Aah, I see - sorry, I was going by the first bit, before the cray-cray came out. This does change things a little bit
In this case, I still think it would be unethical to leave the woman suffering - best to find her, and then tell her what happened. We can then decide what to do about it together. I wouldn’t actually do anything romantic with her until things were sorted out, whether we go with fatalism or resistance to the will of the Gods. But she needs to know what happened, whether that changes her perception of her feelings (I gather not, from your setup) or not. But in a world that has capricious Gods in it, I think fatalism is the way to go.
Kind of boring, but , clearly the best initial response is, once I realize who exactly I’m dealing with in Aphrodite, is to pull out the old trowel of flattery and start laying it on thick.
After a little while I’ll start gradually and slowly bringing up the fact that I’m already far too grateful for the love she’s bestowed on me and my current sweetie, and don’t think I could stand even more, and maybe her gift is best used to show some poor unenlightened shlub how wonderful romantic love (i.e. Aphrodite herself) is, rather than me, who already worships her.
Or, of course, failing that, can she arrange things so a three-way works long term?
[Though I fully expect the three-way to lead to posses in trunks at some point, even if one of the posse does miss his turn on the way home, get stuck in a crack house, pass by hottie prostitutes, crash his car, miss the bus, temporarily shack up with a female lawyer, etc. etc. ]
I’m going to be madly in love with this person and only this person
Should I not choose to be with her, she’d never find true love and I’d never find anyone as good as her.
You said there was a snag. I’m still waiting for it.
Seriously, what’s the complication? You’ve completely absolved me of any blame in this situation so why should I feel remotely guilty over the outcome? I mean, you may as well posit this hypothetical:
“You’re about to enter what is to be your bride’s second marriage. As you’re tying your bowtie in the dressing room, some random dude shows up and says to you 'hey, you know the bride’s first husband? I killed him. Yup. Totally did that for you. Be happy you two!”
Isn’t all courtship an attempt at mind control? You are trying to influence the heart and mind of the other by presenting yourself in the best possible light, or in the light that you think will appeal most to your object of desire. Usually through appearance, presentation of status, clever conversation, and other similar means. Aphrodite is simply being effective. The hottie wouldn’t be a mindless robot – the OP specifies intellectual compatibility. If a true compatibility of body, mind, and emotions is on offer, I certainly would take it. Love is rare; compatibility is even more rare. The combination is worth all risks.
Take the hottie and try to live in blessed ignorance for a few years. Oedipus didn’t kill his father and marry his mother with knowledge or evil intent, but he got his comeuppance nonetheless. On the other hand, defying the Olympians to their faces has a lousy track record too. The Fates or Hera or Athena or someone may be around in time if I run with Aphrodite’s offer - it’s probably more likely than not - but pissing off Aphrodite here and now is just asking to be turned into a field of carrots and have a rabbit warren built in my scrotum. AFAICT the only moral to this fable is “Never rescue stray dogs”.
In fairness, I think you’re defining “love” in such a way that the term is equally meaningless.
Ultimately, love is chemistry, with a side of physics. Over a lifetime of experiences, connections are formed in the brain that cause us to respond to certain stimuli in a positive way - and when a given person has very many qualities that generate such reactions, biologically speaking, that’s “love.” We can argue about the existence of some kind of spiritual, magical love that transcends this kind of biologically-based understanding, but:
You’re not getting the magic love without the biological love; and
If that magical, spiritual love exists, its provenance is completely unknown. In a world where Greek gods are real, it probably comes from them.
So in terms of the biological part of things, outside forces shape those connections in our brain all the time. Mommy says something to you when you are four, and it influences the various pathways in your brain ever so slightly; over a lifetime, Mommy speaks millions of words to you and her choices will eventually affect the way your brain functions. She will unquestionably influence your perceptions of “love” as an adult. So will Daddy. So will your first girlfriend, and your teachers. Are all of these people controlling your mind, too? So Aphrodite’s influence - dramatic, specific, and efficient though it might be - is to me not substantively different from any of the twenty billion other people, forces, events, and experiences that affect the function of your brain as you develop.
And in terms of some sort of spiritual component to love, assuming that one accepts such a thing: again, this is a world where Greek gods are real. Any spiritual or transcendant love probably originates with one of them. How is this any different?