413 réponses à ce sujet

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Every my insight is valid and supported by good old reality.

Congratulations. You have a bigger ego than me.

[TheKomandorShepard]

Congratulations. You have a bigger ego than me.

Well, that is hardly my fault that im perfect.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Well, that is hardly my fault that im perfect.

You clearly lack the flaw of arrogance.

[TheKomandorShepard]

You clearly lack the flaw of arrogance.

Arrogance is term often used by inferior people to describe in negative light superior people that acknowledge they are superior, so i wouldn't say it is a flaw unless person actually overestimates their abilities.  

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Arrogance is term often used by inferior people to describe in negative light superior people that acknowledge they are superior, so i wouldn't say it is a flaw unless person actually overestimates their abilities.  

Which a perfect person can't do. So obviously you can't.

[TheKomandorShepard]

Which a perfect person can't do. So obviously you can't.

And I don't.

[Secret Rare]

Well, that is hardly my fault that im perfect.

Having an excessive interest in oneself is a form of self-worship,i don't see any perfection in such demeanor.

[TheKomandorShepard]

Having an excessive interest in oneself is a form of self-worship,i don't see any perfection in such demeanor.

And "self-worhsip" is a flaw here because? Unless you are trying to impose here your own morality perceiving yourself as superior to other doesn't prevent from achieving optimal results.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

And "self-worhsip" is a flaw here because?

Because you can't grant yourself spells.

[TheKomandorShepard]

Because you can't grant yourself spells.

Spells are for mages and mages are ticking time bombs.

[Xerrai]

So are we going to continue discussing the relations of demons to mages or.....

[Vit246]

So are we going to continue discussing the relations of demons to mages or.....

Is a reverse possession theoretically possible? Like, instead of a demon possessing a host, the host possesses it back and steals its power for himself?

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Is a reverse possession theoretically possible? Like, instead of a demon possessing a host, the host possesses it back and steals its power for himself?

I don't believe we have any examples of that ever happening. Flemeth was originally implied to be, but she's apparently something different and there's no real sign of who's in control.

[Secret Rare]

Flemeth was originally implied to be, but she's apparently something different and there's no real sign of who's in control.

They are one and the same.

[Medhia_Nox]

@Vit246:  I think all possessions are inherently like that at the moment a demon starts hanging around - except that the moment you allow the demon to enter you've already lost the contest of wills.  

 

Think of a Thedosian's mind as a "mini-Fade" - the Thedosian has rule over at least the conscious part of it... however, mortals are not designed to manipulate the Fade so completely (save mages - and most of them are woefully bad at it) and so, we access the real Fade through the mini-Fade in our minds (which are actually one and the same - think of this "mini-Fade" like a pocket dimension).  

 

So... when you allow a demon into this pocket dimension - a being completely capable of manipulating the Fade with impunity - there is no contest.  

 

Of course - I don't believe Bioware really has a grasp on their lore (of course they know it all better than anyone possibly can - I just don't think they stick within their own limits) - and anything can happen when it suits Bioware's whims (which, for me, is not good storytelling) 

[Sah291]

@Medhia_Nox,
I agree. Part of that is Bioware likes to keep subverting their own lore. Once we get used to an idea, some character comes in to turn it on its head. Part of the grey area they are always going for with DA.

[Medhia_Nox]

@Sah291:  Sometimes I think they believe that inconsistency is "grey area" - inconsistency is always bad.  

 

They have subverted so many aspects of their world since the beginning.

 

Example:  Mages can't telelport.  But as of DA2... because we wanted mages to teleport - we invented some BS about illusion magic.

 

Then there are aspects which are technically advances in the story - but seem subverted (which can be just as bad).

 

Example:  The Magisters probably did not cause the Blight.

 

I know they think that all this conversation is really good for their product... but all it really is are people who like Dragon Age making up their own versions of Dragon Age... maybe that's "being creative" for some people... I consider it being lazy.  

 

In writing... you're told to not waste time on things that don't support the story... it's not that we heard about the Magisters... it's that THEY'RE THE OPENING SCENE to DA:O and the first thing we encounter.  

 

If that story was false... then it's bad writing to put it so prominently.  It should have been just a codex entry or the conversation of some bit character. 

[The Baconer]

I don't think they've ever really backed down from the Magisters causing the Blight. It seems they're probably not the source of the Taint itself, but their hubris is indeed the reason for its spread across the world.

[Medhia_Nox]

@TheBaconer:  And that may be true... but, what if these opening lines were treated like the Magisters. 

 

- Long ago, in a galaxy far far away - and then we find in the story it's supposed to be happening right now in our galaxy.  You've ruined your iconic line.

 

- Call me Ishmael.  What if you find out his name is George?  In the book - it's only used once, but that's great - because you know his name.  Why?  Because it was prominently displayed. 

 

I know that games are not novels... AND, I don't mind subversion as a technique.  

 

Both of those examples COULD turn out the way I stated and still be good... so long as there was a valid reason for the subversion... and not just a gimmicky... "WOW, didn't THAT just blow your socks off?  You didn't even know that the Empire was SO close!  OMG, isn't that amazing storytelling!?"  

 

But I think Bioware uses it as both a gimmick and a crutch in DA.... much to the IPs detriment.  

 

I still enjoy the IP... but it is, admittedly, becoming less and less with each game (and it has nothing to do with "RP" mechanics or more mage spells or whatever). 

 

It has everything to do with the fact that I really feel like there's nothing for me to really look at but a mess of info that just keeps getting messier.  Yeah, it's human nature ot find patterns... so people believe they're "figuring it out" - but I remain dubious. 

[Sah291]

@Medhia_Nox,
It's not always bad. I mean, characters like Dorian, Cole, and Solas seem obviously intended to show a different perspective on things like Tevinter, Spirits/Demons and the Fade, that we took for granted over the past two games. But I know what you mean.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

They are one and the same.

I could believe that, but it sounds like a stretch. Where are you getting that from?

[Medhia_Nox]

@Sah291:  While I loathe Solas... I absolutely agree with Dorian and Cole. 

 

Dorian provides a much needed "obvious" perspective.  Of course we know that someone, somewhere in Tevinter has to be decent... and it's good that we finally see at least one.  I'd criticize them for taking too long with this more than anything.

 

Cole... while a radical departure from what's established - is given an entire novel AND game to explain "what" is different about him... "why" he's different... and "how" that changes perspectives (both his own and others).  

 

Not every alteration to established lore is bad... but I feel that they've changed too much without giving any of it value.  

 

This is... of course... opinion.

[Master Warder Z_]

They are one and the same.

 

According to who?

[Medhia_Nox]

I don't believe we have any examples of that ever happening. Flemeth was originally implied to be, but she's apparently something different and there's no real sign of who's in control.

I actually think it's clear that Mythal is "in control".  

 

I mean... do we think Flemeth cares at all about the plans of a bald rat faced little elf?  We know Mythal does.  

 

Do we think Flemeth cares about passing on her godhood?  She doesn't have any to pass.  Mythal sure does though.

 

We never even "really" hear about the original Flemeth and we never hear about her pursuing HER goals (mostly because she was a human and any revenge she could exact is LONG gone).  

 

The Flemeth we see is in constant service to Mythal... so even if she can refuse - she clearly doesn't. 

 

Flemeth is dead... like Wynne was dead in The Broken Circle.  The spirits that inhabit them keep them alive.  Everything they are... belongs to that spirit now.  Make the spirit unhappy and it will abandon you - and you will die.  

 

It's like me saying:  "I have a gun to your head, so long as you do as I say, you live."  Sure, you can choose to die... so if that's you being "in control" then Flemeth is "in control" in that same way (regardless of whether the relationship is hostile).  But... if Flemeth wants to live... she must serve Mythal and it's clear that she does since that's all that she does.

[JadeDragon]

It is known Spirits can become corrupted and turn to demons. I would like to see a Demon revert back to a spirit of a demon can become more human similar to Cole.