63 réponses à ce sujet

[volkoff]

edit:-damned- someone beat me to it.

guess i should name him something differently then puff.

[Revan Reborn]

No there is evidence to support the claim that they aren't highly intelligent. Observation is pretty much the main way of collecting evidence it's just not proof that they aren't. The fact that they have a complicated relationship with humans does not mean they are highly intelligent, there are plenty of animals that have symbiotic relationships and there are several species animal that  form relationships with humans. These animals generally aren't viewed as highly intelligent though.

 

So your assertion was wrong because you asserted they were without evidence. 

 

Again you are implying that a dragon is pretty much the same thing as an old god. Archdemons cannot truly be killed unless a warden kills them. Dragons can be killed by a non warden and as far as we know they stay dead. Dragons have mortal lives, we don't know if the same can be said of the old gods but somehow i doubt it. 

 

Soul jumping is not exclusive to archdemons. It is entirely possible that a non tainted old god soul could still find another host if it was killed. We just can't be sure if they can do that or how that would work. The taint means that an archdemon soul can only jump to a tainted host and somehow if a warden kills that archdemon he/she becomes that host but instead of becoming a new archdemon both the warden and the soul will die. 

 

As I said already it is possible that the old gods were just these great dragons but we don't actually know if this is true or not, we also don't know much at all about great dragons. 

You do not know what constitutes a dragon's "intelligence." My assertion was not wrong. I do not understand why you continue to argue this. The evidence is inconclusive. You are beating a dead horse. You can't make an argument one way or the other.

 

I meant a warden can only kill a Archdemon. That was in response to you being overly-technical suggesting anyone can "slay" an Archdemon when really only a warden can. Obviously normal dragons can be killed by non-wardens as the games have depicted this.

 

We are talking about Archdemons. That is the focus here. The point is a warden must be the one to kill it to consume its soul, otherwise it will not "die."

 

if i could post images, you would be getting the "you are dumb fo real" antione dodson one. catergorically why you are wrong; 1) dragons aren't advanced in the slightest why would you think that? 2)they're about as intelligent/maybe slightly more so than your average mabari(confirmed by devs). 3) rarity doesnt stop us from killing a few every game, if we can kill it we can beat it into submission. 4) no one knows what the old gods actually were. 5)the amount of overlap in RPG genres is simultaneously ridiculous and expected. there is any number of ways that the game could 'justify' a tamed dragon, and a "dont be lyk skyrimz" comment on your part is nothing more than an unsubstantiated opinion, do not attempt to make it appear anything but.

It's a great thing you can't post it then. You would make a fool out of yourself.

 

That is not true. People have already posted evidence showing the contrary. You cannot make the statement dragons aren't advanced. There isn't enough conclusive evidence. I'm not sure how your third point is relevant to the discussion. We know what the games have told us about the Old Gods. If you are in support of "how to train a dragon" Inquisition, just say so. I'm merely basing my opinion on precedent set by BioWare in the first two games. We don't tame dragons. We kill them. The Inquisitor's quest is to close the Breach, not ride dragons. I thought that was rather clear from what we know of the game thus far.

[mikeymoonshine]

You do not know what constitutes a dragon's "intelligence." My assertion was not wrong. 

 

I responded to your argument, you were clearly arguing that dragons were highly intelligent like in other fantasy games, as in more intelligent than humans. If we are going to have to start arguing about what is meant by "intelligence" and "dragon intelligence" then this argument becomes nothing more than semantics. It sounds like you only care about not being wrong about something yourself otherwise you would just admit you made a mistake. 

 

So fine, I'll go first. I was also wrong for claiming that they were not highly intelligent, is not currently known for certain how intelligent they actually are. I went on what information we already had and certain things I had heard certain devs say in interviews. I should have pointed out that your assertion lacked evidence and went against current information rather than just flat out saying it was false. 

 

 

 I do not understand why you continue to argue this. The evidence is inconclusive. You are beating a dead horse. You can't make an argument one way or the other.

 

There is some speculation based on how high dragons behave which I myself provided for you but generally the most simple answer is the correct one, the answer that requires the least "what if's". If you can't make an argument one way or the other then why are you insisting your assertion wasn't wrong? 

 

 

I meant a warden can only kill a Archdemon. That was in response to you being overly-technical suggesting anyone can "slay" an Archdemon when really only a warden can. Obviously normal dragons can be killed by non-wardens as the games have depicted this.

 

Anyone can slay an archdemon but if they did it wouldn't actually die. That is what I said, that was true when I said it and it is still true now. I wanted that to be clear because some people forget details like that and I wanted to speculate on possible differences between archdemons and old gods. That wasn't really meant as an argument agains yours, just speculation based on what info we have. The bit I objected to was you calling an archdemon a dragon when we do not know if they are dragons or not. 

 

 

We are talking about Archdemons. That is the focus here. The point is a warden must be the one to kill it to consume its soul, otherwise it will not "die.

 

Yes and that suggests that an archdemon/old god is quite different to a regular high dragon. 

[Revan Reborn]

I responded to your argument, you were clearly arguing that dragons were highly intelligent like in other fantasy games, as in more intelligent than humans. If we are going to have to start arguing about what is meant by "intelligence" and "dragon intelligence" then this argument becomes nothing more than semantics. It sounds like you only care about not being wrong about something yourself otherwise you would just admit you made a mistake. 

 

So fine, I'll go first. I was also wrong for claiming that they were not highly intelligent, is not currently known for certain how intelligent they actually are. I went on what information we already had and certain things I had heard certain devs say in interviews. I should have pointed out that your assertion lacked evidence and went against current information rather than just flat out saying it was false. 

 

There is some speculation based on how high dragons behave which I myself provided for you but generally the most simple answer is the correct one, the answer that requires the least "what if's". If you can't make an argument one way or the other then why are you insisting your assertion wasn't wrong? 

 

Anyone can slay an archdemon but if they did it wouldn't actually die. That is what I said, that was true when I said it and it is still true now. I wanted that to be clear because some people forget details like that and I wanted to speculate on possible differences between archdemons and old gods. That wasn't really meant as an argument agains yours, just speculation based on what info we have. The bit I objected to was you calling an archdemon a dragon when we do not know if they are dragons or not. 

 

Yes and that suggests that an archdemon/old god is quite different to a regular high dragon. 

I'm more than happy to admit defeat if there is definitive evidence to prove your argument. As such evidence doesn't exist, it's silly to say either of us is completely wrong. That was the point I was making.

 

What are we specifically referring to? Dragons? High dragons? Old Gods? Archdemons? The rules seem to differ and apply to each in various ways. There is no simple answer.

 

Are you absolutely positive about that? I was under the impression it was common knowledge that the Archdemon in the Fifth Blight was Urthemiel, the Old God and Dragon of Beauty. When the Warden slays him (assuming you did the dark ritual), his soul is absorbed and then transmitted to Morrigan's child, hence the Old God baby.

 

It's difficult to grasp the hierarchy of dragons. We don't have enough information to conclude on how it all works.

[efd731]

I'm more than happy to admit defeat if there is definitive evidence to prove your argument. As such evidence doesn't exist, it's silly to say either of us is completely wrong. That was the point I was making.

 

What are we specifically referring to? Dragons? High dragons? Old Gods? Archdemons? The rules seem to differ and apply to each in various ways. There is no simple answer.

 

Are you absolutely positive about that? I was under the impression it was common knowledge that the Archdemon in the Fifth Blight was Urthemiel, the Old God and Dragon of Beauty. When the Warden slays him (assuming you did the dark ritual), his soul is absorbed and then transmitted to Morrigan's child, hence the Old God baby.

 

It's difficult to grasp the hierarchy of dragons. We don't have enough information to conclude on how it all works.

dragons and high dragons are the same. old gods and archdemons are the same.  

 

in response to your response to my original post: you said people posted evidence dragons were advanced.....is that advanced compared to other animals? advanced compared to humans? you ignored the fact that devs have allready stated that High dragons are about as smart/slightly smarter than your average mabari, and the post of yours i was responding to called dragons "a highly advanced intelligent and rare species."  Dragons are not advanced in the slightest(no idea where you got that idea) they've been confirmed by devs to be of animal intelligence levels and i brought up how often we encountered them in past games to reinforce the notion that they're no longer that rare(especially for the Player character).  you also said you have no idea how bioware could justify it from a gameplay perspective, despite the fact that we've seen in game examples of tamed dragons(by the darkspawn in awakening) and examples of semi-peaceful dragons (high dragon in haven) and if you watched dawn of the seeker(dear god don't its horrible) there's a young girl capable of controlling dragons through magic. so theres plenty of in lore reasons for there to be a tamed dragon or even a regular dragon assisting us.

 

also simply saying "skyrim did it" or"x has been done before" is no reason not to do something.

[hellbiter88]

hellbiter dragons

[Ferico21]

How to train your dragon 4 confirmed.

Bastard, I already made that joke along with this 5 second photoshop.

[Heimdall]

I think befriend a high dragon or a mutual partnership with a high dragon is a better term than 'tame' a high dragon.

They shouldn't bend to the will of a mortal, but will assist the Inquisitor due to their mark.

dragon mount. No
wyvern mount. yes

I asked Laidlaw months ago, no wyvern mount

But there is an unspecified "dragon-like" mount, probably the "dracolisk" referenced in that Skyhold Twitch stream they did.

[Revan Reborn]

dragons and high dragons are the same. old gods and archdemons are the same.  

 

in response to your response to my original post: you said people posted evidence dragons were advanced.....is that advanced compared to other animals? advanced compared to humans? you ignored the fact that devs have allready stated that High dragons are about as smart/slightly smarter than your average mabari, and the post of yours i was responding to called dragons "a highly advanced intelligent and rare species."  Dragons are not advanced in the slightest(no idea where you got that idea) they've been confirmed by devs to be of animal intelligence levels and i brought up how often we encountered them in past games to reinforce the notion that they're no longer that rare(especially for the Player character).  you also said you have no idea how bioware could justify it from a gameplay perspective, despite the fact that we've seen in game examples of tamed dragons(by the darkspawn in awakening) and examples of semi-peaceful dragons (high dragon in haven) and if you watched dawn of the seeker(dear god don't its horrible) there's a young girl capable of controlling dragons through magic. so theres plenty of in lore reasons for there to be a tamed dragon or even a regular dragon assisting us.

 

also simply saying "skyrim did it" or"x has been done before" is no reason not to do something.

Dragons and High Dragons are definitely not the same thing. Play through either DAO or DA2 again. Old Gods and Archdemons are the same, at least implied by the games, although some will disagree with this assertion.

 

I never specified what I meant by "advanced." You merely assumed I was suggesting they were more intelligent than humans, which I never actually stated. You can continue to make the argument "devs have said this," but one, who knows if that statement holds water with DAI, and secondly devs have changed their mind in the past. Remember with David Gaider decided Leliana was going to be alive and play a crucial part in DAI? Exactly.

 

Again, dragons are rare. Out of the entirety of DAO and DA2, rarely did you ever encounter a dragon. In DAO and DA2 you only kill one high dragon. There are plenty more "dragonlings," but they are clearly placed there more so for quest rewards and to craft special gear. As far as Darkspawn "taming" dragons, that's not entirely true. There is a partnership between high dragons and darkspawn as someone pointed out earlier in the thread. Dragons aren't just mindless beasts.

 

Trying to separate oneself from Skyrim is an incredibly smart thing to do. DAI will not be as popular as Skyrim, no matter how hard it tries. The last thing it needs to do is follow in Skyrim's footsteps even more, when the entirety of the game was largely inspired by Skyrim already. If made sense to be able to ally with dragons in Skyrim. It does not make sense in DAI as we have been given no indication that the Inquisitor can tame dragons, let alone command them to fight for him.

[DinX64]

I asked Laidlaw months ago, no wyvern mount
 

[Mykel54]

The Old Gods were like unto dragons, as the first human kings were like unto ordinary men.

 

The high dragon you meet in haven acted more like an animal with instincts than as a intelligent creature that can reason, i think old gods are those "smart dragons" that can speak and so. Then we have the "dumb dragons" who are the animal-like creatures we see in the game.

 

Imagine that humanity reverts to savagery after a nuclear war, so there would be a few humans who preserved the old culture and intelligence, and many who "went feral" and their intellect dwindled until becoming primate-like creatures.

 

At any rate, i hope taming the dragon is not mandatory, because i intend to hunt them down to extinction.

[kingsims]

I miss the DA Awakening Spectral dragon

[Ennai and 54 others]

Dragons and High Dragons are definitely not the same thing. Play through either DAO or DA2 again. Old Gods and Archdemons are the same, at least implied by the games, although some will disagree with this assertion.

 

I never specified what I meant by "advanced." You merely assumed I was suggesting they were more intelligent than humans, which I never actually stated. You can continue to make the argument "devs have said this," but one, who knows if that statement holds water with DAI, and secondly devs have changed their mind in the past. Remember with David Gaider decided Leliana was going to be alive and play a crucial part in DAI? Exactly.

 

Again, dragons are rare. Out of the entirety of DAO and DA2, rarely did you ever encounter a dragon. In DAO and DA2 you only kill one high dragon. There are plenty more "dragonlings," but they are clearly placed there more so for quest rewards and to craft special gear. As far as Darkspawn "taming" dragons, that's not entirely true. There is a partnership between high dragons and darkspawn as someone pointed out earlier in the thread. Dragons aren't just mindless beasts.

 

Trying to separate oneself from Skyrim is an incredibly smart thing to do. DAI will not be as popular as Skyrim, no matter how hard it tries. The last thing it needs to do is follow in Skyrim's footsteps even more, when the entirety of the game was largely inspired by Skyrim already. If made sense to be able to ally with dragons in Skyrim. It does not make sense in DAI as we have been given no indication that the Inquisitor can tame dragons, let alone command them to fight for him.

If I may ask.How is the entirety of this game largely inspired by skyrim?

[X Equestris]

Dragons and High Dragons are definitely not the same thing. Play through either DAO or DA2 again. Old Gods and Archdemons are the same, at least implied by the games, although some will disagree with this assertion.

High Dragons are simply the fully matured form of female dragons. That is all. I'm not sure what you mean by saying they're "not the same thing." Are you saying they're not the same species? Because that is like saying that a teenager is not the same species as an adult.