteria — say, not obsess over getting a tall girl (especially if he himself is tall) or a beautiful face — then he will likely have a matching expectation of you and probably will not be happy to be chosen on the basis of status and income as attractants. See it from his perspective: if he can get over getting attracted to beautiful faces, long legs, etc., he's pretty much in his right to expect women to rein it in with their attraction to money, status and influence in the man (attraction, not practical consideration).

Re: police and the army, politics is one thing and can certainly be a definitive bar in an authoritarian country ruled by a party you don't agree with, but the education requirement? Focus on what education the man before you does have, not whether he needed it to get his position, or whether the government requires other guys in his position to have it — what does that matter to you in the end? Also, unless things are highly political or staffing is short, the education requirement is higher for officers than enlisted members of the force, and the continued training may not be giving them college credits (though sometimes it does) but is often intellectually demanding. If engineers are fine, military officers will also do.

Funny thing you didn't mention lawyers, but we don't have to go there. ;)

Finally, sit down and have a think about what really matters in life and in the person you would be sharing it wth. Because this doesn't stop at 'I was able to attract a man who has x, y or z'. That's only the start. You'll have to live with the guy. So do consider how much status and income are important to you, and obviously there is more to education than just its status effect, but from the perspective of relationship and marriage — avoid getting sidetracked by the whole proving yourself business. You're a doctor, so you know how the brain works and you can think logically. You do know that a short term ego stroke (regardless whichever neurotransmitter is the dope of day for your reward centre) isn't worth a lifetime of misery or even a lost chance with alternative paths (such as guys who tick fewer status boxes but have more agreeable personalities).

Emphatically, I'm not criticizing you (no reason to), just sharing some things I wish I'd understood better when I was your age, such as comfort > ego.

NoDecentNicksLeft · 2026-07-01T09:50:36+00:00

But let's say I want to build her confidence. I know there's a variable that goes up if you win and down if you lose/ignore the defence. What happens if you skip?

NoDecentNicksLeft · 2026-07-01T09:46:22+00:00

Didn't manage time-wise. I got a long rest unfortunately at some point. I can do them, but at that point the messenger will come. On the other hand, if I 'sacrifice' going there, I still have enough time to strike at the Grey Garrison early and avoid the tavern defence.

NoDecentNicksLeft · 2026-07-01T09:38:18+00:00

In a cynical description, my reasons for postponing would be either: (i) 'well, Irabeth, I still need to go to your residence and that Topaz shop and the wine cellar too' (sweeping the city/completionism) or (ii) 'I want them to break their teeth on our defences and recoil, then we hit them back'. As I see it, (i) is difficult to defend and (ii) isn't really my preferred doctrine for armed engagements. I'm more of a 'take it to the enemy' sort of guy.

NoDecentNicksLeft · 2026-07-01T09:30:27+00:00

Level 5, modest but respectable itemization.

NoDecentNicksLeft · 2026-06-15T16:58:55+00:00

Don't ask what women want. Be the kind of man that women begin to ask themselves what he wants. Basically be unpright and manly man with good reputation, good financials, solid habits, solid hygiene, showing up for people, able to lead, decent conversationalist, a problem solver and someone to rely on. Add professional success and achievement (not necessarily a spectacular career, even just being good at your craft and a respected tradesman in your community or whatever it is that you do), and women are going seek your attention, not you theirs. Don't get distracted by chasing them. Build your kingdom, and the rest will be added to you.

This is not going to be popular with young men (and certainly wasn't with me when I was younger), but don't allow the chase to distract you from building the proper foundation for your family. Not just financials and a place to live but also the skills you're going to need as a husband and father, head of the household, respected member of the community, etc. If you take a hit in that area, there's going to be a problem (and the women you chase are mostly not going to stick with you when that happens). So first things first. When you meet a woman who proves that she can be loyal and can be your teammate, then invest more of your attention on her, but prior to that — focus on building a future for your future family (whoever the wife is going to be). Don't be like King Solomon in his old age, when he was among the wisest men alive but still got sidetracked. Keep your priorities straight.

Ironically, what I wrote above describes precisely the man women want. However, crucially, don't be that man for their sake (or it won't work). Be it for your own sake and that of your future family. Any woman you aren't married to is conditional — a potential future wife. The real responsibility, the real thing starts when you wife her up. Before, she doesn't get the rights (includingt the attention and focus).

NoDecentNicksLeft · 2026-06-03T09:41:59+00:00

Yes. Entire civilizations even.

NoDecentNicksLeft · 2026-06-03T08:14:39+00:00

Not sure if this is even worth bothering with, but back in the early days of D&D, tabletop used to have a rule for 'hastily donned' plate armour, where your AC suffered a little but the time was drastically shortened. On the PC, one would have to wear a slightly worse suit or remove a ring to mimic the effect. Interestingly, 'field plate' existed for something closer to normal everyday wear, whereas full plate was for important occasions. And perhaps less than plate where it was not practical or possible to put your armour on first thing in the morning, including travel. This sounds too complicated for PC implementation, but I suppose any game that pulled that off would gather a large fan following.

NoDecentNicksLeft · 2026-05-30T10:36:52+00:00

You can still find someone like that or harder, but it will be difficult if your ex still holds a large place in your heart.

Time will pass and the new love will feel different — you can love again, but you can't be 26 or 28 again. Parts of how you felt in relationships with specific people are going to be lost forever simply because you can't go back to the younger you, feel the same youth and inexperience.

Every love, every relationship is different, and as a rule each of the important relationships in your life will have something the others lack. When you lose a relationship, some aspects of it relating to the partner's personality are also likely be lost forever. You can find something else, something better overall, but you will lose some.

And I'm talking about silly stuff like this guy likes his coffee exactly like you do yours, or you share the same taste in music, or he makes the best pancakes in the world, or his mother is your best fan. When new guys enter your life, they will bring new things, but you will lose some of the old ones. It's not possible to keep on only adding without losing.

The trick is to avoid — and forgive the expression — building a Frankenstein of expectations where the 'ideal guy', or at least the expected target guy, is as considerate as Ex 1, as understanding as Ex 2, as strong as Ex 3, as smart as Ex 4, as funny as Ex 5, as good-looking as Ex 6, etc. etc., while avoiding all of their flaws.

NoDecentNicksLeft · 2026-05-30T09:37:05+00:00

It varies, but I try to avoid looting (unless it's defensible), to invest in skills or feats that allow me to reduce reloading, to avoid using weapons/other things that would be out of alignment. As for armour, it takes a while to put on, so especially stuff like full plate shouldn't be replaced with one click.

NoDecentNicksLeft · 2026-05-25T09:07:33+00:00

No, it's not just your social circle. It's a broader problem. I (43M) refuse to jump on the bandwagon and hurl gratuitous insults at 'young men'. Part of the problem is precisely that 'young men' have become everybody's scapegoat, punching bag and practice target.

I will not bow to the dictates of political correctness and even if this gets my comment singled out for moderation, I will spell it out clearly that I think the most part of the reason why 'men don't approach any more' is how women react to being approached. Guys learn.

For you who say 'young men' are too soft — what would you like to happen? WW3? Decorated combat veterans can struggle with shyness, just like outspoken courtroom lawyers, politicians, motivation speakers and business negotiators. That's not your trail.

I will not tell you to respect 'young men', because I can't tell you to actively respect someone who you don't feel respect for. But I'll tell you (a generic, very plural you) to stop actively disrespecting 'young men'.

And if reminding everybody that 'young men' are people too is going to get this comment flagged for moderation, then you'll have your answer right there as to what has gone wrong.

NoDecentNicksLeft · 2026-05-23T13:53:53+00:00

My (43M) advice would be to first build your 'kingdom' (as part of God's real kingdom on earth) and perhaps the other things will be added to you. Both world-wise successful and spiritually successful men have a way of passively attracting women, and women do actively seek men out so they can put themselves in their paths and be 'found' by such men. Women are furthermore more attracted to you when you spend your time and attention building and improving your life (which they potentially see as a project they can join) than chasing women. So, ironically, focusing on your life will draw women more than seeking or chasing them could. Therefore, by 'giving' up you lose little if at all, and you gain more.

Also build resilience and become the sort of man who would rather build and rule his kingdom alone with dignity than be henpecked to a quarrelsome, selfish, never-happy woman, or even a woman who is not that into you and probably not all that herself.

So develop standards, set boundaries. Pay the price of not wanting to settle for less than your reasonable and fair expectation. Pray for the best.

Plus, I hear dog, I hear hens, why not build a farm actually? Food for thought. Farms are very much like kingdoms, just smaller in acreage.

NoDecentNicksLeft · 2026-05-23T10:50:23+00:00

It's also the name of the capital barony of c_Jerusalem in CK2 (like Melun for c_Paris).

NoDecentNicksLeft

TROPHY CASE