39 réponses à ce sujet

[knarayan]

Right, so there's Dumat, Zazikel, Toth, Andoral, Razikale, Lusacan and Urthemiel. Dumat was 1st blight Zazikel was the second. Which one is our AD? Which ones are left?  Are there any codex entries that give this info?

[Taleroth]

Ours is Urthemiel. Maybe This is going by the presumption that they are going in order and that they are indeed the Old Gods.

[Ponce de Leon]

There is a limited number of archdemons? Ah, that's a bright switch of events

[knarayan]

So is there a question there? The Archdemons may NOT be the Old Gods?

[Ulicus]

Taleroth wrote...

Ours is Urthemiel. Maybe This is going by the presumption that they are going in order and that they are indeed the Old Gods.

Well, yeah -- and that the "Archdemon" entry flat out states that the 5th is Urthemiel after you see it in the Deep Roads. (could be wrong, of course)

[Taleroth]

Ulicus wrote...

Taleroth wrote...

Ours is Urthemiel. Maybe This is going by the presumption that they are going in order and that they are indeed the Old Gods.

Well, yeah -- and that the "Archdemon" entry flat out states that the 5th is Urthemiel after you see it in the Deep Roads. (could be wrong, of course)

You do realize that every single codex entry in the entire game is written in-universe, right?  None of them are objective truths, just what somebody within the setting believes.  This leads to some awkwardness when you wonder who the heck studied broodmothers in such depth to know how many Darkspawn they produce over a lifetime.

knarayan wrote...

So is there a question there? The Archdemons may NOT be the Old Gods?

There is always a question.

Modifié par Taleroth, 21 décembre 2009 - 04:49 .

[Thiefy]

well assuming that maybe they are the old gods, since that is what morrigan was after, what happens to the blight after the last archdemon?

[DPSSOC]

Thief-of-Hearts wrote...

well assuming that maybe they are the old gods, since that is what morrigan was after, what happens to the blight after the last archdemon?

Good times

[Taleroth]

Thief-of-Hearts wrote...

well assuming that maybe they are the old gods, since that is what morrigan was after, what happens to the blight after the last archdemon?

They go after other deified personifications.  Next it's the Elven Pantheon.  After that, the Maker himself.

[Squiggles1334]

Thief-of-Hearts wrote...

well assuming that maybe they are the old gods, since that is what morrigan was after, what happens to the blight after the last archdemon?

Bad speculative fanfiction.

[Ulicus]

Taleroth wrote...

Ulicus wrote...

Taleroth wrote...

Ours is Urthemiel. Maybe This is going by the presumption that they are going in order and that they are indeed the Old Gods.

Well, yeah -- and that the "Archdemon" entry flat out states that the 5th is Urthemiel after you see it in the Deep Roads. (could be wrong, of course)

You do realize that every single codex entry in the entire game is written in-universe, right?  None of them are objective truths, just what somebody within the setting believes.  This leads to some awkwardness when you wonder who the heck studied broodmothers in such depth to know how many Darkspawn they produce over a lifetime.

Hence the "could be wrong" disclaimer, yeah. Though I was under the impression that it was just those codex entries attributed to an author that were IU. The archdemon entry has no author, I don't think. If they're all IU then... yeah, a little awkward.

Either way, I wasn't suggesting you were wrong about the "maybe" -- of course we can only say "maybe" -- I'm just pointing out that there's more that tells us "Urthemiel = 5th Archdemon" (rightly or wrongly) than the two presumptions you put forth.  

[Dark83]

The problem of "everything is IU, therefore it may be wrong" is that some of the IU entries are actually compiled articles. Specifically with regards to the Old Gods, it's written that it's the conclusion of many researchers after many debates. That's pretty much like our own understanding of history and science - is that all in doubt as well?

[Taleroth]

Ulicus wrote...

Taleroth wrote...

Ulicus wrote...

Taleroth wrote...

Ours is Urthemiel. Maybe This is going by the presumption that they are going in order and that they are indeed the Old Gods.

Well, yeah -- and that the "Archdemon" entry flat out states that the 5th is Urthemiel after you see it in the Deep Roads. (could be wrong, of course)

You do realize that every single codex entry in the entire game is written in-universe, right?  None of them are objective truths, just what somebody within the setting believes.  This leads to some awkwardness when you wonder who the heck studied broodmothers in such depth to know how many Darkspawn they produce over a lifetime.

Hence the "could be wrong" disclaimer, yeah. Though I was under the impression that it was just those codex entries attributed to an author that were IU. The archdemon entry has no author, I don't think. If they're all IU then... yeah, a little awkward.

Either way, I wasn't suggesting you were wrong about the "maybe" -- of course we can only say "maybe" -- I'm just pointing out that there's more that tells us "Urthemiel = 5th Archdemon" (rightly or wrongly) than the two presumptions you put forth.  

Fair enough.  Hope I wasn't too confrontational/patronizing.

Dark83 wrote...

The problem of "everything is IU, therefore it may be wrong" is that some of the IU entries are actually compiled articles. Specifically with regards to the Old Gods, it's written that it's the conclusion of many researchers after many debates. That's pretty much like our own understanding of history and science - is that all in doubt as well?

Depends on the entry.  The identity of Archdemons isn't exactly susceptible to experimentation.  Science isn't based on debate, we did away with thinking that the understanding of the world can be reached through mere reasoning centuries ago.  Thedas (and internet forums) hasn't reached that stage yet.  Science is based on Empiricism, observation.

Much of history is debateable, as well.  Especially the more ancient or theological aspects.

Modifié par Taleroth, 21 décembre 2009 - 08:27 .

[Sylixe]

Isn't the Arch demons real name "The Easiest end boss in a game to kill ever"?

There are other bosses in the game that are way harder.

[Ulicus]

Taleroth wrote...
Fair enough.  Hope I wasn't too confrontational/patronizing.

Not at all, no worries.

[Baalzie]

Dark83 wrote...

The problem of "everything is IU, therefore it may be wrong" is that some of the IU entries are actually compiled articles. Specifically with regards to the Old Gods, it's written that it's the conclusion of many researchers after many debates. That's pretty much like our own understanding of history and science - is that all in doubt as well?

Yes!
If You didn't notice/know, history as we know it changes all the time... We unearth more and more that goes against what we thought was the truth...
All we knew about the Chartaginians for a while was what the Romans stated... Same with Cleopatra*that one still holds, all histroians writing abt Cleo was roman males and that coloured their writings alot hence the harloty touch to her everywhere* and many other that the romans conquered...

All Civilizations have tried to do the same against their counterpartsd, befouling the memory of them for posterity...

And add to it religious motives...
We're not just talking history here...
All those historians in the codex are Chantry historians, then we have shapers and keepers sayintg their bits... And it's well known that Elven and Human beliefs are contradictory in many ways *atleast what the Chantry states about the maker and Old Gods*... So what to believe?
Do You really think by the letter christians believe in history as we "know" it? Or Ditto Muslims? Taoists and Buddhiosts?
The Chinese see history totally different from Our "western" view... And I'm talking Chinese history here...

Etcetera etcetera worldwide throughout history...
Name ONE single historical fact *older than 100 years* that is proven without ANY shadow of a doubt 100% real and correct? And just WHY do we believe it? Because "it was written in a book/on stone tablets/parchment/papyrusscrolls/whatnot" oh hell, that means it MUST be true.....

ALWAYS critically doubt historical "facts"... Just because lots belive it's true it isn't automatically so...
*Or we'd have no religions or just one if any was right which I doubt*

[Dark83]

I may be wrong, but aren't entire swathes of our knowledge from the Church as well? Since those were the literate people who could actually keep records. Genetics came from a monk experimenting with peas, no?

[Taleroth]

Dark83 wrote...

I may be wrong, but aren't entire swathes of our knowledge from the Church as well? Since those were the literate people who could actually keep records. Genetics came from a monk experimenting with peas, no?

Yeah, and people who opposed geocentricism were put on trial.

Inspiring some ideas doesn't make a group unquestionable.

Modifié par Taleroth, 21 décembre 2009 - 08:57 .

[Dark83]

No, but what I'm trying to point out is that "it's just the chantry saying it" is no grounds at all for saying they're wrong. Especially since (in universe) they've studied and debated it for centuries. They could be wrong, but they're not wrong simply by the virtue of being the Chantry.

[Taleroth]

Dark83 wrote...

No, but what I'm trying to point out is that "it's just the chantry saying it" is no grounds at all for saying they're wrong. Especially since (in universe) they've studied and debated it for centuries. They could be wrong, but they're not wrong simply by the virtue of being the Chantry.

Nobody is saying that it is.  So, you're basically arguing against straw there.

[Arcaia]

Baalzie wrote...

Name ONE single historical fact *older than 100 years* that is proven without ANY shadow of a doubt 100% real and correct?

The French Revolution actually happened.  Began 1789, so about 220 years ago

Admittedly, I would be surprised that anyone would argue that it didn't happen. That it wasn't what people make it out to be, I'd probably agree with you, but that it simply never took place is undeniably wrong.

If it weren't for the 100 years clause, I would have said " I exist. So do you."

Unless... we are all figments of a deranged imagination?



OH NOES!

Modifié par Arcaia, 21 décembre 2009 - 09:35 .

[Dark83]

Taleroth wrote...

Nobody is saying that it is.  So, you're basically arguing against straw there.

Uh, that would only be if I was actually arguing against something. I was reinforcing and adding to my initial point that IU does not mean incorrect.

[DPSSOC]

Arcaia wrote...

If it weren't for the 100 years clause, I would have said " I exist. So do you."

Unless... we are all figments of a deranged imagination?

Then we exist as figments of that imagination.

Just because something isn't real doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Modifié par DPSSOC, 21 décembre 2009 - 09:39 .

[Taleroth]

Dark83 wrote...

Taleroth wrote...

Nobody is saying that it is.  So, you're basically arguing against straw there.

Uh, that would only be if I was actually arguing against something. I was reinforcing and adding to my initial point that IU does not mean incorrect.

Well, of course you weren't actually arguing against something.  That's the point of straw, arguing against a point that doesn't exist to make your position seem stronger.

is no grounds at all for saying they're wrong.

Is to expliticly arguing against a claim that they are wrong.  Which is thus irrelevent as nobody's stating they indeed are.  Just that they, very reasonably, might be wrong.  And your statement does not remotely contest this possibility in the slightest.

Nobody is stating that IU is incorrect.  Just that its reasonable to question.  Even numerous characters within the game make this point.  Oghren, Wynne, and Alistair all do it.

Modifié par Taleroth, 21 décembre 2009 - 09:44 .

[Dark83]

Nobody in this thread. I was cutting it off at the head, as it were. You must have missed the Morrigan's Dark Rituals thread where people dismiss the Old Gods/Archdemon link entirely - because it's the Chantry saying so.