132 réponses à ce sujet

[errant_knight]

Eruanna Guerrein wrote...

Xandurpein wrote...

And to the OP. I think it's OK to let Eamon out after a year, but then he has to write "I promise to stop messing with Alistair's life" ten thousand times on the wall too...

Ahahaha! Done!


Also, I've been thinking about it and I wouldn't allow any letters or visitors from loved ones but wouldn't tell him it wasn't allowed. "Wow, still no letters. Sorry." The whole point would be to make him experience what Alistair experienced and then let him free to give him the chance to do something good because of what he learned. Maybe open an orphanage where the kids are treated kindly.

Also, I would take his Arlship away from him and give it to Teagan. No reason for the Village of Redcliffe to lose out just because I ban Eamon from hanging around the castle.



ETA: I don't like the hardening line either. I do it because I feel Alistair deserves to be confident but I think it could have been worded differently or at the very minimum, we could have been given two options that would harden him. I do like what one person about it being sneaky to those who are chronically mean to Alistair.

To be fair, Eamon did try and visit Alistair repeatedly. It's not surprising that his overtures were rejected, and that Alistair stayed angry for a long time. Eventually, it would have been okay, but Eamon probably didn't know that. Alistair says they never talked much, leading me to think that neither knew the other cared much. I also think Eamon isn't much for discussing feelings and isn't very good with children. He probably had no idea what to do. Not saying that I don't think he screwed up, and don't think he has any ulterior motives, just saying it's not entirely black and white.

[Freckles04]

errant_knight wrote...

To be fair, Eamon did try and visit Alistair repeatedly. It's not surprising that his overtures were rejected, and that Alistair stayed angry for a long time. Eventually, it would have been okay, but Eamon probably didn't know that. Alistair says they never talked much, leading me to think that neither knew the other cared much. I also think Eamon isn't much for discussing feelings and isn't very good with children. He probably had no idea what to do. Not saying that I don't think he screwed up, and don't think he has any ulterior motives, just saying it's not entirely black and white.

The theme of the whole game.

I think what makes DA so fascinating is that every character in it, good or bad, is not totally good and not totally bad. They're human (or whatever). They make decisions based on their feelings, not necessarily on what is the best course of action or what they would do in a normal situation.

Could Eamon have done better? Absolutely. I don't think anyone is arguing that his actions with Alistair were the best they could be. But even the best parents make mistakes, sometimes mistakes that have a huge impact on their children.

Anyway, I love that there is not a single perfect character in the entire world. It makes it that much more compelling.

[Addai]

SusanStoHelit wrote...

But I think there is still a problem that requires you to keep it a secret. To wit: the Chantry. Just imagine what they'd make of it.

Wardens using blood magic! Drinking darkspawn blood! Archdemon blood! They're nothing but ghouls, it's just not apparent yet! The grey wardens are nothing but the spawn of evil, tainted and accursed, they hear the voice of evil and eventually follow its call. Do not trust them!

But the chantry has to know- Circle mages help prepare the Joining ritual.

Oh, and I'm sorry, but I think the right to conscript is important for 2 reasons.

I didn't say end the right of conscription, rather that people should not be conscripted against their own will.  Again, what kind of soldier does that make?  Probably, most Wardens would not do this anyway, and it was just a choice Duncan made in some of the game instances.  My noble human female would strongly discourage the practice, Blight or not.  Of course, she is biased by her own encounter with Duncan's strong-arm recruiting!

Modifié par Addai67, 27 janvier 2010 - 10:27 .

[Riona45]

goofygoff wrote...

I, too, wish there was a better way to harden him.  Especially when my PC doesn't seem like the cynical type, herself.  

Well, I really only "wish" it was there for people who would enjoy it.  As I said before I think the whole concept is wonky and I'm ambivalent about it.  What exactly does it mean to "harden" someone in this game?  It might sound surprising, but I still haven't quite figured it out.   Does it make the person more confident?  Selfish?  Cynical?  Less naive?  Some combination thereof?  Some have said "hardening" Alistair doesn't change him really, and he's still a jokey goofball.  If that's the case, why call it "hardening," which to me implies a rigid, unyielding character?

And why does it only take one jerky remark to accomplish this?

[Addai]

Riona45 wrote...

errant_knight wrote...
Oh, Ow! That's awful! That's even worse than the meeting with the Guardian where, immediately after telling you that you judge yourself too harshly, he says that the world would be a better place if he'd died instead of Duncan.

That's one bit of dialogue from Alistair that I can honestly say disturbed me a bit.   I know you're upset, Alistair, but come on, don't go around saying things would be better if you were dead...

For accuracy's sake, I believe what Alistair says is "if Duncan were alive instead of me, many things would be better."  I don't think it was a complete self-negation.  He wishes he could have sacrificed himself for Duncan, especially when the whole world is counting on the two of you to save them.

Which brings up another point that rankles me in the game, which no doubt is based on the fact that the PC needs to feel free to move around without Alistair in tow- many times NPCs will acknowledge you as if you are the only Grey Warden helping them.  Or as if you are the only GW, period.  The exception being Redcliffe and Bann Teagan.

Modifié par Addai67, 27 janvier 2010 - 11:28 .

[SusanStoHelit]

Addai67 wrote...

But the chantry has to know- Circle mages help prepare the Joining ritual.

No, I don't think they do - the Chantry that is. They may be aware that mages help in a ritual, but I didn't see anything that would give me to understand that they know about exactly what is entailed. Apart from anything else, that makes the whole scene at the Joining where it's made absolutely clear by Duncan that it's too late to back out and Jory is killed completely illogical and pointless. If the Chantry (that's a hell of a lot of people) already know - then it's not a secret. It's a big deal throughout the game that it is a secret.

I didn't say end the right of conscription, rather that people should not be conscripted against their own will.

That's what conscription is, by definition. It's compulsory. You don't get a choice. If you have a choice - it's not conscription.

I think (correct me if I'm wrong) that what you're trying to say is that there should be no conscription - but that Grey Wardens should be able to enlist recruits against the wishes of the local authorities if the recruit agrees?

I still think that in a time of blight, they should have the right of conscription - for the reasons I already stated. Defeating the blight is simply more important. But that's just my opinion.

[Edited for formatting.]

Modifié par SusanStoHelit, 27 janvier 2010 - 11:36 .

[Freckles04]

Riona45 wrote...

goofygoff wrote...

I, too, wish there was a better way to harden him.  Especially when my PC doesn't seem like the cynical type, herself.  

Well, I really only "wish" it was there for people who would enjoy it.  As I said before I think the whole concept is wonky and I'm ambivalent about it.  What exactly does it mean to "harden" someone in this game?  It might sound surprising, but I still haven't quite figured it out.   Does it make the person more confident?  Selfish?  Cynical?  Less naive?  Some combination thereof?  Some have said "hardening" Alistair doesn't change him really, and he's still a jokey goofball.  If that's the case, why call it "hardening," which to me implies a rigid, unyielding character?

And why does it only take one jerky remark to accomplish this?

I think it's a case of the developers wanting to include a concept and struggling to do so in as simple a method as possible.

Basically, by hardening Alistair, you tell him that he's worth the effort of looking out for himself. He has value. I agree, it's not implemented well, but having played multiple games with "both" Alistairs, I prefer the hardened one. He's not so much a woe-is-me martyr when he's hardened. Instead of letting everyone (read: Eamon) dictate what he should do, he thinks about what he wants to do, and voices that opinion. He refers to the discussion after leaving his sister's multiple times if you choose to harden him, generally when you're trying to get him to do something he doesn't want to do. When you harden him, he wants to be king because he realizes that that's the best way to save Ferelden and stop the Blight, and because he doesn't trust Anora. He doesn't quite welcome it (although he does say he's not angry about it and it could be an interesting future for him), but he doesn't react like he's the victim, either.

The wording/implementation of the personality change is not reflective of what it does, but the concept is an important one. Anyone who's read The Stolen Throne will recognize Maric's "hardening" event, though I will say it's much more traumatic than Alistair's. All evidence in the epilogues points to that the personality change being a good thing.

Modifié par Freckles04, 27 janvier 2010 - 11:39 .

[Riona45]

Freckles04 wrote...
 I agree, it's not implemented well...

 
Heh, that's an understatement.

The wording/implementation of the personality change is not reflective of what it does, but the concept is an important one. Anyone who's read The Stolen Throne will recognize Maric's "hardening" event, though I will say it's much more traumatic than Alistair's.

I'm aware of what you are talking about, and that's actually another reason why I dislike how it's handled--to me, it comes off as "Alistair goes through what his father did!," only in a not very compelling/believable fashion.

Modifié par Riona45, 27 janvier 2010 - 11:42 .

[Freckles04]

Riona45 wrote...

I'm aware of what you are talking about, and that's actually another reason why I dislike how it's handled--to me, it comes off as "Alistair goes through what his father did!," only in a not very compelling/believable fashion.

I'm with you on that one. I read the books after playing the game (twice?), so I saw it for what it was and I drew the parallels. But yes, the change in Maric is much more realistic given the event he goes through, as opposed to saying a snarky line to Alistair after he meets his harpy sister.

Oh well. Nothing's perfect.

[errant_knight]

Freckles04 wrote...

Riona45 wrote...

I'm aware of what you are talking about, and that's actually another reason why I dislike how it's handled--to me, it comes off as "Alistair goes through what his father did!," only in a not very compelling/believable fashion.

I'm with you on that one. I read the books after playing the game (twice?), so I saw it for what it was and I drew the parallels. But yes, the change in Maric is much more realistic given the event he goes through, as opposed to saying a snarky line to Alistair after he meets his harpy sister.

Oh well. Nothing's perfect.

 It's also a game, and not a book. Some things are supposed to be unpredictable. If every dialogue choice was obvious, the game would be far less interesting. Given how many times most of us have played, and how many spoilers many may have seen before actually playing through a dialogue, I think we may be forgetting this. Sometimes you say something hoping for a certain result and that's not the one you get. Sometimes you make a choice and get a big surprise. That's not a bad thing. I'm still making different choices and being surprised by the result.

[Eruanna Guerrein]

SusanStoHelit wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

But the chantry has to know- Circle mages help prepare the Joining ritual.

No, I don't think they do - the Chantry that is. They may be aware that mages help in a ritual, but I didn't see anything that would give me to understand that they know about exactly what is entailed. Apart from anything else, that makes the whole scene at the Joining where it's made absolutely clear by Duncan that it's too late to back out and Jory is killed completely illogical and pointless. If the Chantry (that's a hell of a lot of people) already know - then it's not a secret. It's a big deal throughout the game that it is a secret.

I didn't say end the right of conscription, rather that people should not be conscripted against their own will.

That's what conscription is, by definition. It's compulsory. You don't get a choice. If you have a choice - it's not conscription.

I think (correct me if I'm wrong) that what you're trying to say is that there should be no conscription - but that Grey Wardens should be able to enlist recruits against the wishes of the local authorities if the recruit agrees?

I still think that in a time of blight, they should have the right of conscription - for the reasons I already stated. Defeating the blight is simply more important. But that's just my opinion.

[Edited for formatting.]

I've been thinking about this and have had a difficult time deciding how I feel about it. My heart says telling prospective GWs about what will happen is the right thing to do while my mind, wearing its leadership hat, says they can't know, it's too dangerous. In an effort to compromise the two, because I can since I don't have to actually make the decision, it seems to me that explaining that their life will no longer be their own or what it has been up until now should be enough warning. If that is said, no secrets are given yet they are given warning, if vague, of what is to come.

I do agree though that it seems one who is forced into becoming a GW could become dangerous. I'm sure most will eventually accept their fates but that's a dangerous game to play when it's done to that one person who's going to go postal in the middle of the night. And no one, not even Duncan, has the ability to know for certain who that person may or may not be ahead of time.

[Eruanna Guerrein]

Freckles04 wrote...

errant_knight wrote...

To be fair, Eamon did try and visit Alistair repeatedly. It's not surprising that his overtures were rejected, and that Alistair stayed angry for a long time. Eventually, it would have been okay, but Eamon probably didn't know that. Alistair says they never talked much, leading me to think that neither knew the other cared much. I also think Eamon isn't much for discussing feelings and isn't very good with children. He probably had no idea what to do. Not saying that I don't think he screwed up, and don't think he has any ulterior motives, just saying it's not entirely black and white.

The theme of the whole game.

I think what makes DA so fascinating is that every character in it, good or bad, is not totally good and not totally bad. They're human (or whatever). They make decisions based on their feelings, not necessarily on what is the best course of action or what they would do in a normal situation.

Could Eamon have done better? Absolutely. I don't think anyone is arguing that his actions with Alistair were the best they could be. But even the best parents make mistakes, sometimes mistakes that have a huge impact on their children.

Anyway, I love that there is not a single perfect character in the entire world. It makes it that much more compelling.

This. I've been waiting for someone to point this out. Of course I know that there were other factors involved in who Alistair is. I know my anger towards Eamon is partially because I expect better of him. And I know that the fact that I feel this way and that my feelings have opened up into a discussion about it says a lot about the writers of DA:O. This is exactly why we are all here talking about our 3rd, 4th, 10th play throughs. The blurred lines of right and wrong, the real feelings it inspires, the differences in opinion about the characters and choices all contribute to the realness of the game.

I love hearing other people's viewpoints about things that differ from mine just like I love it in RL. It's funny to say this about a game, but these are the things that make us grow us people, whether it opens our minds to something we hadn't thought of before or clarifies that what we thought really was valid, it's a thought provoking experience.

I'm still angry with Eamon though and want to dish out some pay back.

[ejoslin]

Addai67 wrote...


Which brings up another point that rankles me in the game, which no doubt is based on the fact that the PC needs to feel free to move around without Alistair in tow- many times NPCs will acknowledge you as if you are the only Grey Warden helping them.  Or as if you are the only GW, period.  The exception being Redcliffe and Bann Teagan.

Riorden also acknowledges Alistair at first, but after talking to the PC, he is basically only addressing her.  I think this is because the PC is the very clear leader -- Alistair is very happy to fade into the background.  It's kind of like, say, the Dwarf Noble origin, even though Duncan is with three other wardens, he's the one speaking for them so he's the one you address.  

Really, Zevran does more of a job speaking for the group than Alistair does.

[errant_knight]

ejoslin wrote...

Addai67 wrote...


Which brings up another point that rankles me in the game, which no doubt is based on the fact that the PC needs to feel free to move around without Alistair in tow- many times NPCs will acknowledge you as if you are the only Grey Warden helping them.  Or as if you are the only GW, period.  The exception being Redcliffe and Bann Teagan.

Riorden also acknowledges Alistair at first, but after talking to the PC, he is basically only addressing her.  I think this is because the PC is the very clear leader -- Alistair is very happy to fade into the background.  It's kind of like, say, the Dwarf Noble origin, even though Duncan is with three other wardens, he's the one speaking for them so he's the one you address.  

Really, Zevran does more of a job speaking for the group than Alistair does.

It has to be that way to facilitate different styles of game play. Some people play solo, or don't take characters with them who would logically be involved with certain event. Sometimes that makes certain dialogue seem odd, or even obnoxious. Even in cases where Riorden would be addressing both grey wardens equally, it has to be focused on the PC, as the PC may be the only one there. In some cases, it would be possible to adjust the dialogue so it could refer to any number of characters, or any combination, but sometimes that's not the case. I agree that it's jarring and can seem like the NPCs are being rude or dismissive, but it's necessary to make the game work for everyone. It doesn't say anything about Alistair, or people's attitude toward him, it only speaks to the mechanics of game design. Zevran is a different case because there are few if any occasions where NPCs would logically be speaking to him.

Modifié par errant_knight, 28 janvier 2010 - 04:50 .

[Thor Rand Al]

Addai67 wrote...

I agree that the chantry added to Alistair's problems. They did educate him and instill in him a sense of honor and duty, but the whole modus operandi of the chantry in regards to its templars is to erase the individuality of the person and in particular their individual wishes and desires. I noticed this last night when my character was trying to lure Alistair to bed. If you invite him to your tent he will waver, and if you say "you seem nervous",  he answers"I am nervous, not that this is anything bad or anything..." At which point you know that deep down he really does think it is bad.  And I believe that part of his inability at the end of the game to fight for his love for the PC (unless hardened) is that he doesn't believe he has a right to be happy. He will also say, if you save Loghain and arrange his execution after having romanced him (boo on you if you do this!! LOL), "I guess I knew that I didn't deserve to be that happy."

Ok I'm not sure if you got this part after he asks you "Where do we go from here?" I responded with I really don't know n then I got this: (I initiated the sex scene first)
Alistair: Before we go, I just want to thank you.  No one's ever made me feel this way.  I wasn't... sure it could happen, in fact.


Now the thing is this could be taken in a few different ways... It could be the sex he just had lol, but that can't be right cause he's never had it, or maybe he thought he'd never be able to have sex.  Or it could be because for the first time in his life he's really happy.  Yes he made the comment "See this is why I love you." After he mentions the others will talk n I said the first smart comment n I feed them to the darkspawn then he says the I love you thing...  We've had the Alistair being King convo with Eamon but we haven't seen his sister yet so he's still not hardened...  I think the most important thing that Alistair wants (besides being King if you harden him) is to be happy, to have a family, to be in love, to be wanted, to be accepted for who HE is, (not some person who might be heir to the throne, not a bastard) something he's never had or experienced before... Or am I seeing to much into this lmao


Edit: now that I'm sitting here thinking about this comment the other time I initiated the romance scene he made a comment at the end of saying "Have I told you that I love you, well it won't hurt you to hear it again"  I didn't get it this time n that first time I got it he was at adore too n we hadn't gone to see his sister yet.

Modifié par Thor Rand Al, 28 janvier 2010 - 03:28 .

[Riona45]

errant_knight wrote...

 It's also a game, and not a book. Some things are supposed to be unpredictable. If every dialogue choice was obvious, the game would be far less interesting.

The issue for me has more to do with believability than predictablity (in fact, I don't recall even making a point about predictability?).

[Riona45]

double post

Modifié par Riona45, 28 janvier 2010 - 05:07 .

[SusanStoHelit]

Eruanna Guerrein wrote...

I've been thinking about this and have had a difficult time deciding how I feel about it. My heart says telling prospective GWs about what will happen is the right thing to do while my mind, wearing its leadership hat, says they can't know, it's too dangerous. In an effort to compromise the two, because I can since I don't have to actually make the decision, it seems to me that explaining that their life will no longer be their own or what it has been up until now should be enough warning. If that is said, no secrets are given yet they are given warning, if vague, of what is to come.

It's a tough one for me too. I'm a big believer in the rights of individuals. And if it was a case of conscription in an army to fight against a foreign power (even *gasp* Orlais) I would be against it. But the Blight is far more than a foreign oppressor. It destroys all life. Everything is tainted. So if it succeeds, if no-one stops it, then everyone and everything dies - including the people whom you might conscript.

So - no conscription risks everyone and everything dying - or worse, females might become broodmothers. Conscription balances the lives and deaths of a few (even against their will) against the potential survival of all life. Do I like that choice? Most emphatically, no. Will I make it? Most emphatically, yes.

I do agree though that it seems one who is forced into becoming a GW could become dangerous. I'm sure most will eventually accept their fates but that's a dangerous game to play when it's done to that one person who's going to go postal in the middle of the night. And no one, not even Duncan, has the ability to know for certain who that person may or may not be ahead of time.

I can see this, and agree with you. Unfortunately, as with the above point, if that's the price you have to pay to give the highest possible chance of all life surviving - you pay it.

You know, it's amazing how heart-wrenching we find such decisions - and this isn't even a decision we're required to make ingame. The game made it for us. We're debating whether it was right to do so - and if we should change it if we could. It's like an essay topic at university in comparative morality or something.

Topic: The ethical and emotional implications of morally ambiguous choices and non-choices in a digital, fictional world. Discuss.

Edit: So if I were King or Queen (which I am) I definitely wouldn't change either the secrecy or the Right of Conscription. I'd modify the former a bit, though, as described previously.

What I would do is my male Cousland would do his best to keep Anora continuously pregnant, so she'd spend all her time and energy on the family and leave ruling the kingdom to me, hehe. My female Cousland would do her best to have an heir - and certainly put a lot of effort into trying.

Other things I'd do would be:

The elves would be given equal rights and anyone who abrogated them would be severely punished.

The mages would be freed from supervision by the Templars/Chantry. Instead a body composed of mages and scholars would be set up to study magic and demon possession. And mage training would incorporate the things they learn. A group would be set up who could be called on at need to quell mage problems if they occurred. Each major town would have a squad. They would have templar abilities, but not have been addicted to lyrium, or indoctrinated by the Chantry. They would be trained by warriors and templars in their physical training. And by the mage/scholar body as well. An understanding of magic would be an essential part of their training. And a mage would be assigned in an advisory capacity to each unit.

Modifié par SusanStoHelit, 28 janvier 2010 - 06:35 .

[errant_knight]

Riona45 wrote...

errant_knight wrote...

 It's also a game, and not a book. Some things are supposed to be unpredictable. If every dialogue choice was obvious, the game would be far less interesting.

The issue for me has more to do with believability than predictablity (in fact, I don't recall even making a point about predictability?).

No, that the point I was making, not one that you made. Some lines are purposely obscure as to effect to allow the player to be surprised by the results, and while that line doesn't have the affect that it appears it will have on the surface, there is a wealth on implication in there. It's basically shorthand for a paragraph of dialogue. It tells Alistair that he can't trust people to do the right thing, or to think about people other than themselves which also tells him that he has to look out for himself. It ties into trusting/not trusting Anora to be the kind of ruler that Alistair thinks Fereldan should have. It ties into his expectations of family. It tells him that he has to trust himself to make decisions and not others. it's difficult stuff to fit nicely into a one line dialogue choice, and while rather mean sounding and overly all-encompassing, that line leads to all the decisions that Alistair will have to make in future and points him in a potentially different direction.

[Thor Rand Al]

SusanStoHelit wrote...

What I would do is my male Cousland would do his best to keep Anora continuously pregnant, so she'd spend all her time and energy on the family and leave ruling the kingdom to me, hehe. My female Cousland would do her best to have an heir - and certainly put a lot of effort into trying.

Lol I love your way of thinking... Definitely keep Anora busy away from politics lmao... N def on doing everything I could to produce an heir for Alistair... There has got to be something with all the mages, n magic n stuff out there that can help you to concieve...  I wonder if we will ever hear from Avernus again n if he might be able to come up with something...

[Gold Dragon]

The Right of Conscription is also used when the person is willing, but others are not.

Alistair and the Revered Mother, for example. She did NOT want to release him simply because he was to be a Templar. I suspect she only gave in because the guard would have sided with Duncan, and all that summoning them would gain is her embarassment (not that embarassing the Chantry is a bad thing, eh? ) Also, even if you aquise immediately, siding with Irving in the Mage Origin, you are about a half-step away from having it invoked. Greagoir doesn't want it any more than did the Revered Mother....

It's a case of six of one, a half-dozen of the other.


EDIT:  And keeping Anora with child has another benifit:  Women DO die in childbirth.....  And the more she bears...

Modifié par A Golden Dragon, 28 janvier 2010 - 07:02 .

[errant_knight]

SusanStoHelit wrote...

The mages would be freed from supervision by the Templars/Chantry. Instead a body composed of mages and scholars would be set up to study magic and demon possession. And mage training would incorporate the things they learn. A group would be set up who could be called on at need to quell mage problems if they occurred. Each major town would have a squad. They would have templar abilities, but not have been addicted to lyrium, or indoctrinated by the Chantry. They would be trained by warriors and templars in their physical training. And by the mage/scholar body as well. An understanding of magic would be an essential part of their training. And a mage would be assigned in an advisory capacity to each unit.

While I agree that the situation with the virtual imprisonment of mages and the lyrium control of templars is pretty darn sketchy, I don't see self-policing by the mages as a viable option, either. For one thing, there doesn't really seem to be enough of them to do so effectively. Even if you had enough to have units in major towns, blood mages could be anywhere. How would you keep tabs on them and their activities?  Miss one thing, and you have the veil torn and a town full of demons and abominations.

Also, the mages are fractured by internal factions. It doesn't seem likely that there would be enough commonality of approach to do something like this, even if a disturbingly large percentage of them didn't seem to be at least dabbling in blood magic.

Thor Rand Al wrote...
[...] I wonder if we will ever hear from Avernus again n if he might be able to come up with something...

Not in my playthrough.... I killed him dead, dead, dead.

Modifié par errant_knight, 28 janvier 2010 - 07:09 .

[MOTpoetryION]

i don't really believe anything Alistair ever said. So i wouldn't put to much faith in him really sleeping in the stable .remember he also said to keep himself clean he licked himself . And really if your responsibility was to care for the kings son .would you make him sleep in the barn . When the king could show up any time. Also he took the time and effort to fix that neckless Thats not
something you would do for someone that you would make sleep in the barn just my take on things

Modifié par MOTpoetryION, 28 janvier 2010 - 07:25 .

[Xandurpein]

MOTpoetryION wrote...

i don't really believe anything Alistair ever said. So i wouldn't put to much faith in him really sleeping in the stable .remember he also said to keep himself clean he licked himself . And really if your responsibility was to care for the kings son .would you make him sleep in the barn . When the king could show up any time. Also he took the time and effort to fix that neckless Thats not
something you would do for someone that you would make sleep in the barn just my take on things

Would you throw him into the Chantry, just because your new wife said so...?

[SusanStoHelit]

MOTpoetryION wrote...

i don't really believe anything Alistair ever said. So i wouldn't put to much faith in him really sleeping in the stable .remember he also said to keep himself clean he licked himself . And really if your responsibility was to care for the kings son .would you make him sleep in the barn . When the king could show up any time. Also he took the time and effort to fix that neckless Thats not something you would do for someone that you would make sleep in the barn just my take on things

One was a joke (the licking clean one) - and you can tell this by his tone of voice, body language, and facial expression. The other is not a joke - you can tell this by, guess what, his tone of voice, body language, and facial expression.

If you're going to say that everyone who tells jokes, especially if they do so frequently, is a liar who cannot be trusted to tell the truth - you have a very distorted understanding of humour, and of human communication.