45 réponses à ce sujet

[Taleroth]

I really like the idea, though. I'm always a fan of atypical companions. I read a lot of Discworld, which brings up a chicken/egg question.

[kevinwastaken]

As long as you can use the murder-knife on it, I'm game.

[Mordaedil]

Just one question then.



Why?

[Kimberly Shaw]

Bit of a spoiler, but if you play through as a Dalish elf, you do get to talk to a darkspawn in your camp for a bit. I had high hopes I could make him stay in my camp as a friend if not a playable NPC, but alas...no.

[Revik]

I suppose its possible but it would require extraordinary circumstances.

You would need to find an instance inwhich a Grey Warden, an person sworn to eradicating all dark spawn, would not want to slay a darkspawn in the first place.  You would also need to find an instance in which a darkspawn would be at all interested in surviving over wanton destruction.  You would also need to find an instance in which a Grey Warden would even listen let alone believe a darkspawn in the first place. 

Assuming all circumstances above are even possible why stop at just darkspawn.  How about a soding archdemon?

I am just not seeing it without the circumstances either being too ridiculous or completely unbelieveable.  Loghain was a stretch but in the end was a fitting punishment.

[enderandrew]

Is it possible that a Darkspawn is intelligent?



Yes, certainly. The Archdemon is supposed to be intelligent. Could you have a Darkspawn companion?



No, for reasons that are better discussed in spoiler areas.

[J.O.G]

Taleroth wrote...
Edit: Fowler's usage is different than mine, yes.  However, Fowler's usage is also not consisitent with the previous poster's.  So they both disagree with his use.  This special case would actually deny the rule, not simply be exempt from it.  Nor would an exemption even make the previous poster's point.  Nothing about Fowler's criticism makes "meaningless flair" a valid use.

If you're looking at Wikipedia, he's using the loose rhetorical sense.

Well, obviously I'm not the only one who uses it that way in english, or you wouldn't have waited for it. Languages evolve you know, and sometimes phrases change their meaning. The f-word, for example, has long ago moved on from its limited original meaning; same for wicked or kinky. Googling wasn't even a word 11 years ago.

Language nitpicking is fine, but one could use it for something productive like improving one's grammar, instead of pointing out how wrong it is when colloquial uses of phrases are so utterly wrong.

Modifié par J.O.G, 10 décembre 2009 - 05:16 .

[Taleroth]

J.O.G wrote...

Taleroth wrote...
Edit: Fowler's usage is different than mine, yes.  However, Fowler's usage is also not consisitent with the previous poster's.  So they both disagree with his use.  This special case would actually deny the rule, not simply be exempt from it.  Nor would an exemption even make the previous poster's point.  Nothing about Fowler's criticism makes "meaningless flair" a valid use.

If you're looking at Wikipedia, he's using the loose rhetorical sense.

Well, obviously I'm not the only one who uses it that way in english, or you wouldn't have waited for it. Languages evolve you know, and sometimes phrases change their meaning the f-word for example has long ago moved on from its original meaning, same for wicked or kinky. Googling wasn't even a word 11 years ago.

Language nitpicking is fine, but one could use it for something productive like improving one's grammar, instead of pointing out how wrong it is when colloquial uses of phrases are so utterly wrong.

Like I said, it's a button of mine.  This phrase in particular.

If we're going to speak of evolution of language, let's at least acknowledge those words have a use, even as coloring or flair.  That particular use of "exception that proves the rule" borders on nonsense and lends as a justification for believing that rules simply can be ignored.  Which is somewhat objectionable a notion.  Of course, that's more when it's used for non-fiction applications.

If someone were to claim "exception that proves the rule" as a sort of justification for faster than light travel without breaking relativity or causality, I'd simply go spare.

Perpetual motion machine!  WHAT?! WHAT?!  But you can't do that!
Exceptions prove the rule!
*froths at mouth*

Modifié par Taleroth, 10 décembre 2009 - 05:24 .

[Mikazukinoyaiba2]

Personally I don't want my blood-thirsty evil demonic enemies to become a "grey area".



I prefer my demons to be clearly THE BAD GUYS, not sympathetic or "just another intelligent being". Death to all dark spawn, call me racist if you wish.

[Alexus_VG]

I would have to say a big hell no from me. I haven't read the books and all the extra lore people here are refering to but I see no way this could ever fit into the story of the game the way it is, and even if it could somehow be addapted I'd still strugle to see why...

[Arvay5]

lol who wouldnt want a crazed darkspawn as a friend (= not all of us want to be good I would help the Archdemon given the chance

[thegreateski]

There are some Darkspawn who are intelligent.



They ALL WANT TO KILL YOU.

[Tairos89]

I always love hearing the classic "lol it has magic/lasers/aliens/mythical beasts, so anything goes!!!" argument. Very intelligent.

[Girchou]

It could be one of the tevinter mages who userped the golden city who survived all this time and is angry at what he has done

and will join you

he could possibly be very strong

[Wolfva2]

Kimberly Shaw wrote...

Bit of a spoiler, but if you play through as a Dalish elf, you do get to talk to a darkspawn in your camp for a bit. I had high hopes I could make him stay in my camp as a friend if not a playable NPC, but alas...no.

I'll forego my usual ranting about spoilers to say, "Eh?  Huh.  I missed that when I ran through with my Dalish Elf."  Feel free to email me more info <LOL>.

Darkspawn are soulless marauders who live only to kill.  But, they're not brainless.  After all, they DO know how to make weapons; even if the weapons are normal weapons that have absorbed the taint and thus become darkspawn weapons, they do know how to use those weapons.  And they are at least intelligent enough to know how to put on clothes.  Look at all the buckles on their armor.  They may not be as bright as Sandal, but they're not drooling village idiots either.

[Bullets McDeath]

I think this would be way too obvious and cliche. It would be as bad as the millions of good Drow (each of whom seemingly exists in a vaccum where they are the ONLY exception to the rule that all Drow are evil) or vampires that hunt vampires, or whatever. It would just be lazy and honestly once a darkspawn starts talking and drinking tea and siding against his people, he's not much of a Darkspawn really, so what is the point?

[Enoch VG]

Eh, why not?! Their motivations, culture, etc., are never really explained, other than that they dig for Dragons, get all ornery when they find them, and provide a nice McGuffin for the story. So there is a lot of room for a later game to add in the depth that they lack in this one.

The game already has immortal witches, talking trees, and friendly ghosts. I don't see any reason why, say, a rebellious Genlock Emissary couldn't end up fighting with the player.

[SheffSteel]

I have a prediction.

This idea would gain mass support if...

teh darkspawn had bewbz.

Just sayin'

[Adria Teksuni]

While later conversations with Wynne explain her interest in Abominations, I again think that it would not be a bad springboard for a possible DS companion.

[Wolfva2]

Could you imagine the broodmother as a waitress? "Here's yer coffe, w'ld ya like 1 squirt 'r 2?"