[quote]ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...
The PC does not have a chance to fail. Accepting Torpor's deal is no failing. It's making a choice. Failing would mean having the choice made for you.[/quote]
That's ridiculous. Then none of the NPCs fail, because they choose for themselves. In fact, they tell Hawke to go to hell. They stand up to a person who (potentially) has been trying to change their beliefs for the last 4 years. They're being pretty independent.
[quote]I'm not interested in Fenris or Isabela. I'm only defending the characters of Aveline and Merrill. Both are good people who are very much against sacrificing others. Both are very strong people as well. [/quote]
Okay. Then Merril makes a deal with a demon for the sake of dalish history. She thinks she's smarter than that and better than that.
[quote]Aveline routinely does what's right regardless of anyone else (she butts heads with the Viscount quite a bit). [/quote]
So what? How does that make her immune to temptation?
[quote]Merrill has dealt successfully with a demon. She's been trained to do so.[/quote]
No, she wasn't. That's not even remotely correct. She's been seduceded by a demon and if it wasn't for the keeper being dumb and Hawke being there, she'd be an abomination.
[quote]Again, I'm not saying they should get an auto-pass just because. I'm saying that if auto-passes are required to make sure the game doesn't end, then they're the ones for whom it makes sense.[/quote]
And I'm saying for at least one, it's character derailment if she did resist, and for the other we have no reason to believe she'd be immune to temptation.
[quote]The thing is, none of the companions are ever given a chance to resist the demon, and that's poor gameplay.[/quote]
Sure they are.
Demon: Yo, I gots a deal for you. Think about it.
Companion. Okay, I thought about it. I'm so in.
That's the chance to resist. The player doesn't have a chance to resist for them (i.e. there's nothing you can do to stop them) but they're not sock-puppets. The player shouldn't be allowed to change their minds if it's a deeply held belief.
[/quote]And why do you think Varric should value life for its own sake? He's perfectly willing to kill his brother, or Gascard.[/quote]
Varric puts himself on the line for people all the time. He does it for everyone in his party, and he's on the side of doing the right thing in general. He's like Aveline, but he's a vigilante because he doesn't believe in Kirkwalls laws.
But throughout the game Varric does what he can to help.
Merril Confusion
Débuté par
DemonLord4lf
, avril 20 2011 11:26
Retour en haut
#127
Posté 22 avril 2011 - 02:08
In Exile
-
- Members
- 28 738 messages
[quote]Joy Divison wrote...
Different experience, different motivations, different willpower, i.e. different people do = some refusing temptation.[/quote]
Sure. But:
''Different experience, different motivations, different willpower, i.e.
different people do = some refusing NOT temptation.''
So why should these characters actually resist temptation?
You need a better argument than some people can.
[quote]You have yet to give a reasonable explanation why Hawke is the only non-abomination in Thedas who can resist the temptation of a demon[/quote]
Why would I address some irrelevant red herring you've raised?
You haven't given any reason to believe some NPCs should resist temptation other than the fact you think they should.
[quote]
Because I, unlike you apparently, do not think lazy and simplisitc writing is good writing. You will accept and argue that everyone getting automatically possessed by a demon with but a sentence of temptation is good, riviting stuff worthy of praise, but I expect more devotion to a character's insights, motivations, experiences, and consistency.[/quote]
As it turns out, I'm apparently literate, because making deals with demons =! posession.
Becoming possesed is a very specific type of deal, where a person becomes a vessel for a demon.
Your pejorative rant aside, I said none of this. I just said that it is in character for Merril to make a self-destructive deal with a demon.
[quote]Merrill, who is TRAINED to understand demons,
[/quote]
No, she isn't. That's part of the point.
[quote]takes CAUTION in her dealings with demons[/quote]
She says she's cautious; but the whole point is that she's wrong. We actually see this. She learns bloodmagic from a demon potentially locked away by her people on the word of the demon it will totally work out.
[quote]to repair the MIRROR which she THINKS will HELP restore Dalish history. [/quote]
That's exactly this:
[/quote] That's quite different from naively believing with a wave of a hand a demon can just instantly grant everything she wants.[/quote]
Because naively believing a sketchy demon looked away in an elven burial ground is totally not lying and telling her what she wants to hear is naive. In fact, most of Merril's character is how naive she is.
She thinks already naively the Eluvian will grant her everything she wants and is willing to throw away her entire clan to do it. What's one more, for an even sweeter deal?
[quote]If she was so susceptible before, in her multiple dealings with demons, she would have already been possessed!
[/quote]
This is where the paying attention bit comes in handy. Merril doesn't deal with ''demons'' she deals with ''a demon'' and that demon is playing her like a fiddle to escape and posses her.
Now, I appreciate you don't clearly understand how posession works in Dragon Age, but don't make-up the number of dealings Merril has with demons or her training.
[quote]There is a complete lack of consistency w/ her experience with the Pride Demon in Night Tremors. She should have reacted in a similar way that way Morrigan did in Origins with the complete lack of subtlety in the Pride Demon's offer. [/quote]
No, she shouldn't have. Yes, your Merril should have, but that's because you seem to be really wrong about a lot of her character. That you didn't really understand her character isn't proof that her giving in to temptation was out of character.
Different experience, different motivations, different willpower, i.e. different people do = some refusing temptation.[/quote]
Sure. But:
''Different experience, different motivations, different willpower, i.e.
different people do = some refusing NOT temptation.''
So why should these characters actually resist temptation?
You need a better argument than some people can.
[quote]You have yet to give a reasonable explanation why Hawke is the only non-abomination in Thedas who can resist the temptation of a demon[/quote]
Why would I address some irrelevant red herring you've raised?
You haven't given any reason to believe some NPCs should resist temptation other than the fact you think they should.
[quote]
Because I, unlike you apparently, do not think lazy and simplisitc writing is good writing. You will accept and argue that everyone getting automatically possessed by a demon with but a sentence of temptation is good, riviting stuff worthy of praise, but I expect more devotion to a character's insights, motivations, experiences, and consistency.[/quote]
As it turns out, I'm apparently literate, because making deals with demons =! posession.
Becoming possesed is a very specific type of deal, where a person becomes a vessel for a demon.
Your pejorative rant aside, I said none of this. I just said that it is in character for Merril to make a self-destructive deal with a demon.
[quote]Merrill, who is TRAINED to understand demons,
[/quote]
No, she isn't. That's part of the point.
[quote]takes CAUTION in her dealings with demons[/quote]
She says she's cautious; but the whole point is that she's wrong. We actually see this. She learns bloodmagic from a demon potentially locked away by her people on the word of the demon it will totally work out.
[quote]to repair the MIRROR which she THINKS will HELP restore Dalish history. [/quote]
That's exactly this:
[/quote] That's quite different from naively believing with a wave of a hand a demon can just instantly grant everything she wants.[/quote]
Because naively believing a sketchy demon looked away in an elven burial ground is totally not lying and telling her what she wants to hear is naive. In fact, most of Merril's character is how naive she is.
She thinks already naively the Eluvian will grant her everything she wants and is willing to throw away her entire clan to do it. What's one more, for an even sweeter deal?
[quote]If she was so susceptible before, in her multiple dealings with demons, she would have already been possessed!
[/quote]
This is where the paying attention bit comes in handy. Merril doesn't deal with ''demons'' she deals with ''a demon'' and that demon is playing her like a fiddle to escape and posses her.
Now, I appreciate you don't clearly understand how posession works in Dragon Age, but don't make-up the number of dealings Merril has with demons or her training.
[quote]There is a complete lack of consistency w/ her experience with the Pride Demon in Night Tremors. She should have reacted in a similar way that way Morrigan did in Origins with the complete lack of subtlety in the Pride Demon's offer. [/quote]
No, she shouldn't have. Yes, your Merril should have, but that's because you seem to be really wrong about a lot of her character. That you didn't really understand her character isn't proof that her giving in to temptation was out of character.
#128
Posté 22 avril 2011 - 03:18
LobselVith8
-
- Members
- 16 993 messages
[quote]In Exile wrote...
[quote]ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...
The PC does not have a chance to fail. Accepting Torpor's deal is no failing. It's making a choice. Failing would mean having the choice made for you.[/quote]
That's ridiculous. Then none of the NPCs fail, because they choose for themselves. In fact, they tell Hawke to go to hell. They stand up to a person who (potentially) has been trying to change their beliefs for the last 4 years. They're being pretty independent. [/quote]
The characters aren't making an independent choice, they are being forced to make a particular choice regardless of where they stand with the protagonist because the choice to betray Hawke is pre-defined for the quest.
[quote]In Exile wrote...
[quote]ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...
I'm not interested in Fenris or Isabela. I'm only defending the characters of Aveline and Merrill. Both are good people who are very much against sacrificing others. Both are very strong people as well. [/quote]
Okay. Then Merril makes a deal with a demon for the sake of dalish history. She thinks she's smarter than that and better than that. [/quote]
Merrill makes the same decision every other character (besides Anders) makes in Night Terrors.
[quote]In Exile wrote...
[quote]ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...
Aveline routinely does what's right regardless of anyone else (she butts heads with the Viscount quite a bit). [/quote]
So what? How does that make her immune to temptation? [/quote]
That forcing a decision on a linear quest that forces all the characters to betray Hawke, regardless of the content of their character, doesn't build character. Having a character do something that's OOC is still OOC.
[quote]In Exile wrote...
[quote]ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...
Merrill has dealt successfully with a demon. She's been trained to do so.[/quote]
No, she wasn't. That's not even remotely correct. She's been seduceded by a demon and if it wasn't for the keeper being dumb and Hawke being there, she'd be an abomination. [/quote]
This isn't accurate. Merrill wasn't seduced by anyone. She had the shard with her since Ferelden and she wanted to restore the Eluvian. And your speculation on what would have happened to Merrill =/= fact.
[quote]In Exile wrote...
[quote]ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...
Again, I'm not saying they should get an auto-pass just because. I'm saying that if auto-passes are required to make sure the game doesn't end, then they're the ones for whom it makes sense.[/quote]
And I'm saying for at least one, it's character derailment if she did resist, and for the other we have no reason to believe she'd be immune to temptation. [/quote]
It's not charactee derailment if she did resist, it would follow with the precedent of characters in the Fade. It would follow the same reason all the characters in Origins were able to resist the temptation when they were told they were in the Fade.
[quote]In Exile wrote...
[quote]ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...
The thing is, none of the companions are ever given a chance to resist the demon, and that's poor gameplay.[/quote]
Sure they are.
Demon: Yo, I gots a deal for you. Think about it.
Companion. Okay, I thought about it. I'm so in. [/quote]
Which is ridiculous that everyone betrays Hawke. It's more of DA2 forcing a linear path and making no regard for choices made. It's as bad as guardsmen and templars being completely blind to Hawke being an apostate and using magic in front of them.
[quote]In Exile wrote...
That's the chance to resist. The player doesn't have a chance to resist for them (i.e. there's nothing you can do to stop them) but they're not sock-puppets. The player shouldn't be allowed to change their minds if it's a deeply held belief. [/quote]
They should be consistent, which is the problem with this quest for some of the characters.
[quote]ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...
The PC does not have a chance to fail. Accepting Torpor's deal is no failing. It's making a choice. Failing would mean having the choice made for you.[/quote]
That's ridiculous. Then none of the NPCs fail, because they choose for themselves. In fact, they tell Hawke to go to hell. They stand up to a person who (potentially) has been trying to change their beliefs for the last 4 years. They're being pretty independent. [/quote]
The characters aren't making an independent choice, they are being forced to make a particular choice regardless of where they stand with the protagonist because the choice to betray Hawke is pre-defined for the quest.
[quote]In Exile wrote...
[quote]ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...
I'm not interested in Fenris or Isabela. I'm only defending the characters of Aveline and Merrill. Both are good people who are very much against sacrificing others. Both are very strong people as well. [/quote]
Okay. Then Merril makes a deal with a demon for the sake of dalish history. She thinks she's smarter than that and better than that. [/quote]
Merrill makes the same decision every other character (besides Anders) makes in Night Terrors.
[quote]In Exile wrote...
[quote]ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...
Aveline routinely does what's right regardless of anyone else (she butts heads with the Viscount quite a bit). [/quote]
So what? How does that make her immune to temptation? [/quote]
That forcing a decision on a linear quest that forces all the characters to betray Hawke, regardless of the content of their character, doesn't build character. Having a character do something that's OOC is still OOC.
[quote]In Exile wrote...
[quote]ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...
Merrill has dealt successfully with a demon. She's been trained to do so.[/quote]
No, she wasn't. That's not even remotely correct. She's been seduceded by a demon and if it wasn't for the keeper being dumb and Hawke being there, she'd be an abomination. [/quote]
This isn't accurate. Merrill wasn't seduced by anyone. She had the shard with her since Ferelden and she wanted to restore the Eluvian. And your speculation on what would have happened to Merrill =/= fact.
[quote]In Exile wrote...
[quote]ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...
Again, I'm not saying they should get an auto-pass just because. I'm saying that if auto-passes are required to make sure the game doesn't end, then they're the ones for whom it makes sense.[/quote]
And I'm saying for at least one, it's character derailment if she did resist, and for the other we have no reason to believe she'd be immune to temptation. [/quote]
It's not charactee derailment if she did resist, it would follow with the precedent of characters in the Fade. It would follow the same reason all the characters in Origins were able to resist the temptation when they were told they were in the Fade.
[quote]In Exile wrote...
[quote]ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...
The thing is, none of the companions are ever given a chance to resist the demon, and that's poor gameplay.[/quote]
Sure they are.
Demon: Yo, I gots a deal for you. Think about it.
Companion. Okay, I thought about it. I'm so in. [/quote]
Which is ridiculous that everyone betrays Hawke. It's more of DA2 forcing a linear path and making no regard for choices made. It's as bad as guardsmen and templars being completely blind to Hawke being an apostate and using magic in front of them.
[quote]In Exile wrote...
That's the chance to resist. The player doesn't have a chance to resist for them (i.e. there's nothing you can do to stop them) but they're not sock-puppets. The player shouldn't be allowed to change their minds if it's a deeply held belief. [/quote]
They should be consistent, which is the problem with this quest for some of the characters.
#129
Posté 22 avril 2011 - 03:32
LobselVith8
-
- Members
- 16 993 messages
[quote]In Exile wrote...
[quote]Joy Divison wrote...
Different experience, different motivations, different willpower, i.e. different people do = some refusing temptation.[/quote]
Sure. But:
''Different experience, different motivations, different willpower, i.e.
different people do = some refusing NOT temptation.''
So why should these characters actually resist temptation?
You need a better argument than some people can. [/quote]
Some characters should be able to resist it for the same reason characters were able to resist temptation in the last two ventures into the Fade in Origins and Awakening. Acting like characters are always incapable of making any decision but a deal with a deal ignores that Hawke doesn't need to be the only one who is able to resist, especially if he isn't a mage and never had formal training in the Fade by Malcolm.
[quote]In Exile wrote...
[quote]Joy Divison wrote...
You have yet to give a reasonable explanation why Hawke is the only non-abomination in Thedas who can resist the temptation of a demon[/quote]
Why would I address some irrelevant red herring you've raised?
You haven't given any reason to believe some NPCs should resist temptation other than the fact you think they should. [/quote]
It's not an irrelevant red herring, it's a good point that Hawke can resist all the temptations, even when he's not a mage and has no formal education about dealing with demons in the Fade.
There's a precedence of characters resisting demons in the Fade. Hawke shouldn't be the only one capable of saying no simply for the contrivance of the plot.
[quote]In Exile wrote...
[quote]Joy Divison wrote...
Because I, unlike you apparently, do not think lazy and simplisitc writing is good writing. You will accept and argue that everyone getting automatically possessed by a demon with but a sentence of temptation is good, riviting stuff worthy of praise, but I expect more devotion to a character's insights, motivations, experiences, and consistency.[/quote]
As it turns out, I'm apparently literate, because making deals with demons =! posession.
Becoming possesed is a very specific type of deal, where a person becomes a vessel for a demon.
Your pejorative rant aside, I said none of this. I just said that it is in character for Merril to make a self-destructive deal with a demon. [/quote]
What was provided was criticism against linear storytelling. Forcing all the characters to make the same choice, regardless of whether it would be in-character for them and regardless of their status with Hawke, allows for the characters development to be ignored for the sake of the quest.
[quote]In Exile wrote...
[quote]Joy Divison wrote...
Merrill, who is TRAINED to understand demons, [/quote]
No, she isn't. That's part of the point. [/quote]
Actually, Marethari trained Merrill. Merrill addresses this point.
[quote]In Exile wrote...
[quote]Joy Divison wrote...
takes CAUTION in her dealings with demons[/quote]
She says she's cautious; but the whole point is that she's wrong. We actually see this. She learns bloodmagic from a demon potentially locked away by her people on the word of the demon it will totally work out. [/quote]
The whole point isn't that she's wrong, the whole point is that all the characters are being railroaded by the plot. And you're ignoring that Merrill was able to deal with Audacity to learn blood magic and still resist Audacity as the demon is still trapped in the totem.
[quote]In Exile wrote...
[quote]Joy Divison wrote...
to repair the MIRROR which she THINKS will HELP restore Dalish history. [/quote]
That's exactly this:
"That's quite different from naively believing with a wave of a hand a demon can just instantly grant everything she wants."
Because naively believing a sketchy demon looked away in an elven burial ground is totally not lying and telling her what she wants to hear is naive. In fact, most of Merril's character is how naive she is.
She thinks already naively the Eluvian will grant her everything she wants and is willing to throw away her entire clan to do it. What's one more, for an even sweeter deal? [/quote]
It's not naive because Merrill isn't building the Eluvian to Audacity's specifications, she's extrapolating information from the shard she has and lore she's gathered.
[quote]In Exile wrote...
[quote]Joy Divison wrote...
If she was so susceptible before, in her multiple dealings with demons, she would have already been possessed! [/quote]
This is where the paying attention bit comes in handy. Merril doesn't deal with ''demons'' she deals with ''a demon'' and that demon is playing her like a fiddle to escape and posses her.
Now, I appreciate you don't clearly understand how posession works in Dragon Age, but don't make-up the number of dealings Merril has with demons or her training. [/quote]
This is the problem with your speculation, Exile. You're mistaken about the events at hand, and using a theory you came up with to back up your claims. WoG has stated that Merrill was building the Eluvian based on information she was getting from the shard she brought back from Ferelden and the lore she gathered.
You might want to get your facts in order next time.
[quote]In Exile wrote...
[quote]Joy Divison wrote...
There is a complete lack of consistency w/ her experience with the Pride Demon in Night Tremors. She should have reacted in a similar way that way Morrigan did in Origins with the complete lack of subtlety in the Pride Demon's offer. [/quote]
No, she shouldn't have. Yes, your Merril should have, but that's because you seem to be really wrong about a lot of her character. That you didn't really understand her character isn't proof that her giving in to temptation was out of character. [/quote]
I respectfully disagree. Merrill should have. Other characters should have as well. However, Night Terrors ignores character consistency for linear storytelling. That you lack information that addresses a number of points you were wrong about doesn't mean Merrill should be addressed according to an OOC moment that's consistently OOC for other characters as well.
[quote]Joy Divison wrote...
Different experience, different motivations, different willpower, i.e. different people do = some refusing temptation.[/quote]
Sure. But:
''Different experience, different motivations, different willpower, i.e.
different people do = some refusing NOT temptation.''
So why should these characters actually resist temptation?
You need a better argument than some people can. [/quote]
Some characters should be able to resist it for the same reason characters were able to resist temptation in the last two ventures into the Fade in Origins and Awakening. Acting like characters are always incapable of making any decision but a deal with a deal ignores that Hawke doesn't need to be the only one who is able to resist, especially if he isn't a mage and never had formal training in the Fade by Malcolm.
[quote]In Exile wrote...
[quote]Joy Divison wrote...
You have yet to give a reasonable explanation why Hawke is the only non-abomination in Thedas who can resist the temptation of a demon[/quote]
Why would I address some irrelevant red herring you've raised?
You haven't given any reason to believe some NPCs should resist temptation other than the fact you think they should. [/quote]
It's not an irrelevant red herring, it's a good point that Hawke can resist all the temptations, even when he's not a mage and has no formal education about dealing with demons in the Fade.
There's a precedence of characters resisting demons in the Fade. Hawke shouldn't be the only one capable of saying no simply for the contrivance of the plot.
[quote]In Exile wrote...
[quote]Joy Divison wrote...
Because I, unlike you apparently, do not think lazy and simplisitc writing is good writing. You will accept and argue that everyone getting automatically possessed by a demon with but a sentence of temptation is good, riviting stuff worthy of praise, but I expect more devotion to a character's insights, motivations, experiences, and consistency.[/quote]
As it turns out, I'm apparently literate, because making deals with demons =! posession.
Becoming possesed is a very specific type of deal, where a person becomes a vessel for a demon.
Your pejorative rant aside, I said none of this. I just said that it is in character for Merril to make a self-destructive deal with a demon. [/quote]
What was provided was criticism against linear storytelling. Forcing all the characters to make the same choice, regardless of whether it would be in-character for them and regardless of their status with Hawke, allows for the characters development to be ignored for the sake of the quest.
[quote]In Exile wrote...
[quote]Joy Divison wrote...
Merrill, who is TRAINED to understand demons, [/quote]
No, she isn't. That's part of the point. [/quote]
Actually, Marethari trained Merrill. Merrill addresses this point.
[quote]In Exile wrote...
[quote]Joy Divison wrote...
takes CAUTION in her dealings with demons[/quote]
She says she's cautious; but the whole point is that she's wrong. We actually see this. She learns bloodmagic from a demon potentially locked away by her people on the word of the demon it will totally work out. [/quote]
The whole point isn't that she's wrong, the whole point is that all the characters are being railroaded by the plot. And you're ignoring that Merrill was able to deal with Audacity to learn blood magic and still resist Audacity as the demon is still trapped in the totem.
[quote]In Exile wrote...
[quote]Joy Divison wrote...
to repair the MIRROR which she THINKS will HELP restore Dalish history. [/quote]
That's exactly this:
"That's quite different from naively believing with a wave of a hand a demon can just instantly grant everything she wants."
Because naively believing a sketchy demon looked away in an elven burial ground is totally not lying and telling her what she wants to hear is naive. In fact, most of Merril's character is how naive she is.
She thinks already naively the Eluvian will grant her everything she wants and is willing to throw away her entire clan to do it. What's one more, for an even sweeter deal? [/quote]
It's not naive because Merrill isn't building the Eluvian to Audacity's specifications, she's extrapolating information from the shard she has and lore she's gathered.
[quote]In Exile wrote...
[quote]Joy Divison wrote...
If she was so susceptible before, in her multiple dealings with demons, she would have already been possessed! [/quote]
This is where the paying attention bit comes in handy. Merril doesn't deal with ''demons'' she deals with ''a demon'' and that demon is playing her like a fiddle to escape and posses her.
Now, I appreciate you don't clearly understand how posession works in Dragon Age, but don't make-up the number of dealings Merril has with demons or her training. [/quote]
This is the problem with your speculation, Exile. You're mistaken about the events at hand, and using a theory you came up with to back up your claims. WoG has stated that Merrill was building the Eluvian based on information she was getting from the shard she brought back from Ferelden and the lore she gathered.
You might want to get your facts in order next time.
[quote]In Exile wrote...
[quote]Joy Divison wrote...
There is a complete lack of consistency w/ her experience with the Pride Demon in Night Tremors. She should have reacted in a similar way that way Morrigan did in Origins with the complete lack of subtlety in the Pride Demon's offer. [/quote]
No, she shouldn't have. Yes, your Merril should have, but that's because you seem to be really wrong about a lot of her character. That you didn't really understand her character isn't proof that her giving in to temptation was out of character. [/quote]
I respectfully disagree. Merrill should have. Other characters should have as well. However, Night Terrors ignores character consistency for linear storytelling. That you lack information that addresses a number of points you were wrong about doesn't mean Merrill should be addressed according to an OOC moment that's consistently OOC for other characters as well.
Modifié par LobselVith8, 22 avril 2011 - 03:34 .
#130
Posté 22 avril 2011 - 03:40
Avissel
-
- Members
- 2 132 messages
Actually the reason Audacity didn't posses her is because he is trapped in the totem, which is why he is helping her fix the Eluvian. The whole reason he was helping was because he would be able to use the Eluvian to escape the totem and possess Merrill.
#131
Posté 22 avril 2011 - 03:43
LobselVith8
-
- Members
- 16 993 messages
Avissel wrote...
Actually the reason Audacity didn't posses her is because he is trapped in the totem, which is why he is helping her fix the Eluvian. The whole reason he was helping was because he would be able to use the Eluvian to escape the totem and possess Merrill.
This is what Marethari speculates is going to happen, and it's the very reason she accepts Audacity into her, which could have been the plan all along. Eluvians aren't designed to help demons escape the Fade or imprisonment, and we know from Morrigan that they lead to a place "beyond this world, and beyond the Fade." Marethari has no basis for her speculation but her own imagination.
#132
Posté 22 avril 2011 - 03:55
Avissel
-
- Members
- 2 132 messages
We know from Morrigan that that one Eluvian was being used to go "beyond the fade".
The other were sort of teleporters or communication devices between themselves and other Eluvians. So if Morrigan was able to change where they connect to, it's possible Audacity would have been able to get Merrill to perform some sort of ritual that would connect her mirror to the "space" he was trapped in.
Still, it can hardly be said that Merrill has any basis for resisting Demons. She learned blood magic and how to purify the shard based on the information of a demon that could in no way posses her, she never had to resist him to begin with.
The other were sort of teleporters or communication devices between themselves and other Eluvians. So if Morrigan was able to change where they connect to, it's possible Audacity would have been able to get Merrill to perform some sort of ritual that would connect her mirror to the "space" he was trapped in.
Still, it can hardly be said that Merrill has any basis for resisting Demons. She learned blood magic and how to purify the shard based on the information of a demon that could in no way posses her, she never had to resist him to begin with.
#133
Posté 22 avril 2011 - 04:02
LobselVith8
-
- Members
- 16 993 messages
Avissel wrote...
We know from Morrigan that that one Eluvian was being used to go "beyond the fade".
The other were sort of teleporters or communication devices between themselves and other Eluvians. So if Morrigan was able to change where they connect to, it's possible Audacity would have been able to get Merrill to perform some sort of ritual that would connect her mirror to the "space" he was trapped in.
Still, it can hardly be said that Merrill has any basis for resisting Demons. She learned blood magic and how to purify the shard based on the information of a demon that could in no way posses her, she never had to resist him to begin with.
Actually, the Tevinter Magisters were never able to figure out how to unlock the Eluvians they stole from Arlathan and their use of them was limited to being a means of communication over long distances. Clearly, Morrigan is able to figure out how to unlock the Eluvian's true power as a gateway to another place.
Also, Marethari's suspicions on what Merrill could be doing doesn't make them factual. It's still speculation that drives the Keeper to accept a demon into her.
#134
Posté 22 avril 2011 - 04:17
Avissel
-
- Members
- 2 132 messages
LobselVith8 wrote...
Actually, the Tevinter Magisters were never able to figure out how to unlock the Eluvians they stole from Arlathan and their use of them was limited to being a means of communication over long distances. Clearly, Morrigan is able to figure out how to unlock the Eluvian's true power as a gateway to another place.
Also, Marethari's suspicions on what Merrill could be doing doesn't make them factual. It's still speculation that drives the Keeper to accept a demon into her.
They used them to communicate from one Eluvian to another, So if they can connect to each other and "some other place" it's not that far fetched they they could be made to connect to the many places.
Your suspicion that Marethari was not right doesn't make it factual. It's still speculation that she was wrong.
You are speculating that she was speculating. (speculating is a fun word to say)
#135
Posté 22 avril 2011 - 05:31
LobselVith8
-
- Members
- 16 993 messages
Avissel wrote...
They used them to communicate from one Eluvian to another, So if they can connect to each other and "some other place" it's not that far fetched they they could be made to connect to the many places.
There's nothing to suggest the Eluvians can be reconfigured to do that besides Marethari's imagination that this is what Audacity planned. It could have been Audacity's plan all along to make her think so in order to escape the totem by getting Marethari to accept the demon into her.
Avissel wrote...
Your suspicion that Marethari was not right doesn't make it factual. It's still speculation that she was wrong.
I'm addressing that Marethari isn't speaking from a point where she knows she's factually accurate, she's simply guessing that this is the case. Marethari is speculating on this issue. There's nothing to suggest she was factually accurate, and she's basing this on her assumptions about what will happen from Merrill's attempt to restore the lost knowledge of Arlathan to help the Dalish. She can't say she's accurate if she's basing this on her assumptions.
Avissel wrote...
You are speculating that she was speculating. (speculating is a fun word to say)
No, I'm addressing that she is speculating because she has no basis for her statement. She's making an assumption about the intentions of a demon trapped in a totem.
#136
Posté 22 avril 2011 - 06:15
IanPolaris
-
- Members
- 9 650 messages
In Exile wrote...
IanPolaris wrote...
Ehm....EXCUUSE ME but Mr. Conner Eamon, son of Arl Eamon would beg to differ! Conner is but one example (Fiona is another in Calling) where an abomination has been successfully cured by killing the demon in the fade with no long term damage to the soul.
-Polaris
I haven't read the book, but you're wrong about Conner. He could be saved only because he didn't become an abomination.
WRONG! Conner was an abomination and identified as such not only by Jowan, but Morrigan, Irving, and even Alistair (the ex-Templar) as well. Conner was a very typical abomination in fact. The demon doesn't have to be physically inside your head to make you an abomination. It has to possess you...and that can and usually does mean control from their domain in the fade.
The reason the alternative worked is because Conner was tricked which means part of Conner's persona and soul remained which kept the bridge to the fade active to the controlling demon...a bridge which could be crossed by a mage willing to challenge the controlling demon...but that ritual IS a cure for (some kinds of) abomination.
-Polaris
#137
Posté 22 avril 2011 - 06:47
DemonLord4lf
-
- Members
- 157 messages
IanPolaris wrote...
In Exile wrote...
IanPolaris wrote...
Ehm....EXCUUSE ME but Mr. Conner Eamon, son of Arl Eamon would beg to differ! Conner is but one example (Fiona is another in Calling) where an abomination has been successfully cured by killing the demon in the fade with no long term damage to the soul.
-Polaris
I haven't read the book, but you're wrong about Conner. He could be saved only because he didn't become an abomination.
WRONG! Conner was an abomination and identified as such not only by Jowan, but Morrigan, Irving, and even Alistair (the ex-Templar) as well. Conner was a very typical abomination in fact. The demon doesn't have to be physically inside your head to make you an abomination. It has to possess you...and that can and usually does mean control from their domain in the fade.
The reason the alternative worked is because Conner was tricked which means part of Conner's persona and soul remained which kept the bridge to the fade active to the controlling demon...a bridge which could be crossed by a mage willing to challenge the controlling demon...but that ritual IS a cure for (some kinds of) abomination.
-Polaris
For some possessions, not all. Perhaps the Dalish dont know about being able to slay a demon from within the fade. Also, Conner hadn't been possessed for that long, so the demon didn't have much time to slink into his soul. Conner was also fighting the demon every so often, as we see when we confront him for the first time.
#138
Posté 22 avril 2011 - 06:54
LobselVith8
-
- Members
- 16 993 messages
DemonLord4lf wrote...
IanPolaris wrote...
WRONG! Conner was an abomination and identified as such not only by Jowan, but Morrigan, Irving, and even Alistair (the ex-Templar) as well. Conner was a very typical abomination in fact. The demon doesn't have to be physically inside your head to make you an abomination. It has to possess you...and that can and usually does mean control from their domain in the fade.
The reason the alternative worked is because Conner was tricked which means part of Conner's persona and soul remained which kept the bridge to the fade active to the controlling demon...a bridge which could be crossed by a mage willing to challenge the controlling demon...but that ritual IS a cure for (some kinds of) abomination.
-Polaris
For some possessions, not all. Perhaps the Dalish dont know about being able to slay a demon from within the fade. Also, Conner hadn't been possessed for that long, so the demon didn't have much time to slink into his soul. Conner was also fighting the demon every so often, as we see when we confront him for the first time.
The reason Connor was able to be seperated from the Desire Demon is because the possession wasn't by force, which is what First Enchanter Irving explains if the Warden asks the aid of the Circle of Ferelden in helping Redcliffe resolve the issue.
#139
Posté 22 avril 2011 - 07:00
DemonLord4lf
-
- Members
- 157 messages
The possession of Merethari wasn't by force and she could've been saved. But now that i think about it, the demon never was in the fade, he was fully infused with Merethari. So there was no way of saving her. Merril wouldn't have willing allowed the demon to possess her, therefore she would've become an abomination and would have to be killed.
#140
Posté 22 avril 2011 - 07:44
In Exile
-
- Members
- 28 738 messages
[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...
The characters aren't making an independent choice, they are being forced to make a particular choice regardless of where they stand with the protagonist because the choice to betray Hawke is pre-defined for the quest.[/quote]
They shouldn't stand anywhere with the protagonist. Whether they love or hate Hawke, what should matter is 1) whether they are the type of person to give in to temptation and 2) whether that temptation is enough to make them give in.
Each of them think about their choice and decide.
They're not ''forced'' to make any choice. That's nonsence.
[quote]Merrill makes the same decision every other character (besides Anders) makes in Night Terrors.[/quote]
It depends on who's offering what. Isabella/Meril and Varric will result in 2 temptations, for example.
More to the point, it doesn't matter so long as it is in character.
[quote]
That forcing a decision on a linear quest that forces all the characters to betray Hawke, regardless of the content of their character, doesn't build character. Having a character do something that's OOC is still OOC.[/quote]
Stop begging the question. We're debating whether or not it is in-character for anyone to give in to temptation. If it is, there's no ''forcing'' and no ''OOC'' moment. There can't be, by definition.
I don't see what having to ''build character'' has to do with this conversation.
[quote]This isn't accurate. Merrill wasn't seduced by anyone. She had the shard with her since Ferelden and she wanted to restore the Eluvian. And your speculation on what would have happened to Merrill =/= fact.[/quote]
The keeper told her it was dangerous and refused her. The demon said it will all work out. Merril was tempted by the offer of bloodmagic and sought it out, and believed the demon when it said it would cleanse the mirror. She then gave into the Fade for the same reasons; that her people were more important than just Hawke, and she bought the line the Pride demon gave that he was stronger than her demon.
[quote]
It's not charactee derailment if she did resist, it would follow with the precedent of characters in the Fade. It would follow the same reason all the characters in Origins were able to resist the temptation when they were told they were in the Fade.[/quote]
There's no precedent. There's just her character. That's it. It doesn't matter what happen in DA:O. If Morrigain suddenly gave into demons, that'd be OOC.
But there's nothing here other than your fervent desire that the companions resist and not betray Hawke.
[quote]Which is ridiculous that everyone betrays Hawke. It's more of DA2 forcing a linear path and making no regard for choices made. It's as bad as guardsmen and templars being completely blind to Hawke being an apostate and using magic in front of them.[/quote]
No, it isn't. First, not all the characters betray Hawke. 2 do (+ Justice if you side with Torpor and bring justice along).
There's no choice here. You want characters to listen to Hawke above demons; they don't. There's a lot of ridiculous and unsatisfying linearity in DA2, but not having every character felate at the altar that is Hawke is not one of them.
If anything, I think the ridiculous desing in DA2 is the characters giving a **** what Hawke does in Act III instead of following their own convictions (e.g. Sebastian).
[quote]
They should be consistent, which is the problem with this quest for some of the characters.[/quote]
You keep saying this, but where's the proof?
[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...
Some characters should be able to resist
it for the same reason characters were able to resist temptation in the
last two ventures into the Fade in Origins and Awakening. Acting like
characters are always incapable of making any decision but a deal with a
deal ignores that Hawke doesn't need to be the only one who is able to
resist, especially if he isn't a mage and never had formal training in
the Fade by Malcolm.[/quote]
It doesn't matter. You're still appealing to other games and other characters. Talk about those specific characters that made those choices.
What's OOC about Isabella betraying Hawke before going out and betraying Hawke at the end of the Act? What's OOC about Meril making a deal with a demon for exactly the same reasons she made a deal with a demon?
Who tempted anyone in Awakening?
[quote]
It's not an irrelevant red herring, it's a good point that
Hawke can resist all the temptations, even when he's not a mage and has
no formal education about dealing with demons in the Fade.
There's
a precedence of characters resisting demons in the Fade. Hawke
shouldn't be the only one capable of saying no simply for the
contrivance of the plot.[/quote]
But Hawke isn't a special snowflake unless you RP your Hawke to be a special snowflake. Torpor is your temptation. The other characters give in.
It's an irrelvant red herring because your only argument is that in DA:O people resisted. Let's talk about the characters - what's OOC about any of them giving in?
[quote]
What was provided was criticism against linear
storytelling. Forcing all the characters to make the same choice,
regardless of whether it would be in-character for them and regardless
of their status with Hawke, allows for the characters development to be
ignored for the sake of the quest.
[/quote]
So you're no longer claiming it was OOC? Just Bad writing because Hawke can't persuade anyone?
Being a puppet for Hawke isn't character development.
[quote]
Actually, Marethari trained Merrill. Merrill addresses this
point.[/quote]
No. Merril says that the keeper told her that to resist demons you have to not believe them. Advice isn't training.
[quote]
The whole point isn't that she's wrong, the whole point is
that all the characters are being railroaded by the plot. And you're
ignoring that Merrill was able to deal with Audacity to learn blood
magic and still resist Audacity as the demon is still trapped in the
totem.[/quote]
I'm not ignoring anything. Audicity wanted to teach her to fix the eluvian. Merrill thinking the demon was still trapped was just her getting played.
You're still repeating that characters were forced as if that had meaning. Prove they were forced.
[quote]
It's not naive because Merrill isn't building the Eluvian to
Audacity's specifications, she's extrapolating information from the
shard she has and lore she's gathered.[/quote]
It's naive because she thinks she's in control and can outwit the demon. There's no specification. There's just ''fix the Eluvian using bloodmagic''. That's all the demon needs.
[quote]
This is the problem with your speculation, Exile. You're
mistaken about the events at hand, and using a theory you came up with
to back up your claims. WoG has stated that Merrill was building the
Eluvian based on information she was getting from the shard she brought
back from Ferelden and the lore she gathered.[/quote]
There's no speculation. It is stated explicitly in game that the demon was going to use the Eluvian to escape.
[quote]
I respectfully disagree. Merrill should have. Other
characters should have as well. However, Night Terrors ignores character
consistency for linear storytelling. That you lack information that
addresses a number of points you were wrong about doesn't mean Merrill
should be addressed according to an OOC moment that's consistently OOC
for other characters as well.[/quote]
There is no lack of information; there is fan-fiction on your part about how clever Merril is and how in-control she is, and a persistent desire to undermine what the Keeper says when she encounters Merril in Act III in an attempt to prove Merril is in control.
The characters aren't making an independent choice, they are being forced to make a particular choice regardless of where they stand with the protagonist because the choice to betray Hawke is pre-defined for the quest.[/quote]
They shouldn't stand anywhere with the protagonist. Whether they love or hate Hawke, what should matter is 1) whether they are the type of person to give in to temptation and 2) whether that temptation is enough to make them give in.
Each of them think about their choice and decide.
They're not ''forced'' to make any choice. That's nonsence.
[quote]Merrill makes the same decision every other character (besides Anders) makes in Night Terrors.[/quote]
It depends on who's offering what. Isabella/Meril and Varric will result in 2 temptations, for example.
More to the point, it doesn't matter so long as it is in character.
[quote]
That forcing a decision on a linear quest that forces all the characters to betray Hawke, regardless of the content of their character, doesn't build character. Having a character do something that's OOC is still OOC.[/quote]
Stop begging the question. We're debating whether or not it is in-character for anyone to give in to temptation. If it is, there's no ''forcing'' and no ''OOC'' moment. There can't be, by definition.
I don't see what having to ''build character'' has to do with this conversation.
[quote]This isn't accurate. Merrill wasn't seduced by anyone. She had the shard with her since Ferelden and she wanted to restore the Eluvian. And your speculation on what would have happened to Merrill =/= fact.[/quote]
The keeper told her it was dangerous and refused her. The demon said it will all work out. Merril was tempted by the offer of bloodmagic and sought it out, and believed the demon when it said it would cleanse the mirror. She then gave into the Fade for the same reasons; that her people were more important than just Hawke, and she bought the line the Pride demon gave that he was stronger than her demon.
[quote]
It's not charactee derailment if she did resist, it would follow with the precedent of characters in the Fade. It would follow the same reason all the characters in Origins were able to resist the temptation when they were told they were in the Fade.[/quote]
There's no precedent. There's just her character. That's it. It doesn't matter what happen in DA:O. If Morrigain suddenly gave into demons, that'd be OOC.
But there's nothing here other than your fervent desire that the companions resist and not betray Hawke.
[quote]Which is ridiculous that everyone betrays Hawke. It's more of DA2 forcing a linear path and making no regard for choices made. It's as bad as guardsmen and templars being completely blind to Hawke being an apostate and using magic in front of them.[/quote]
No, it isn't. First, not all the characters betray Hawke. 2 do (+ Justice if you side with Torpor and bring justice along).
There's no choice here. You want characters to listen to Hawke above demons; they don't. There's a lot of ridiculous and unsatisfying linearity in DA2, but not having every character felate at the altar that is Hawke is not one of them.
If anything, I think the ridiculous desing in DA2 is the characters giving a **** what Hawke does in Act III instead of following their own convictions (e.g. Sebastian).
[quote]
They should be consistent, which is the problem with this quest for some of the characters.[/quote]
You keep saying this, but where's the proof?
[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...
Some characters should be able to resist
it for the same reason characters were able to resist temptation in the
last two ventures into the Fade in Origins and Awakening. Acting like
characters are always incapable of making any decision but a deal with a
deal ignores that Hawke doesn't need to be the only one who is able to
resist, especially if he isn't a mage and never had formal training in
the Fade by Malcolm.[/quote]
It doesn't matter. You're still appealing to other games and other characters. Talk about those specific characters that made those choices.
What's OOC about Isabella betraying Hawke before going out and betraying Hawke at the end of the Act? What's OOC about Meril making a deal with a demon for exactly the same reasons she made a deal with a demon?
Who tempted anyone in Awakening?
[quote]
It's not an irrelevant red herring, it's a good point that
Hawke can resist all the temptations, even when he's not a mage and has
no formal education about dealing with demons in the Fade.
There's
a precedence of characters resisting demons in the Fade. Hawke
shouldn't be the only one capable of saying no simply for the
contrivance of the plot.[/quote]
But Hawke isn't a special snowflake unless you RP your Hawke to be a special snowflake. Torpor is your temptation. The other characters give in.
It's an irrelvant red herring because your only argument is that in DA:O people resisted. Let's talk about the characters - what's OOC about any of them giving in?
[quote]
What was provided was criticism against linear
storytelling. Forcing all the characters to make the same choice,
regardless of whether it would be in-character for them and regardless
of their status with Hawke, allows for the characters development to be
ignored for the sake of the quest.
[/quote]
So you're no longer claiming it was OOC? Just Bad writing because Hawke can't persuade anyone?
Being a puppet for Hawke isn't character development.
[quote]
Actually, Marethari trained Merrill. Merrill addresses this
point.[/quote]
No. Merril says that the keeper told her that to resist demons you have to not believe them. Advice isn't training.
[quote]
The whole point isn't that she's wrong, the whole point is
that all the characters are being railroaded by the plot. And you're
ignoring that Merrill was able to deal with Audacity to learn blood
magic and still resist Audacity as the demon is still trapped in the
totem.[/quote]
I'm not ignoring anything. Audicity wanted to teach her to fix the eluvian. Merrill thinking the demon was still trapped was just her getting played.
You're still repeating that characters were forced as if that had meaning. Prove they were forced.
[quote]
It's not naive because Merrill isn't building the Eluvian to
Audacity's specifications, she's extrapolating information from the
shard she has and lore she's gathered.[/quote]
It's naive because she thinks she's in control and can outwit the demon. There's no specification. There's just ''fix the Eluvian using bloodmagic''. That's all the demon needs.
[quote]
This is the problem with your speculation, Exile. You're
mistaken about the events at hand, and using a theory you came up with
to back up your claims. WoG has stated that Merrill was building the
Eluvian based on information she was getting from the shard she brought
back from Ferelden and the lore she gathered.[/quote]
There's no speculation. It is stated explicitly in game that the demon was going to use the Eluvian to escape.
[quote]
I respectfully disagree. Merrill should have. Other
characters should have as well. However, Night Terrors ignores character
consistency for linear storytelling. That you lack information that
addresses a number of points you were wrong about doesn't mean Merrill
should be addressed according to an OOC moment that's consistently OOC
for other characters as well.[/quote]
There is no lack of information; there is fan-fiction on your part about how clever Merril is and how in-control she is, and a persistent desire to undermine what the Keeper says when she encounters Merril in Act III in an attempt to prove Merril is in control.
#141
Posté 22 avril 2011 - 07:53
Joy Divison
-
- Members
- 1 837 messages
In Exile wrote...
So why should these characters actually resist temptation?
You need a better argument than some people can.
But your argument that "they can't" will suffice?
I did give an argument. Each character have varying experiences, training w/ respect to the fade, willpower, etc. which would suggest different results. Since warrior/rogue Hawke CAN resist, I want to know why none of the otehrs can.
You have yet to give a reasonable explanation why Hawke is the only non-abomination in Thedas who can resist the temptation of a demon
Why would I address some irrelevant red herring you've raised?
That's not a red herring. It is an inconvenient point which demonstrates the inconsistent way in which Hawke and the other characters in DA2 are treated that you cannot address bc/ it derails your line of thinking
You haven't given any reason to believe some NPCs should resist temptation other than the fact you think they should.
False. Myself Lob8 and Ismael have all been pointing out legitimate scenarios based on lore, precedence of Origins, and the variations in the DA2 NPCs which you refuse to see or even acknowledge.
Your pejorative rant aside, I said none of this. I just said that it is in character for Merril to make a self-destructive deal with a demon.
No, you are saying much more. You are unwilling to accept a scenario in which she does NOT make an obvious self-destructive deal with a demon. In fact, you won't entertain any companion resisting the demon.
No, she isn't. That's part of the point.
Yes she is. She is a First and TELLS YOU that Marethari trained her to deal w/ demons in the fade when you speak with her.
She says she's cautious; but the whole point is that she's wrong. We actually see this.
I do see some caution. When she asks Hawke to accompany her in A New Path quest, that is as cautious and responsible as a mage dealing w/ demons can get. If she was as reckless as you say, she would have gone by herself.
Because naively believing a sketchy demon looked away in an elven burial ground is totally not lying and telling her what she wants to hear is naive. In fact, most of Merril's character is how naive she is.
No. What Anders did was naivety. Merrill recognizes there are no "good" spirits an understands her quest may end in demonic possession. She just believes it is worth the risk. That is not naivety. It is other things, obsessive, audacious, myopic perhaps, but she is right when she says she understood the risks and Marethari should have let Merrill take the consequences.
This is where the paying attention bit comes in handy. Merril doesn't deal with ''demons'' she deals with ''a demon'' and that demon is playing her like a fiddle to escape and posses her.
When she dispells the barrier when you first meet her, it's not the demon trapped in the cave who helps her. She also tells you "in all my dealing with spiritS". Thus demonS.
No, she shouldn't have. Yes, your Merrill should have, but that's because you seem to be really wrong about a lot of her character. That you didn't really understand her character isn't proof that her giving in to temptation was out of character.
LOL, I'm wrong and you're right. Nice. Has it occurred to you that since myself, Lob8, Ismael, and the others in these Merrill threads are pointing out these inconsistencies and railroading that things aren't as black and white as you think they are?
Modifié par Joy Divison, 22 avril 2011 - 08:24 .
#142
Posté 22 avril 2011 - 08:57
LobselVith8
-
- Members
- 16 993 messages
[quote]In Exile wrote...
They shouldn't stand anywhere with the protagonist. Whether they love or hate Hawke, what should matter is 1) whether they are the type of person to give in to temptation and 2) whether that temptation is enough to make them give in.
Each of them think about their choice and decide.
They're not ''forced'' to make any choice. That's nonsence. [/quote]
The problem is the quest doesn't take into account whether they love or hate Hawke, or how they character would react to a demon making an offer, because the quest forces all of the characters who accompany Hawke to make an act of betrayal. It has a character who could be a best friend and lover, and expects us to believe that an offer from a demon will cause every single character with Hawke to try to murder him, except for Anders.
Night Terror railroads the character regardless of whether it makes sense for them to stab Hawke in the back or not.
[quote]In Exile wrote...
It depends on who's offering what. Isabella/Meril and Varric will result in 2 temptations, for example.
More to the point, it doesn't matter so long as it is in character. [/quote]
The problem is it's not in character when the quest forces all of the characters to make the same choice of attempted murder.
[quote]In Exile wrote...
Stop begging the question. We're debating whether or not it is in-character for anyone to give in to temptation. If it is, there's no ''forcing'' and no ''OOC'' moment. There can't be, by definition.
I don't see what having to ''build character'' has to do with this conversation. [/quote]
I'm addressing that Night Terrors ignores the character development of the companions with Hawke to force them all to make the same choice.
[quote]In Exile wrote...
The keeper told her it was dangerous and refused her. The demon said it will all work out. Merril was tempted by the offer of bloodmagic and sought it out, and believed the demon when it said it would cleanse the mirror. She then gave into the Fade for the same reasons; that her people were more important than just Hawke, and she bought the line the Pride demon gave that he was stronger than her demon. [/quote]
You're providing more and more speculation, and presenting it as fact. Merrill wanted to cleanse the shard of her own volition, and went to Audacity to learn blood magic so she could remove the taint. And you're supporting your theory on a quest that railroads every single character into making the same choice, except for Anders.
[quote]In Exile wrote...
There's no precedent. There's just her character. That's it. It doesn't matter what happen in DA:O. If Morrigain suddenly gave into demons, that'd be OOC.
But there's nothing here other than your fervent desire that the companions resist and not betray Hawke. [/quote]
There's no reason every single character should try to murder Hawke because a demon asked them to.
[quote]In Exile wrote...
No, it isn't. First, not all the characters betray Hawke. 2 do (+ Justice if you side with Torpor and bring justice along).
There's no choice here. You want characters to listen to Hawke above demons; they don't. There's a lot of ridiculous and unsatisfying linearity in DA2, but not having every character felate at the altar that is Hawke is not one of them.
If anything, I think the ridiculous desing in DA2 is the characters giving a **** what Hawke does in Act III instead of following their own convictions (e.g. Sebastian). [/quote]
I expect the characters to be consistent to their behavior and attitude, not for every single character to act OOC and attempt to murder Hawke for plot contrivance.
[quote]In Exile wrote...
You keep saying this, but where's the proof? [/quote]
The proof is in every character (except Anders) making a betrayal because the plot demands it, regardless of whether it makes sense or not for the character to try to murder Hawke.
[quote]In Exile wrote...
It doesn't matter. You're still appealing to other games and other characters. Talk about those specific characters that made those choices.
What's OOC about Isabella betraying Hawke before going out and betraying Hawke at the end of the Act? What's OOC about Meril making a deal with a demon for exactly the same reasons she made a deal with a demon?
Who tempted anyone in Awakening? [/quote]
What's OOC is every character (save for one) trying to murder someone because a demon made an offer. It's ridiculous. People don't operate this way in real life. Someone doesn't simply make an offer to someone, and suddenly they are willing to kill you.
Also, the Baronness.
[quote]In Exile wrote...
But Hawke isn't a special snowflake unless you RP your Hawke to be a special snowflake. Torpor is your temptation. The other characters give in.
It's an irrelvant red herring because your only argument is that in DA:O people resisted. Let's talk about the characters - what's OOC about any of them giving in? [/quote]
The other characters give in because the plot says so, and it ignores what the character would do to force a battle between Hawke and the respective companion.
[quote]In Exile wrote...
So you're no longer claiming it was OOC? Just Bad writing because Hawke can't persuade anyone?
Being a puppet for Hawke isn't character development. [/quote]
Maybe you should try reading what I write instead of trying to come up with sub-par retorts that ignore the content of what's explicitly stated. It's OOC for every single character to try to murder Hawke because a demon made an offer to a companion.
Being consistent is what people expect, they aren't asking for any of the companions to be puppets.
[quote]In Exile wrote...
No. Merril says that the keeper told her that to resist demons you have to not believe them. Advice isn't training. [/quote]
You're incorrect once again. Merrill has been trained by Marethari. That's how she was able to use magic in the first place.
[quote]In Exile wrote...
I'm not ignoring anything. Audicity wanted to teach her to fix the eluvian. Merrill thinking the demon was still trapped was just her getting played. [/quote]
Feel free to stop providing your speculation as fact.
[quote]In Exile wrote...
You're still repeating that characters were forced as if that had meaning. Prove they were forced. [/quote]
The quest Night Terrors proves the characters were forced to make the same decision. That's the issue everyone is addressing to you.
[quote]In Exile wrote...
It's naive because she thinks she's in control and can outwit the demon. There's no specification. There's just ''fix the Eluvian using bloodmagic''. That's all the demon needs. [/quote]
Once again, you're providing your speculation as fact. Merrill never says she can outwit a demon, she advises Hawke to be safe if he's going to deal with an abomination in one of the Profane in the Deep Roads.
[quote]In Exile wrote...
There's no speculation. It is stated explicitly in game that the demon was going to use the Eluvian to escape. [/quote]
It's explicitly stated by Marethari because that's her speculation on the issue.
[quote]In Exile wrote...
There is no lack of information; there is fan-fiction on your part about how clever Merril is and how in-control she is, and a persistent desire to undermine what the Keeper says when she encounters Merril in Act III in an attempt to prove Merril is in control. [/quote]
The only person fan fic'ing ideas here is you when you continually present your assumptions as facts.
They shouldn't stand anywhere with the protagonist. Whether they love or hate Hawke, what should matter is 1) whether they are the type of person to give in to temptation and 2) whether that temptation is enough to make them give in.
Each of them think about their choice and decide.
They're not ''forced'' to make any choice. That's nonsence. [/quote]
The problem is the quest doesn't take into account whether they love or hate Hawke, or how they character would react to a demon making an offer, because the quest forces all of the characters who accompany Hawke to make an act of betrayal. It has a character who could be a best friend and lover, and expects us to believe that an offer from a demon will cause every single character with Hawke to try to murder him, except for Anders.
Night Terror railroads the character regardless of whether it makes sense for them to stab Hawke in the back or not.
[quote]In Exile wrote...
It depends on who's offering what. Isabella/Meril and Varric will result in 2 temptations, for example.
More to the point, it doesn't matter so long as it is in character. [/quote]
The problem is it's not in character when the quest forces all of the characters to make the same choice of attempted murder.
[quote]In Exile wrote...
Stop begging the question. We're debating whether or not it is in-character for anyone to give in to temptation. If it is, there's no ''forcing'' and no ''OOC'' moment. There can't be, by definition.
I don't see what having to ''build character'' has to do with this conversation. [/quote]
I'm addressing that Night Terrors ignores the character development of the companions with Hawke to force them all to make the same choice.
[quote]In Exile wrote...
The keeper told her it was dangerous and refused her. The demon said it will all work out. Merril was tempted by the offer of bloodmagic and sought it out, and believed the demon when it said it would cleanse the mirror. She then gave into the Fade for the same reasons; that her people were more important than just Hawke, and she bought the line the Pride demon gave that he was stronger than her demon. [/quote]
You're providing more and more speculation, and presenting it as fact. Merrill wanted to cleanse the shard of her own volition, and went to Audacity to learn blood magic so she could remove the taint. And you're supporting your theory on a quest that railroads every single character into making the same choice, except for Anders.
[quote]In Exile wrote...
There's no precedent. There's just her character. That's it. It doesn't matter what happen in DA:O. If Morrigain suddenly gave into demons, that'd be OOC.
But there's nothing here other than your fervent desire that the companions resist and not betray Hawke. [/quote]
There's no reason every single character should try to murder Hawke because a demon asked them to.
[quote]In Exile wrote...
No, it isn't. First, not all the characters betray Hawke. 2 do (+ Justice if you side with Torpor and bring justice along).
There's no choice here. You want characters to listen to Hawke above demons; they don't. There's a lot of ridiculous and unsatisfying linearity in DA2, but not having every character felate at the altar that is Hawke is not one of them.
If anything, I think the ridiculous desing in DA2 is the characters giving a **** what Hawke does in Act III instead of following their own convictions (e.g. Sebastian). [/quote]
I expect the characters to be consistent to their behavior and attitude, not for every single character to act OOC and attempt to murder Hawke for plot contrivance.
[quote]In Exile wrote...
You keep saying this, but where's the proof? [/quote]
The proof is in every character (except Anders) making a betrayal because the plot demands it, regardless of whether it makes sense or not for the character to try to murder Hawke.
[quote]In Exile wrote...
It doesn't matter. You're still appealing to other games and other characters. Talk about those specific characters that made those choices.
What's OOC about Isabella betraying Hawke before going out and betraying Hawke at the end of the Act? What's OOC about Meril making a deal with a demon for exactly the same reasons she made a deal with a demon?
Who tempted anyone in Awakening? [/quote]
What's OOC is every character (save for one) trying to murder someone because a demon made an offer. It's ridiculous. People don't operate this way in real life. Someone doesn't simply make an offer to someone, and suddenly they are willing to kill you.
Also, the Baronness.
[quote]In Exile wrote...
But Hawke isn't a special snowflake unless you RP your Hawke to be a special snowflake. Torpor is your temptation. The other characters give in.
It's an irrelvant red herring because your only argument is that in DA:O people resisted. Let's talk about the characters - what's OOC about any of them giving in? [/quote]
The other characters give in because the plot says so, and it ignores what the character would do to force a battle between Hawke and the respective companion.
[quote]In Exile wrote...
So you're no longer claiming it was OOC? Just Bad writing because Hawke can't persuade anyone?
Being a puppet for Hawke isn't character development. [/quote]
Maybe you should try reading what I write instead of trying to come up with sub-par retorts that ignore the content of what's explicitly stated. It's OOC for every single character to try to murder Hawke because a demon made an offer to a companion.
Being consistent is what people expect, they aren't asking for any of the companions to be puppets.
[quote]In Exile wrote...
No. Merril says that the keeper told her that to resist demons you have to not believe them. Advice isn't training. [/quote]
You're incorrect once again. Merrill has been trained by Marethari. That's how she was able to use magic in the first place.
[quote]In Exile wrote...
I'm not ignoring anything. Audicity wanted to teach her to fix the eluvian. Merrill thinking the demon was still trapped was just her getting played. [/quote]
Feel free to stop providing your speculation as fact.
[quote]In Exile wrote...
You're still repeating that characters were forced as if that had meaning. Prove they were forced. [/quote]
The quest Night Terrors proves the characters were forced to make the same decision. That's the issue everyone is addressing to you.
[quote]In Exile wrote...
It's naive because she thinks she's in control and can outwit the demon. There's no specification. There's just ''fix the Eluvian using bloodmagic''. That's all the demon needs. [/quote]
Once again, you're providing your speculation as fact. Merrill never says she can outwit a demon, she advises Hawke to be safe if he's going to deal with an abomination in one of the Profane in the Deep Roads.
[quote]In Exile wrote...
There's no speculation. It is stated explicitly in game that the demon was going to use the Eluvian to escape. [/quote]
It's explicitly stated by Marethari because that's her speculation on the issue.
[quote]In Exile wrote...
There is no lack of information; there is fan-fiction on your part about how clever Merril is and how in-control she is, and a persistent desire to undermine what the Keeper says when she encounters Merril in Act III in an attempt to prove Merril is in control. [/quote]
The only person fan fic'ing ideas here is you when you continually present your assumptions as facts.
#143
Posté 22 avril 2011 - 09:10
DemonLord4lf
-
- Members
- 157 messages
and around and around we go... Nothing knew being stated here... just same arguements from both sides...
#144
Posté 22 avril 2011 - 10:09
Joy Divison
-
- Members
- 1 837 messages
Justifying plot contrivance isn't an argument.
#145
Posté 22 avril 2011 - 10:24
DemonLord4lf
-
- Members
- 157 messages
perhaps, but its the same thing over and over... i've read both of your posts, and it feels like im reading the same post for a 100th time x.x
#146
Posté 24 avril 2011 - 03:48
TEWR
-
- Members
- 16 987 messages
Alright, I'll ask. What's being argued here?
#147
Posté 24 avril 2011 - 03:57
In Exile
-
- Members
- 28 738 messages
DemonLord4lf wrote...
perhaps, but its the same thing over and over... i've read both of your posts, and it feels like im reading the same post for a 100th time x.x
I agree; I'm backing away. I should have done it earlier, but I felt as if there was some hope at one point.
The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...
Alright, I'll ask.
What's being argued here?
Whether or not Merril betraying Hawke was in character, and then again whether or not the rest of the cast betraying Hawke was OOC if they were tempted.
#148
Posté 24 avril 2011 - 04:14
TEWR
-
- Members
- 16 987 messages
ok. and what's everyone's stance on the issue of Merrill being OOC or IC?
#149
Posté 24 avril 2011 - 04:25
Xilizhra
-
- Members
- 30 873 messages
It's not temptation as such, it's mind control that the demons can access via being in a Fade realm of their own design. Like Origins' sloth demon.
#150
Posté 24 avril 2011 - 04:42
jlb524
-
- Members
- 19 954 messages
Xilizhra wrote...
It's not temptation as such, it's mind control that the demons can access via being in a Fade realm of their own design. Like Origins' sloth demon.
Yeah, recall Leliana didn't even remember who the Warden was in the Fade (and even Wynne had issues in the Fade).
It's tough to judge OOC-ness when talking about fully sumberging a character's mind within the Fade. It's more like a dream than anything, where subconscious desires ofter rule.
