39 réponses à ce sujet

[The Angry One]

It's not just the Chantry saying so, there's a reasonable amount of evidence to assume that the dragon-beings known as old gods are now Archdemons.

[Irthir]

Don't you think that maybe a archdemon it's just a high dragon tainted? Usually the simple answer it's the right one. It's something I thought while I was reading your posts, they could get tainted like the other animals.

Modifié par Irthir, 21 décembre 2009 - 10:07 .

[DPSSOC]

Irthir wrote...

Don't you think that maybe a archdemon it's just a high dragon tainted? Usually the simple answer it's the right one. It's something I thought while I was reading your posts, they could get tainted like the other animals.

Possible however I submit that any creature that large and capable of flight is not going to be found underground unless it's put there.

[Taleroth]

The Angry One wrote...

It's not just the Chantry saying so, there's a reasonable amount of evidence to assume that the dragon-beings known as old gods are now Archdemons.

What other evidence is there?  Is it something in The Calling?

I'm more inclined to believe they are than they are not, I feel like noting.  But the game and characters seem pretty big on treating established dogma as questionable, if worth considering, starting the moment you talk to Wynne in Ostagar.

Supposedly even Alistair and Duncan don't speak of the Archdemon being Old Gods in any definitive sense, but I couldn't quote them.

Modifié par Taleroth, 21 décembre 2009 - 10:17 .

[The Angry One]

Irthir wrote...

Don't you think that maybe a archdemon it's just a high dragon tainted? Usually the simple answer it's the right one. It's something I thought while I was reading your posts, they could get tainted like the other animals.

Well I've gone over this before and the answer is the same, if the Darkspawn could simply taint any high dragon, they wouldn't be digging for centuries for an old god, and Blights would be a lot more common.
For example they could just taint "Andraste". Yes, that dragon isn't sleeping and can fight.. but so what? Send 50 darkspawn against it. All you need is for her to bite down on one, get it's blood in her and bam! Tainted.

[Dark83]

DPSSOC wrote...

Irthir wrote...

Don't you think that maybe a archdemon it's just a high dragon tainted? Usually the simple answer it's the right one. It's something I thought while I was reading your posts, they could get tainted like the other animals.

Possible however I submit that any creature that large and capable of flight is not going to be found underground unless it's put there.

Bats seem to enjoy living underground.
If we had a cavern system as large (and bright) as what exists in Thedas, and if physics actually supported such large flying creatures, it wouldn't be a surprise to have these things.

[Taleroth]

The Angry One wrote...

Irthir wrote...

Don't you think that maybe a archdemon it's just a high dragon tainted? Usually the simple answer it's the right one. It's something I thought while I was reading your posts, they could get tainted like the other animals.

Well I've gone over this before and the answer is the same, if the Darkspawn could simply taint any high dragon, they wouldn't be digging for centuries for an old god, and Blights would be a lot more common.
For example they could just taint "Andraste". Yes, that dragon isn't sleeping and can fight.. but so what? Send 50 darkspawn against it. All you need is for her to bite down on one, get it's blood in her and bam! Tainted.

Nobody said they were smart.  It'd be just like the Darkspawn to dig down for flying creatures instead of looking up.

[The Angry One]

Taleroth wrote...

What other evidence is there?  Is it something in The Calling?

I think it details how the darkspawn spend their time between Blights digging for the next old god, I may be wrong though.

I'm more inclined to believe they are than they are not, I feel like noting.  But the game and characters seem pretty big on treating established dogma as questionable, if worth considering, starting the moment you talk to Wynne in Ostagar.

I'm the first one to question the rubbish the Chantry puts out, but the facts are, old gods were dragons, and so are Archdemons. Archdemons have a power no other being has when tainted (the strongest hurlock warlord can only dominate a small unit of darkspawn) and if it were just a regular old dragon, Blights would be more common.

[The Angry One]

Taleroth wrote..

Nobody said they were smart.  It'd be just like the Darkspawn to dig down for flying creatures instead of looking up.

I assume they have some sort of sense that draws them to the old gods by any means necesarry, maybe some telepathic signal the old gods send out whether they want to or not.

[XOGHunter246]

Dumat, the Dragon of Silence and the first Archdemon
Zazikel, the Dragon of Chaos, and Archdemon of the Second Blight
Toth, the Dragon of Fire, and Archdemon of the Third Blight
Andoral, the Dragon of Chains, and Archdemon of the Fourth Blight
Urthemiel, the Dragon of Beauty, the Archdemon of the Fifth Blight, in Ferelden
Razikale, the Dragon of Mystery
Lusacan, the Dragon of Night

Last two are the ones that haven't appeared yet as these blights have not happened as of yet i do not belive the chantry this only makes sense.

Modifié par XOGHunter246, 21 décembre 2009 - 10:34 .

[Taleroth]

The Angry One wrote...

if it were just a regular old dragon, Blights would be more common.

This is the only part of your post I can really question.  Until recently dragons were thought extinct, so we can't say how much more common.  However, it's a reasonable premise.

At the same time, we can't simply say that just because it's probably not a High Dragon that it's automatically one of THE Old Gods.  These are living creatures we're talking about here.  The Archdemons could be created from the children of the Old Gods.  Or simply something otherwise between High Dragon and Old God.  Either way, their number and identities remain in question.  Could be confusing Hercules for Zeus, as it were.

However, I doubt there will ever be total clarification on this.  So for all reasonable purposes, considering the DA Archdemon to be Urthemiel is simple enough.

Modifié par Taleroth, 21 décembre 2009 - 10:26 .

[DPSSOC]

Dark83 wrote...

DPSSOC wrote...

Irthir wrote...

Don't you think that maybe a archdemon it's just a high dragon tainted? Usually the simple answer it's the right one. It's something I thought while I was reading your posts, they could get tainted like the other animals.

Possible however I submit that any creature that large and capable of flight is not going to be found underground unless it's put there.

Bats seem to enjoy living underground.
If we had a cavern system as large (and bright) as what exists in Thedas, and if physics actually supported such large flying creatures, it wouldn't be a surprise to have these things.

Bats like sleeping underground but at night they usually make for the skies.  Bats are also only slightly bigger than my fist.  Most of the large underground spaces we find are joined by rather small tunnels if there were dragons moving about underground don't you think there'd be large caverns connected by exceptionally large tunnels?  It's possible Thedas harbours the environment for subterranean dragons but it seems unlikely

Modifié par DPSSOC, 21 décembre 2009 - 10:44 .

[Dark83]

Funny. On reflection, I have discovered irony.

Taleroth wrote...

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.

My point was IU doesn't mean incorrect, and Chantry doesn't automatically mean incorrect either. This is my only point.
You attacked this point, by bringing up relevance of my issue with another, and arguing that my point isn't relevant to a different issue (which if obviously isn't, seeing as it wasn't meant to be).

So you've used the straw man fallacy, as a straw man, to argue against my statements.

Awesome.

Modifié par Dark83, 21 décembre 2009 - 10:52 .

[Atreiden]

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?

considering we have creationist running around in our real world, then yes, apparently everything can be doubted.

[AntiChri5]

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?

Gregor Mendel