Wait what? The little boy was killed by Templars who locked him away without food or water and left.
Technically we don't know that as a matter of fact; the source for that claim is "Cole" him/itself. It's entirely possible that a little boy was left to die without food or water and that the spirit/demon now pretending to be Cole killed him before he starved.
I'm guessing you've never read Dragon Age: Asunder?
You are incorrect.
You are incorrect.
My apologies then. Reading your posts it sounded like someone who hadn't read the book wondering about the character while using the posts from the BSN as their reference.
"You forgot him in that cell, and I heard his cries when no one else would. I went to him, and held his hand in the darkness until it was over. When the templars found him, they erased everything to hide their shame...and I was helpless to act."
The bolded part implies that the spirit/demon wasn't a part of or controlling the real Cole at the time but it is questionable since this information comes from the potential guilty party. Beyond this piece of information, everything is opinion or theory.
Edit: Also questionable how the real Cole died, it's never specifically stated.
The bolded part implies that the spirit/demon wasn't a part of or controlling the real Cole at the time but it is questionable since this information comes from the potential guilty party. Beyond this piece of information, everything is opinion or theory.
Edit: Also questionable how the real Cole died, it's never specifically stated.
Agreed, though like you said we have no information other than Cole's testimony so innocent until proven guilty.
A victim of circumstance? Perhaps the boy the creature is mocking is, but the creature is not. The Boy was probably the creatures first victim.
Ok...now you're just making things up. You're saying he's lie about how Cole died even when he had no reason to lie.
You are incorrect.
Then why are you jump to such a large conclusion when everything is stated to be the opposite of it? You now making up thing to try to convict him.
Ok...now you're just making things up. You're saying he's lie about how Cole died even when he had no reason to lie.
Especially considering he owns up to his other kills.
@PatrickWeekes I have a not-so-spoiler question from the Cole thread on the forums (Faerah, hi =D) will we see Cole smile? maybe even laugh?
@Thrissir That depends on your choices. 
@PatrickWeekes I have a not-so-spoiler question from the Cole thread on the forums (Faerah, hi =D) will we see Cole smile? maybe even laugh?
@Thrissir That depends on your choices.
Okay, I have a goal for the game: To make Cole smile. 
Technically we don't know that as a matter of fact; the source for that claim is "Cole" him/itself. It's entirely possible that a little boy was left to die without food or water and that the spirit/demon now pretending to be Cole killed him before he starved.
He had no form yet to do that. Added, in cases like that they possess mages not kill them. Cole has no reason to lie about it.
Okay, I have a goal for the game: To make Cole smile.
I think it can happen if you acknowledge his good deeds and call him a good boy.
A lie of omission is still a lie. It didn't tell Rhys about the murders for some time. Maybe it hasn't gotten around to fully disclosing what happened to Cole.
He had no form yet to do that. Added, in cases like that they possess mages not kill them. Cole has no reason to lie about it.
Who said it didn't have a form? In fact it says it held the child's hand.
I'm not going to lie, the theory of Cole being killed by the spirit/demon instead of dehydration/starvation is intriguing. But personally I feel like that makes the character even more interesting and deep. Especially if he regrets it and wants to atone.
Who said it didn't have a form? In fact it says it held the child's hand.
And the templers did not see this "body".
I'm not going to lie, the theory of Cole being killed by the spirit/demon instead of dehydration/starvation is intriguing. But personally I feel like that makes the character even more interesting and deep. Especially if he regrets it and wants to atone.
But it's a baseless theory.
A lie of omission is still a lie. It didn't tell Rhys about the murders for some time. Maybe it hasn't gotten around to fully disclosing what happened to Cole.
We have no good reason to assume he is lying though. Absence of evidence is not evidence. Until we have a contradicting story from another source, we can't just assume Cole is lying about what happened to the boy that became his namesake.
But it's a baseless theory.
It's not entirely baseless. It's never stated exactly how the real Cole dies.
Edit: And it's as valid as a theory like dehydration, since it's not stated he thirst to death either.
I really wish there was something more than just "like". The hat is the best part.
A lie of omission is still a lie. It didn't tell Rhys about the murders for some time. Maybe it hasn't gotten around to fully disclosing what happened to Cole.
Cole has no reason to lie out of omission. The entire point of that scene was to show that Cole is beginning to know who he is and that he is gaining control over himself. Add there no reason he's going to lie to the person he is about to kill.
And the templers did not see this "body".
Invisible, remember? Or maybe they don't. there's that power, too.
We have no good reason to assume he is lying though. Absence of evidence is not evidence. Until we have a contradicting story from another source, we can't just assume Cole is lying about what happened to the boy that became his namesake.
Cole may be the only name the Creature knew at the time. The only face. Deception is the creatures fundamental trait. Hiding, omitting, misdirecting. Lying is no great leap for one such as it.
Retour en haut
