The phrase "how long," there doesn't even vaguely read as referring to how long the City had been Black. It refers to the "darkness, ever since," bit.
No, he was referring to the city. He had yet to realize it's been year since then. He little say dumat tricked them.
Stop it with 1st hand and 2nd hand knowledge. First of all, in the book the child does not have a name, and if a fan read it without having an out of universe correction, he would think Alistair is already born and the baby is a third son. In second place, why would Marric lie that way to Loghain? "Sorry I had a son from a lover, but I had him when your beloved Rowan was still alive, so f u". That's does not make any sense. The same for Eamon to Alistair "Sorry son, you are a bastard son of Marric. But he conceived you with a lover when he was married to my sister, so it's fine right? And the first thing you killed in your life was your mother. Love you, take this amulet. i find it on the ground when I was visiting Denerim, should be your mother's.". That's completely retarded. Alistair is son of Fiona, bioware said that and we have to accept it. But you don't have to pull out this nonsense to give it consistence. Leave the professional writers the obligation to make it coherently fit in the story.
Why would maric keep something like that to loghain? I can think of plenty of reasons. First and foremost, Fiona is a mage, grey warden and most of all, an Orlesian. You know how ticked off Loghain was about anything Orlesian in origins. Maybe Maric wasnt that much of an idiot after all.
It's fine for Marric to say he had a child from a servant. But why does he say he did it while Rowan was alive? To Loghain, the man who loved Rowan?
Anyway something about Alistiar and Fiona comes up in the game. Or so gaider says. Bad new, I'd like to pretend all that didn't happen 
I dont remember anywhere about maric telling loghain anything ( please correct me if I'm wrong) loghain prolly just assumed or.... the writers made a booboo.
......
But the same “booboo” was made by whoever wrote Alistair dialogue, by whoever wrote the codex entries, who wrote the Goldanna quest, plus whoever wrote the fade dream quests (which for generosity's sake we could assume was the same person). In fact, nobody on the development staff got anything romotely right its seems. All made the identical same mistake. Is this really plausible?
It's fine for Marric to say he had a child from a servant. But why does he say he did it while Rowan was alive? To Loghain, the man who loved Rowan?
Anyway something about Alistiar and Fiona comes up in the game. Or so gaider says. Bad new, I'd like to pretend all that didn't happen
Someone in another thread in the old forums explained it to me, I was asking how Alistair could possibly be a threat to Cailan's rule if he was not older than him.
Apparently Alistair was originally planned to be older than Cailan and have Katriel as his mother, but that plan had been scrapped and the story changed that made Alistair younger than Cailan, and that some of the original dialogue slipped throught cracks and stayed in the game. I don't know if that's true/accurate but it would make the whole cheating on Rowan discussion a little more understandable, if it was intended for the original story.
Don't know if it has been posted yet:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhXCpKDqFb8&feature=youtu.be
Lady Insanity had an interview with David Gaider and among other things he talks about Fionas involvement in Inquistion. Skip to 35:27 for this part of the interview.
Someone in another thread in the old forums explained it to me, I was asking how Alistair could possibly be a threat to Cailan's rule if he was not older than him.
Because, the King has to have the support of the Landsmeet and the Banns. If Cailan was weak or unpopular then Alistair could form a focal point for rebellious nobles ( I mean that's exactly what Eamon goes on to do). And Alistair, if Cailan is not in a strong poistion or annoys the Banns just as loghain did, could try to win enough support to put himself on the throne. The later plot of DA:O illustrates the threat that Alistair could be.
Not my point. If they had a vested interest in having Goldanna believe the baby was dead, which they clearly did if they paid her a coin and sent her away, well, it begs the question why she wasn't handed a dead baby if in your hypothetical there was one. Hard for a kid to deny that.
What she says is "they told me the babe was dead but I knew they was lyin'." Again, if they wanted her to believe the baby was dead and there actually was a dead baby about the place, it stands to reason they would show it to her.
Hypothetically speaking, the baby may not have even died. It's very plausible that the baby did live and was whisked away immediately. If Goldanna heard the baby cry, she would believe it to be alive. It's also entirely plausible the mother didn't die either. It wasn't unheard of in medieval times for a mother to leave her children, especially if enough coin was paid. Perhaps they told her Goldanna would be cared for and that is why they gave her a bit of coin and sent her on her way. Goldanna would have been maybe ten or so? Old enough to talk anyway. If she suspected or overheard someone stating something about "the king's baby", it would be best not to leave her with her mother and whom she thought was the king's bastard. Best to send the mother and baby away, tell the girl they both died and be done with it. Who is going to believe a common homeless girl? I mean, honestly, as someone who studied Tudor history, it isn't the wildest tale that has happened in real history, let alone fiction. Switching dead noble babies for common ones happened so much that noblemen started paying spies in birthing rooms, in case the midwife was paid off.
The Goldanna mission makes sense, too. If Alistair tracked her down, thinking she was his sister, how does him going to see her--as his sister--become inconsistent?
Also, someone mentioned how it was implied Alistair was born before Rowan died, because of the "concubine" statement. Now, I may be wrong, and if I am, then ignore this, but does anyone, including Loghain, mention she was definitely alive, or was it just implied because if that statement? I can't think of any definitive statement. If it is based on the implication brought on by the "concubine", it can be explained. They may have wanted to protect Rowan posthumously, not to mention her heir. She was a legacy, an icon to her people. They most likely wanted people to remember the image of the King who loved no one, could love no one, but his Queen.
Also, didn't someone from Bioware say the timeline was wrong and that Alistair would have been born after the death of the Queen? I could have sworn I read that when someone was complaining about The World of Thedas timeline.
The entire problem arises when the book and the games states two different things. Dialogue in the game suggests that Rowan was alive when Alistair was born, and the Calling takes place after her death.
Now keep in mind, that ALL that is "confirmed" atm, is that Alistair is elf-blooded. They didn't straight up say that Fiona is his mother. We don't know wether or not Goldanna's mother was an Elf, and therefore keeping the quest and story of DA:O completely valid.
Fair enough. I wasn't trying to accuse you, it just seemed totally ridiculous for someone to say that content that is clearly in the game was somehow a mistake, and I had a hard time believing it.
It's no biggie. 
I can't say if its 100% true or perhaps the meaning is different than what I took from it, as Lob mentioned, it could have been a case of too many cooks in the kitchen. idk. I really liked the Goldana quest. I always do it when I'm romancing Alistair.
I really want to believe that, but the tweet from Laidlaw leaves few doubts. From now on, we can only hope they do not write about Fiona being Alistair mother ingame or in novels, so we can pretend that BS never happened. If we are lucky, Fiona dies as soon as the game start and that's it. If we are unlucky, in the human origin we see Fiona and Alistair reunited before she dies. If we are really really unlucky, FIona survives.
So, what happened to his child with Isabela?
Also, if the theory that goldanas brother was whisked away. What if that was Cullen?
Whose child with Isabela? Isabela from The Pearl?
Yes, Isabella.
I think it was mentioned/implied that she may be pregnant in the comics. Could be wrong.
Really? I don't remember reading that at all. I think it may have hinted a little for some shared affection, but certainly not any liaison between her and Alistair.
Inconsistency has happened even within the same game - Malcolm has three different "origin" stories, Sebastian was written inconsistently in terms of whether he thought the Dalish were souls awaiting the Light of the Chant or thinking they followed the same divine force but viewed it differently, Anders believed in the fable of the Golden City in Awakening and vanilla Dragon Age II but not Legacy, Merrill's characterization was inconsistently written to speak either in dry humor or in genuine naivety, and so on.
There's also the vast differences between how the Architect looked in "The Calling" (including his missing hand) and how he appeared in "Awakening".
This isn't about about not being able to keep the story straight – it's about the deliberate choice not to.
DA:O was perfectly coherent around the subject of Alistair's mother. But then they release a tie-in book where Alistair's origins is completely re-written, contradicting what we are told in DA:O. It differs not just in the facts of Alistair's birth, but contains a disjointed narrative. The circumstances of Alistair's past are not what we would expect given the details and circumstances around the child in The Calling.
Although its been heavily implied the child was meant to be Alistair all along, see Mike Laidlaw's tweet, the obvious inconsistencies were enough to keep people arguing for years prior to this, it seems.
At least, they should have remained silent on the subject. This would have allowed those that think it's great that Alistair has some elf super-mage-ex-warden-without the taint-mother could have believed that, while those that either appreaciate consistency in their narrative / prefer Alistair's more modest parentage / didn't have the skill in cognitive dissonance required / etc could have continued to subscribe to DA:O version of events.
It's a pity they have chosen not to do this.
This isn't about about not being able to keep the story straight – it's about the deliberate choice not to.
DA:O was perfectly coherent around the subject of Alistair's mother. But then they release a tie-in book where Alistair's origins is completely re-written, contradicting what we are told in DA:O. It differs not just in the facts of Alistair's birth, but contains a disjointed narrative. The circumstances of Alistair's past are not what we would expect given the details and circumstances around the child in The Calling.
Although its been heavily implied the child was meant to be Alistair all along, see Mike Laidlaw's tweet, the obvious inconsistencies were enough to keep people arguing for years prior to this, it seems.
At least, they should have remained silent on the subject. This would have allowed those that think it's great that Alistair has some elf super-mage-ex-warden-without the taint-mother could have believed that, while those that either appreaciate consistency in their narrative / prefer Alistair's more modest parentage / didn't have the skill in cognitive dissonance required / etc could have continued to subscribe to DA:O version of events.
It's a pity they have chosen not to do this.
It may have been necessary for them to introduce a plot revolving around Fiona and Alistair in DAI, which, while not guaranteed, seems increasingly likely.
This isn't about about not being able to keep the story straight – it's about the deliberate choice not to.
DA:O was perfectly coherent around the subject of Alistair's mother. But then they release a tie-in book where Alistair's origins is completely re-written, contradicting what we are told in DA:O. It differs not just in the facts of Alistair's birth, but contains a disjointed narrative. The circumstances of Alistair's past are not what we would expect given the details and circumstances around the child in The Calling.
Given "The Calling" coming out prior to Origins, it seems to be an issue of too many cooks in the kitchen, rather than a deliberate recton like the post Magi Boon or post Dalish Boon, Leliana's resurrection from the dead, Anders and Justice meeting if Anders was never recruited and Justice was killed by the Warden-Commander, and so on.
Although its been heavily implied the child was meant to be Alistair all along, see Mike Laidlaw's tweet, the obvious inconsistencies were enough to keep people arguing for years prior to this, it seems.
At least, they should have remained silent on the subject. This would have allowed those that think it's great that Alistair has some elf super-mage-ex-warden-without the taint-mother could have believed that, while those that either appreaciate consistency in their narrative / prefer Alistair's more modest parentage / didn't have the skill in cognitive dissonance required / etc could have continued to subscribe to DA:O version of events.
It's a pity they have chosen not to do this.
There tends to be a general lack of consistency in some areas because retroactive continuity is easier than accommodating so many different outcomes, but I don't get the impression Alistair's parentage was intentional. It's not as though everyone is always on the same page - Gaider and Kirby have provided conflicting information about the longevity of the Dalish (in comparison to the other races, including the city elves), and Gaider had to ask Kirby to clarify if the qunari protagonist was Vashoth. It's a pretty big kitchen.
Given "The Calling" coming out prior to Origins, it seems to be an issue of too many cooks in the kitchen, rather than a deliberate recton like the post Magi Boon or post Dalish Boon, Leliana's resurrection from the dead, Anders and Justice meeting if Anders was never recruited and Justice was killed by the Warden-Commander, and so on.
There tends to be a general lack of consistency in some areas because retroactive continuity is easier than accommodating so many different outcomes, but I don't get the impression Alistair's parentage was intentional. It's not as though everyone is always on the same page - Gaider and Kirby have provided conflicting information about the longevity of the Dalish (in comparison to the other races, including the city elves), and Gaider had to ask Kirby to clarify if the qunari protagonist was Vashoth. It's a pretty big kitchen.
I just find it hard to be convinced that there was a breakdown in communication around the writing of Origins - it's far too consistent for that. The game agrees with itself, the only problem is between the tie-in book and the game.
Yes, the book was released before Origins but given the development cycle for a game of that size and sophistication they'd be plenty of time to change your mind about a character and write a book late in the development cycle that contradicts what you've already written.
I'm not surprsed that all the various developers sometimes contradict themselves in interview, or on the forums, etc etc you'd expect that. You couldn't expect anything less. No one person is going to be spot on about everything, or be in a position to even be aware of everyhing. But this is finished, supposedly quality controlled material that was cleared for publication. Therefore we are justified in having higher expectations around quality, and to wonder why such obvious inconsistencies were released to the public. Just my thoughts.
Guest_Faerunner_*
The Thedas timeline is filled with inconsistencies and retcons all across the board.
It's kind of silly getting upset about the timeline errors and perceived plot retcons with Alistair's parentage when his is one the least blatant to date.
It may have been necessary for them to introduce a plot revolving around Fiona and Alistair in DAI, which, while not guaranteed, seems increasingly likely.
David Gaider said in an interview that it will come up in the game. 
Funnily enough I was playing Origins last night and got to the scene with Alistair and Goldana. Two things were pretty damn clear in the dialogue - Goldana is Alistair's older sister and she was old enough to know that her mother was pregnant for nine months and died in childbirth. That's what she says to Alistair - "You killed our mother." She was also certainly aware that Maric was Alistair's father so clearly she saw her mother and Maric together.
The Thedas timeline is filled with inconsistencies and retcons all across the board.
It's kind of silly getting upset about the timeline errors and perceived plot retcons with Alistair's parentage when his is one the least blatant to date.
David Gaider said in an interview that it will come up in the game.
Well, I've only played Origins and nearly Awakening to completion so I'm not in a position to say. But if I were just to play the games say (rather than read any books, comics etc), once each, would I really notice that much amiss?
The whole Alistair background thing is difficult to ignore. I just booted up Origins to continue with my second play through - and I kept thinking, is there anything else that apparently wasn't really intended in retrospect? Or putting it another way - now regretted by the devs? It's spoiling the enjoyment for me. So what was Alistair's personal quest supposed to be like? Was the impression of Alistair's indifferent treatment by Eamon intended? Should I be ignoring that?
As for bringing it up in DA:I, well that's their choice. Presumably they think players won't notice much.
Retour en haut