First, you're typing 20k bytes of your suggestions about meaning of this quest, but then, SUDDENLY, you say "I played through that section without giving it too much analysis. which is lie now.

Yesterday I drove to the store.
When I was 12 I never drove a car.

Is the second statement a lie now?

When I played the game I never gave much thought to this quest (early February).
After this topic was started, I did think about this quest (May 8th/9th), and posted a couple hypothesis to explain the difference in resurrection methods.


And you say you aren't hypocrite after that?

Yes. So would everyone else.



And you're completely ignoring the fact that D2 is out in 2009 and a lot of things changed since then, and even it's story in manual was changed AFTER the release. This makes older sources completely unreliable under such conditions.

Things do get added and changed in sequels, but that is generally for a reason. Why would Ygerna's age be suddenly changed? The story makes sense as it is, and there is nothing to be gained by altering that portion of the history.

Larian can, and should, expand on the gameworld and change existing areas in logical ways given the jump in time between games. If they need to re-write history a bit for certain additions to make sense, I'm ok with that. They may not have had dragon knights in mind before doing DD, but with a 3D game engine, flying can be added to give an additional element to the game. The previous history has not been changed, other than dragon knights being conspicuously absent from the area of Rivellon shown in DD.


Oh, but may be you want to talk how much connections has Story.pdf from DD and D2? yeah, let's talk about Orcs, dwarfes (which wasn't even mentioned in D2, but but.. the source is 6 yo!)

If the same character was in the story.pdf and D2:ED, then it would certainly be a valid source of information, presumably reliable unless there were differences in the game. If there are no actual discrepancies, though, there is no reason to assume the older source is unreliable.

The absence of orcs and dwarves in that area of Rivellon was not explained explicitly in the game, and there was just a book to suggest the elves went underground to hide and eventually died off. That doesn't mean they will not reappear in a subsequent game, though, either as NPCs or the remains of their civilizations.



So, those suggestions you have posted means.. nothing and not needed? Why did you do it then if the explanation was obvious?

I said in many cases an explanation can be obvious. There were at least 2 people who didn't think this particular one was.



Ah, and almighty english remark that settles everything an shows who is right here, yeah. Why it took you so long? ;P I thought you will give it in a 2nd or 3rd post.

Have I, at any point in this discussion, used personal attacks?
Why can you call me fanboi, hypocrite, liar, troll and childish, yet I mention English isn't your native language and that is what settles the argument and shows who is right?

Is it unreasonable to think there may be misunderstandings due to language differences?
Your English is very good, but I've had a conversation with a German person who's English was also very good, and used a common, harmless phrase in English that had a very, very different connotation in German. Just those 3 words put a whole different spin on the entire message, which took another couple messages to clarify exactly what was originally meant.