122 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

He's claiming that it's possibly true, not that it is necessarily true.

"Possibly true" meaning that he can believe it himself with enough mental gymnastics and wishful thinking, or possibly meaning that it might actually be true in the sense of the protagonist actually being the OGB?

If it's only his own belief, what's the point of the thread? People can believe anything, no matter how preposterous.

And if we're talking about it whether or not it's actually true, I'm with In Exile. The arguments are the same whether or not we're talking about possibility.

[Nightdragon8]

OGB is NOT the MC of DA:I

 

You are not playing a 12 yo child in command of a military force, no matter how speical you are, Unless you are blood magic controlling everyone.

[Steppenwolf]

@Steppnwolf
 
Yes, that is what most wardens think before their calling arrives but in the book "The Calling" the Warden Commander of Orlais who went on his calling is captured by the Architect and during his captivity he begins to turn into a darkspawn. I think this warden commander's name was Bergen and you get to buy his helmet at camp depending on what version of Origins that you have.  Same thing with Lyrius in the Legacy. 
 
Point being you go on your calling to die and you might get lucky and darkspawn do kill you.  It depends how far gone with the calling that you are.  There is a point where the song and other darkspawn won't attack you because you've started the process of becoming a darkspawn.

The Architect accelerated the process. It's not like a matter of hours or even days, it's a long process. That's why the Architect accelerated it.

[Sylvius the Mad]

"Possibly true" meaning that he can believe it himself with enough mental gymnastics and wishful thinking, or possibly meaning that it might actually be true in the sense of the protagonist actually being the OGB?

If it's only his own belief, what's the point of the thread? People can believe anything, no matter how preposterous.

And if we're talking about it whether or not it's actually true, I'm with In Exile. The arguments are the same whether or not we're talking about possibility.

We're certainly not talking about whether it's possible that the OGB is always the case.  That's obviously false.  We know this.

 

The point of a thread like this is to point out that there is no one perception of how things are that is mandatory.  We don't all have to enjoy the game the same way.  We don't all have to insist that the Inquisitor isn't the OGB.  It shouldn't matter to us at all that someone wants to play the Inquisitor as if he is the OGB.

 

But that also means that we shouldn't ever insist that the Inquisitor is anyone in particular, because that necessarily excludes all other interpretations.  That's why I'm supporting the OP, here.  It's not important that anyone agree that the Inquisitor is the OGB.  But it's important that no one can meaningfully claim that the OP is wrong about that.

[KC_Prototype]

Sadly, no, he/she is not because the OGB can only be a boy. But maybe for those who did the DR, in DA4  for your male characters you have the OGB background. That be awesome!

[Deflagratio]

And if you didn't make OGB call in the Keep, you just start up the game and it says "Game Over" It take it?

[n7stormrunner]

We're certainly not talking about whether it's possible that the OGB is always the case.  That's obviously false.  We know this.

 

The point of a thread like this is to point out that there is no one perception of how things are that is mandatory.  We don't all have to enjoy the game the same way.  We don't all have to insist that the Inquisitor isn't the OGB.  It shouldn't matter to us at all that someone wants to play the Inquisitor as if he is the OGB.

 

But that also means that we shouldn't ever insist that the Inquisitor is anyone in particular, because that necessarily excludes all other interpretations.  That's why I'm supporting the OP, here.  It's not important that anyone agree that the Inquisitor is the OGB.  But it's important that no one can meaningfully claim that the OP is wrong about that.

 

 

I'm gonna have to call you on that. you have it backward, no one can meaningful claim the inqusitor is the OGB. it makes no sense at all for all the reasons listed and as a bonus I'll add one more. if he exists he is not in the fade at all.

 

but to to be fair give me one undebatable reason the inquisitor could be the OGB, and no headcanon doesn't count.

[superdeathdealer14]

Oh god, not another "Morrigan is the Inquisitor's mother" thread.

[AlanC9]

We're certainly not talking about whether it's possible that the OGB is always the case.  That's obviously false.  We know this.

 

The point of a thread like this is to point out that there is no one perception of how things are that is mandatory.  We don't all have to enjoy the game the same way.  We don't all have to insist that the Inquisitor isn't the OGB.  It shouldn't matter to us at all that someone wants to play the Inquisitor as if he is the OGB.

 

But that also means that we shouldn't ever insist that the Inquisitor is anyone in particular, because that necessarily excludes all other interpretations.  That's why I'm supporting the OP, here.  It's not important that anyone agree that the Inquisitor is the OGB.  But it's important that no one can meaningfully claim that the OP is wrong about that.

 

It's important that no interpretation whatsoever is ruled out, no matter how preposterous? I don't see why. This sounds like an all-out relativist position, or perhaps a parody of such a position.

 

(What happens when the actual OGB shows up? Or DG posts that the OP is simply wrong?)

 

Just to be clear, it doesn't matter that the OP is wrong. But if he wants to discuss his idea here, that makes it a legitimate target for discussion, criticism, and rejection. 

[spinachdiaper]

endless contradictions abound, like if the Inquisitor is a Dwarf and the power to seal the Fade rift is some type of magic how is that going to work where as the OGB would bend the rules since God's make their own rules

 

also Morrigan learned from Flemeth how to shape shift so why couldn't she change the OGB into another form

[Sylvius the Mad]

I'm gonna have to call you on that. you have it backward, no one can meaningful claim the inqusitor is the OGB. it makes no sense at all for all the reasons listed and as a bonus I'll add one more. if he exists he is not in the fade at all.

 

but to to be fair give me one undebatable reason the inquisitor could be the OGB, and no headcanon doesn't count.

We don't need one.  For the possibility to persist, all we need is the lack of conclusive evidence that he is not.  And we have, frankly, a lack of conclusive evidence about just about everything.

 

And headcanon always counts.  Headcanon has as much value and weight when evaluating in-game reality as the on-screen content does.

[mopotter]

If Bio wanted to be really, really stupid they could contrive anything, sure.

 

OP, do you actually believe this nonsense, or are you just bored?

My guess is bored.

 

I agree, if they really wanted to they could "fix" the fade so it changes whatever they want it to, but yeah, it would be really stupid.

[David Gaider]

Some here will argue that it's not possible

 

It is not possible.

[mopotter]

Oh god, not another "Morrigan is the Inquisitor's mother" thread.

Not any worse than all the Fiona's Alistairs mother threads.  Not any better either, but not any worse.  

[mopotter]

It is not possible.

 

From the voice of knowledge.   ​ 

[Sylvius the Mad]

It's important that no interpretation whatsoever is ruled out, no matter how preposterous? I don't see why.

Because it improves the range of gameplay experience.  For anything that might be true, a player can play as if it is true.  If the player wants to play that way, that possibility has value.  If the player doesn't want to play that way, the possibility is irrelevant.  But the possibility is never a negative.  As such, denying the possibility serves only to cause harm to potential playstyles, and benefits no one.

This sounds like an all-out relativist position,

It is.  When it comes to enjoying the game, it makes sense for the player to choose the best option from among the largest possible pool.  Eliminatng some options based on something as flimsy as likelihood or extra-game content is self-defeating.

(What happens when the actual OGB shows up?

From the established headcanon position, the OGB is the PC.  Therefore, any other character called the OGB is being misidentified.  That character could be lying.  Others who refer to him could be mistaken.  But the headcanon, in this case, counts as established fact within that playthrough.

Or DG posts that the OP is simply wrong?)

That never matters.  It doesn't matter what the writers' intent or interpretation of the content is - only the content that actually appears in the game matters.

 

So, for example, in the game Alistair says something a certain way.  That's the in-game content.  The writers might have intended that Alistair was making a joke.  That doesn't matter.  Alistair's intent is mutable by the player.

Just to be clear, it doesn't matter that the OP is wrong. But if he wants to discuss his idea here, that makes it a legitimate target for discussion, criticism, and rejection.

There's nothing to criticise.  He's advancing a possibility.  If we don't share it, then there's not much to say and the discussion will die, but there's no reason to attack it.

[Tevinter Soldier]

Sigh yet another ogb is the inquisitor thread huh, nope, the ogb only exists if you did the ritual and he can only be male.

David Gaider

If you mean the so-called "Old God Baby" will exist, regardless of whether the player took the Dark Ritual decision in DAO or not-- I can categorically say that this assumption is incorrect.

David Gaider
Depends on the timeline-- as of the end of DA2, Morrigan's child would be, what? 8 years old? He also might not exist.

Those are pretty dicey qualifications for a main character.

David Gaider

Loose plot threads do not constitute an entire story, short of those people who feel their personal plot thread of "I had a child with Morrigan" or "I'm ruling Ferelden at Alistair's side" should be the basis for an entire game, regardless of whatever anyone else did

There are some people saying on the forums that they expect the Dark Ritual to be the focus of an entire game, like "Oh, I think I should be playing the Old God baby and everything should revolve around that."

Again, with that we have to make a completely different game for the person who did the Dark Ritual or didn't do the Dark Ritual, and we can't do that.

So if you did the Dark Ritual, if and when we brought Morrigan back, you should get something extra for having done the Dark Ritual, for having imported it, and it affects your game in some important facet.

It may not be as important as some people like, but it can be important, and provided we have the time to create the content...ideally there would be unique content, as much of it as possible for these variations

David Gaider

Hmm. How can I put this?

The results of the Dark Ritual, if it occurred in DAO, will have more than a passing reference in DAI.

Beyond that, you shall have to wait and see

David Gaider
"While I won't discuss how the Dark Ritual decision will affect future games, I can say (and have said) that the choice won't be ignored-- it's pretty fundamental.

So Morrigan will have a son only if she either romanced a male Warden or if the Dark Ritual was performed... and in only the latter case will that son be the so-called OGB.

Whether how the Dark Ritual affects future games is considered sufficient is a different matter completely. Considering that some people have expressed that the existence of the OGB should be the entire plot around which such a game revolves, it's perhaps unlikely.

That kind of expectation can't be helped. Regardless, the choice will neither be ignored nor made into a footnote".

http://social.biowar...ndex/16842817/4

Everything you said has been refuted time and time again, him being completely optional, gender locked, player choice, the fact there's 3 possibilities no child, normal child, ogb, the fact we can play as a dwarf, qunari, and elf makes this even more impossible. Not to mention the inquisitor is in between 21-39 years old and has their own backstories welll before the child was even born, the ogb is only 10-13 years old and grows at a normal rate.

Even the youngest possible inquisitor has 8-10 years on the ogb, the oldest is 26-29 years older than the ogb, the timeline itself makes it impossible aswell, please just drop it, and the inquisitor doesn't have dragon power it's a representation of the series that's all.

 

I get what your saying and I agree with you, but the simple fact that Bioware has chosen to over rule player choice for artistic reasons before (Sten and Liliana) is why these theories never go away.

 

It's extremely hard take anything The dev's say as truth when Liliana is in a video in inquisition considering some people killed her in DA:O the simple fact is bioware will do whatever they believe will sell. Reason it makes it extremely unlike as it would ****** off basically every female player as it shoe horns a sex of the player. Its about the only thing i don't see Bioware deciding to make an executive decision on, Given the painstaking efforts they have gone to to avoid any reference to the players sex.

 

the Fact that people didn't actually take part in the ritual has nothing to with it NOT being the OGB, Bioware cannot be trusted to not shoe horn decisions on the player. The only valid reasons are statistical number of female players and the age of child (although given time is different in the fade they could contrive that if they wanted to) what it comes down to is can the dev's be trusted? Given that EU and more importantly DA:2 has already "over ridden" peoples choices the fact that the dark ritual was an option doesn't mean a maker damn thing!

[Hydromatic]

It is not possible.

Oh god, thank you David.

 

Now for the love of the maker, can we just let this thread die now?

 

AND NEVER TALK ABOUT IT AGAIN.

[AlanC9]

Because it improves the range of gameplay experience.  For anything that might be true, a player can play as if it is true.  If the player wants to play that way, that possibility has value.  If the player doesn't want to play that way, the possibility is irrelevant.  But the possibility is never a negative.  As such, denying the possibility serves only to cause harm to potential playstyles, and benefits no one.

 

 

It is.  When it comes to enjoying the game, it makes sense for the player to choose the best option from among the largest possible pool.  Eliminatng some options based on something as flimsy as likelihood or extra-game content is self-defeating.

 

 

From the established headcanon position, the OGB is the PC.  Therefore, any other character called the OGB is being misidentified.  That character could be lying.  Others who refer to him could be mistaken.  But the headcanon, in this case, counts as established fact within that playthrough.

 

 

That never matters.  It doesn't matter what the writers' intent or interpretation of the content is - only the content that actually appears in the game matters.

 

So, for example, in the game Alistair says something a certain way.  That's the in-game content.  The writers might have intended that Alistair was making a joke.  That doesn't matter.  Alistair's intent is mutable by the player.

 

 

There's nothing to criticise.  He's advancing a possibility.  If we don't share it, then there's not much to say and the discussion will die, but there's no reason to attack it.

 

Wait. How can I actually harm the playstyle? No matter what I think of his ideas, he can still keep playing that way if he wants to. Is he worse off if I make him think the idea is idiotic and he gives it up? And if he's worried about such harm, why is he posting here?

 

As far as the Alistair point goes, you probably recall  from the dialogue threads that I don't buy this position in the first place.

 

How could a discussion work on your terms? Beliefs can only be supported, and never attacked? How do you feel about, say, young-Earth creationism? Makes some people happier, no consequences if an average person believes it. Should such beliefs also not be attacked?

[AlanC9]

Oh god, thank you David.

 

Now for the love of the maker, can we just let this thread die now?

 

AND NEVER TALK ABOUT IT AGAIN.

 

Well, we still have Sylvius' position to contend with; any sort of nonsense the player wants to headcanon shouldn't be objected to even if everyone knows it's not true.

[Sylvius the Mad]

How could a discussion work on your terms? Beliefs can only be supported, and never attacked? How do you feel about, say, young-Earth creationism? Makes some people happier, no consequences if an average person believes it. Should such beliefs also not be attacked?

Within the context of gameplay, yes.  We're not talking about what is true in the world.  We're talking about what is true in a fictional world where the very meaning of the word reality is questionable.

 

And we can question something without attacking it.

[Maclimes]

I agree with Sylvius, in regards to his original point.

 

If the player wants to head-canon that the Inquisitor is the OGB, more power to him. It doesn't affect my game, why do I care?

 

It's the same reason I'm not in favor of mandatory face tattoos for Dalish. Some people don't care (or know) about the lore reasons behind the vallaslin, or simply just choose to ignore it. That's fine. It's their game. *I* care about the lore, so any Dalish I play will have the tattoos. And that's my choice.

 

It's the same reason "beauty" mods don't bother me. You want to make Hawke into a supermodel, or have all your characters run around nude... whatever. It does not affect my game, or the lore of the overall Dragon Age universe. It's contained within your own playthrough, so feel free to enjoy it as you please.

 

Same reason "player-sexual" romances don't bother me. In one game, Fenris is gay. In another, he's straight. They are separate games, and separate experiences, and separate Fenrises. (Consider it a sort of multiverse).

 

It's the same reason I'm fine with mods that allow male Wardens to romance Alistair. If you want Alistair to be gay in your game, cool. It's your game.

 

However, I don't believe Bioware is under any obligation to support your use of mods. If you import a save where a male Warden romanced Alistair (which is not technically possible in the game they made), and it throws up an error message because of a technically impossible "bug" and corrects it so they never romanced... that was the risk you took using a mod. Though you may of course head-canon all you want at that point.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Wait. How can I actually harm the playstyle? No matter what I think of his ideas, he can still keep playing that way if he wants to. Is he worse off if I make him think the idea is idiotic and he gives it up?

If he would have enjoyed it more than its absence, yes.