Larian Studios
Posted By: Astara Story line annoyances... [SPOILERS] - 01/04/11 06:56 PM

After I learned what spawned Damian's war in the first place, and how the 'Divine' and his thugs executed Ygrna for her 'crime' of telling Damian his origins, I was appalled. Sorry, you get 'death' for telling your lover about his real parents -- you horrible person. Only under the worst dictatorships would such a sentence be handed down for a 'crime'[sic] of such mundanity!

The fact that the two of them were lovers at that point, um, didn't anyone stop to think about the consequences of killing her at that point, vs. the consequences of 'mercy'? What idiots. If Ygrna, and Damian had bothered to talk w/me, they would have gotten my sympathy and help to revive her (though if they continued their quest of war, I would still have sided against them).

In a similar way, though not to same extent, I hated the dialogue choices w/Rhode. Said this before and will say it again. Her response to my 'conversion' as being a 'Betrayer' was completely without sense.

* First, her logic (and Ygrna agreed with my 'state') was that I was left 'unfinished' somehow after my ritual induction(s) -- i.e. that I could NOT be responsible for what happened. That would mean that I could NOT have betrayed her (even if I had turned against her) -- since betrayal requires me to consciously and deliberately, turn against my ideals of slaying those who had turned against the humans and sided with her enemies. If my mental capacity left me not-responsible, then BETRAYAL, wouldn't be possible. It considered, that I needed extermination (much as someone who had caught the plague), but you wouldn't call someone who had been infected with the plague a betrayer for not having the 'resistance' to not catch it -- which is an apt parallel.
* Second, leaving they task of executing me to 'underlings' would be an entirely irresponsible action of my 'commander'. It would be like some manager telling 3 employees to go off and 'fire' one of their coworkers...
* Third, I was initially willing to work w/her & help her. The entire bit about her not wanting to listen to me or anything I had to say was completely illogical. It wasn't as if she and I had been long time enemies -- instead, I was her new pupil, maybe the last to become a Slayer (what need for Slayers if no more Dragons?)
* Fourth, this really bothered me after thinking about it for a while. Since when is it considered remotely 'reasonable' to exterminate all members of a group for the actions of one?
Such behavior is considered backwards at 'best', like punishing 7 generations of a family, or automatically condemning and executing all known associates and relatives of some criminal, w/o regard for how those associates or relatives thought of the actions of the criminal. However, in general, such behavior is a prime example of the bigotry present in racism and genocide -- generally considered to be among the most evil of actions.
* Fifth, wasn't the real enemy the 'Black Ring'? It wasn't so much that Dragons (Dragon Knights) were enemies of humans, but that supposedly they had betrayed humans. While that might have been true about *some* DK, in the past, it certainly wasn't true of me who was her protégée.


In general, I was bummed about my choices w/Rhode -- I didn't want to fight her -- I really liked her.

Anyway, those were issues that really hurt the story 'immersion' effect, in that they were so unbelievable and infuriating. Except for Damian's actions against all humans as his 'vengeance' quest (which can't be allowed to continue), I felt he was one of the least evil characters considering him w/Rhode (and Slayers in general), and those who executed Ygrna. Those actions felt more like they were the actions of 'evil', rather than 'good'...

Posted By: Stabbey Re: Story line annoyances... - 01/04/11 07:52 PM
In the novella "Child of Chaos", Damian has an argument with Lucian about him executing Ygerna. And I do agree that Damian does have a bit of a point. Just because the Divine is generally a force for good, it doesn't mean he's perfect, an can't make mistakes. A flawed hero/god-figure is more interesting than a perfect one.

However, Damian's actions after that point have just gotten worse and worse. He is NOT a good guy, and Ygerna is not a naive innocent.


Rhode is a fanatic. She truly believes that all dragons are evil, this belief is unshakable. At the time Rhode confronted the new Dragon Knight, the Black Ring had been quietly hiding out for 50 years. It wasn't an active threat. People are flawed, and sometimes good guys aren't on the same side.
Posted By: Raze Re: Story line annoyances... - 01/04/11 08:05 PM

At least according to the BD novella, Ygerna was executed for helping her necromancer father perform experiments on children for the Black Ring. She had taught Damian some magic and tried to start awakening his powers, but had not told him about his origin when she was executed. The Black Ring ordered her to do so, but she hated them for how they treated her father.
As Stabbey said, executing Ygerna for her crimes may not have been entirely warranted considering she was acting on threat of death for herself and father, but she did still kill people.

can someone sum up the story

As for the consequences, Ygerna predicted that Damian's powers would not remain dormant for much longer, and that when he learned of his origins and Ygerna's execution he would hate the Divine for it. Lucian conceded that Damian wouldn't understand the need to execute her, but would forget about her in time, and continue with his life and teachings with the paladins. He hoped that Damian could still be prevented from turning into the Damned One.


In the past and currently, there are lots of situations where the actions of one or more individuals provoke a reaction against an entire group, or when arbitrary problems are simply blamed on a specific group, and any members of that group are suitable targets. The fact that Rhode was a zealot and that the humans at least forgot about the Black Ring when they withdrew and focused on dragons may be illogical, but is hardly unbelievable.
Posted By: pall Re: Story line annoyances... - 02/04/11 01:46 AM
Originally Posted by Raze
In the past and currently, there are lots of situations where the actions of one or more individuals provoke a reaction against an entire group, or when arbitrary problems are simply blamed on a specific group, and any members of that group are suitable targets. The fact that Rhode was a zealot and that the humans at least forgot about the Black Ring when they withdrew and focused on dragons may be illogical, but is hardly unbelievable.


That's true. Of course i would not be suprised if some of dragon slayers commanders were actually black ring agents installed to give slayers a "push" in right direction, since
one of commanders of seekers was demon worshiper, so it's possible.


Originally Posted by Astara

Second, leaving they task of executing me to 'underlings' would be an entirely irresponsible action of my 'commander'. It would be like some manager telling 3 employees to go off and 'fire' one of their coworkers...


I think it was because we weren't full dragon knight yet, and since we were supposed to be her pupil she could't bring herself to do it.
In aleroth we meet her as fully developer dragon knight, probably with strong dragon aura, so that's make her call us "abomination" and want to kill us instantly.(Mot to mention that she probably knew what happened to others slayers since DK was alive.)
Posted By: scalla Re: Story line annoyances... - 02/04/11 12:59 PM
Originally Posted by pall
Of course i would not be suprised if some of dragon slayers commanders were actually black ring agents installed to give slayers a "push" in right direction, since
one of commanders of seekers was demon worshiper, so it's possible.

Maybe, but it would be harder since the ritual erases the former memory. However, it's more a kind of sect than a 'military order,' so I guess some of the first Dragon Slayers could have been Damian's agents.
Posted By: Astara Re: Story line annoyances... - 03/04/11 06:55 PM

I can see her performing experiments on children being a much stronger case for her execution, but that's not part of this game, as near as I can tell. Most certainly, if she wasn't acting of her own free volition, most courts/rulers, etc wouldn't hold her entire responsible for what happened. Lucian talking about a "need to execute her"? That sounds like a statement I'd expect from someone who was very mentally imbalanced "the *NEED* to execute" her? There could never be a NEED to execute her unless her living would be a clear and present danger to others. As punishment, execution may be efficacious (considering cost of life imprisonment or likelihood of escape and future deeds if they escape), it may be 'fun' under a sadistic regime, it _may_ be called for due to the enormity of the crime, but NEED?

That sounds a bit 'mentally unstable'. I read the story summary in your link -- which provides quite a different picture for her execution than this game. Commenting about that:

  • First, it really isn't part of this game. It can be claimed to be a justification for actions in this game, but not being part of this game, it can't really be considered a justification.
  • Second: even if the external information was take to be part of this game, it was given that her participation was on pain of death -- heavily coerced. If someone is 'controlled', then they are not responsible for their actions. One goes after the 'controller', not the pawn. It would be like yelling at a light switch for turning off the light instead of the person who used the switch.
    To hold the switch responsible for having turned off the light and punishing it, is a strong sign of mental problems.
  • Third, even if one accepted the back-story as part of the game, the in game dialogue doesn't acknowledge it and indicates it was her 'awakening' Damian as being the sole cause for her execution.
  • Fourth, if it was a 'legal' execution by the laws of the land, why was it done 'secretly' -- inside with so few witnesses? *Especially*, in earlier days, people were not executed in secret, but publicly for the important reason that it was to be a 'message' and example of what happens to those who violate the laws of the land. By being 'private' it had all the earmarks of being something that couldn't have been done publicly for fear that the public would object, or fear that if it wasn't done 'immediately', a greater force might stop them. It wasn't the action of someone who was supposed to be a 'good guy' or a leader of the people, but of a thug.

As for the actions of Rhode and her extreme antipathy toward me -- show me one example of a female, in history, who rose through the ranks to be a leader among her people, who's prejudice against a group was so murderous that she would turn upon a former pupil who was found to have 'tainted blood'.


Posted By: Astara Re: Story line annoyances... - 03/04/11 07:32 PM
Originally Posted by pall

Originally Posted by Astara

...leaving they task of executing me to 'underlings' would be an entirely irresponsible action of my 'commander'. It would be like some manager telling 3 employees to go off and 'fire' one of their coworkers...


I think it was because we weren't full dragon knight yet, and since we were supposed to be her pupil she could't bring herself to do it.


Two points here, the first being I don't see how she would know I was a full DK or not. For that matter, I don't see why I had to go through all that nonsense to become a DK anyway -- wouldn't Talana have had a dragon stone on her that she used to transform? What happened to that stone? That was another part of the story that was 'strained'. For that matter, what happened to Talana's Dragon Tower? It can't have been the one taken over by Laiken, as he had been doing business w/the bandits in the bandit camp long before the Dragon Slayer party (including me and Rhode) even arrived in Farglow.

How would someone of Rhode's caliber begin to 'touch' Talana? I doubt Talana would have gotten to where she was without having some wisdom as well as battle savvy, would she willingly jump down into a battle where she thought she was at risk? If the battle was turning against her, why not just dragonify and fly out? It appeared the group that attacked her was in the open area in front of Maxos temple, plenty of room to switch & run -- for that matter it appeared she had transformed, but not before sustaining mortal injuries. ??? So she can transform and fly away, but can't heal herself -- that strains credibility a bit.


  • Side comment -- why can enemies heal each other and other creatures heal me, but I can't heal my companions (summoned), or, even Talana at that point?


Second main point: if she couldn't bring herself to execute me, how much easier would it be for my classmates to do it? It was her responsibility, and for her to abandon her duty would speak of cowardice -- something she would never have done in front of her subordinates. That type of action would almost always cause subordinates to lose respect, even question her authority after that. Of course, she may not really have been concerned about what they thought, as they were only 'underlings'... but that would strongly say something about her character.

No matter the reason, it wouldn't have looked good to subordinates and would have been unacceptable behavior for a 'leader'.




Posted By: Astara Re: Story line annoyances... - 03/04/11 09:49 PM
Originally Posted by Stabbey
In the novella "Child of Chaos", Damian has an argument with Lucian about him executing Ygerna. And I do agree that Damian does have a bit of a point. Just because the Divine is generally a force for good, it doesn't mean he's perfect, an can't make mistakes. A flawed hero/god-figure is more interesting than a perfect one.

There are mistakes, and there are flaws that indicate deep-rooted problems. I'm sure some argue that hitler was a nice guy, except he made few mistakes, like killing off millions of innocents...
Ooops, just makes him more interesting... As for the description of Lucian being "generally a force for good"? If he had not kill Ygerna, then I feel it is unlikely Damian would have jumped to the side of the Black Ring to lead them against all humans.

In fact if Lucian had done the right thing and exposed her actions to Damian and let Damian decide her fate (including honoring his request to allow her to live), it would have cemented Damian's loyalty AND Ygerna's (assuming Damian still wanted her, which it sounds like he would). But by holding a 'tribunal' execution of Ygerna 'ASAP' w/o Damian's input...that was guaranteed to alienate him, no matter what he would have chosen to do with her.

Originally Posted by Stabbey
However, Damian's actions after that point have just gotten worse and worse. He is NOT a good guy, and Ygerna is not a naive innocent.


Ygerna may not be naïve, but 'guilty'? Of what? Teaching Damian magic? Um, seems like alot of people in this world know magic on either side of any dispute. That's no biggie. I don't see anything she willing did that deserves death. As far as Damian? From what we see in the game, his actions prior to her death indicate nothing that would qualify as evil, as far as I remember. In all of his action, it seems he's responding to 'being attacked' by someone who has somehow won the love of the people, who don't know of his misdeeds.

Originally Posted by Stabbey

Rhode is a fanatic. She truly believes that all dragons are evil, this belief is unshakable. At the time Rhode confronted the new Dragon Knight, the Black Ring had been quietly hiding out for 50 years. It wasn't an active threat. People are flawed, and sometimes good guys aren't on the same side.


That may be true, but can you show me any female fanatics from history that would instantly murder their apprentice/acolyte (who is more than willing to continue friendship and who really wants to be helpful -- i.e. someone who is not being antagonistic or defiant)? Are any of them considered 'leaders', or are we talking about someone who's insane or a criminal (or both)? As someone else pointed out -- I *wasn't* already a dragon. In fact, what powers did I supposedly have that would be a threat, at all, at that point? I *WASN'T* a dragon -- I'd been, perhaps, 'tainted', but there was nothing about me that was different from before -- I hadn't killed anyone, I had no special powers (other than those gotten via being a dragon slayer).

The only thing possible that she could possibly have against me was some 'invisible aura', that most people couldn't see anyway. That's a reason for wanting ME dead? *IF*, I was willing to not go on a rather arduous quest to find my own dragon stone & tower, it doesn't seem that I'm any different from her or the other students, other than having had some 'dream', and now having a taint on my aura.... Certainly nothing that would have warranted her wrath and desire to terminate me.

I would claim someone with such violent bigotry would be very unlikely to rise to the top of a 'good order' (the slayers) -- way too mentally unstable. Second, I can't think of any historical figures with similar tendencies who were female and would be hard pressed to come up with any examples period, who were not leaders, first, and then who later 'degenerated' (often due to external factors, like a disease or environmental poisoning).

It just felt 'off'..../unbelievable.

Posted By: scalla Re: Story line annoyances... - 03/04/11 10:41 PM
Originally Posted by Astara
As someone else pointed out -- I *wasn't* already a dragon. In fact, what powers did I supposedly have that would be a threat, at all, at that point? I *WASN'T* a dragon -- I'd been, perhaps, 'tainted', but there was nothing about me that was different from before -- I hadn't killed anyone, I had no special powers (other than those gotten via being a dragon slayer).

No power, but a potential: the potential of being a dragon. If Talana's legacy died with her, there would (normally) be no more Dragon Knight ever. However, she gave a slayer the dream, so the potential of a DK, and that's already too much for the slayers. As long as he is alive, he has the possibility to become a complete Dragon Knight, or maybe even 'contaminate' another slayer. As fanatics, they couldn't accept the risk... so didn't the Sint Inquisition about Cathar Perfecti during Albigensian Crusade, because it meant they could create other Believers and Perfecti.
Posted By: Stabbey Re: Story line annoyances... - 03/04/11 10:59 PM
Originally Posted by Astara

I can see her performing experiments on children being a much stronger case for her execution, but that's not part of this game, as near as I can tell. Most certainly, if she wasn't acting of her own free volition, most courts/rulers, etc wouldn't hold her entire responsible for what happened. Lucian talking about a "need to execute her"? That sounds like a statement I'd expect from someone who was very mentally imbalanced "the *NEED* to execute" her? There could never be a NEED to execute her unless her living would be a clear and present danger to others. As punishment, execution may be efficacious (considering cost of life imprisonment or likelihood of escape and future deeds if they escape), it may be 'fun' under a sadistic regime, it _may_ be called for due to the enormity of the crime, but NEED?


Ygerna was a sorceress, and Flames of Vengeance seems to confirm that she was a VERY POWERFUL one, given that she
Imprisoned a DEMIGOD while she was ALREADY DEAD.


It is true that there are shades of grey in the Divine's actions, and some of them are questionable, but the leaders of the Black Ring are evil bastards.


Quote

[*]First, it really isn't part of this game. It can be claimed to be a justification for actions in this game, but not being part of this game, it can't really be considered a justification.


That justification is nonsense. Backstory does not cease to exist just because you didn't read it. If I kill a man in real life to steal his fancy hat, that doesn't mean it didn't happen just because I was never caught.


Quote
[*]Second: even if the external information was take to be part of this game, it was given that her participation was on pain of death -- heavily coerced. If someone is 'controlled', then they are not responsible for their actions. One goes after the 'controller', not the pawn. It would be like yelling at a light switch for turning off the light instead of the person who used the switch.
To hold the switch responsible for having turned off the light and punishing it, is a strong sign of mental problems.


While this hasn't been explicitly confirmed, I find it likely that the Black Ring attacked and devastated the dukedom of Ferol (from the first game) in the several months which happened after the Divine One walked the Lands of the Dead. That's the kind of thing which people tend to hold a grudge against.


Quote

[*]Third, even if one accepted the back-story as part of the game, the in game dialogue doesn't acknowledge it and indicates it was her 'awakening' Damian as being the sole cause for her execution.


See above post on backstory.


Quote
[*]Fourth, if it was a 'legal' execution by the laws of the land, why was it done 'secretly' -- inside with so few witnesses? *Especially*, in earlier days, people were not executed in secret, but publicly for the important reason that it was to be a 'message' and example of what happens to those who violate the laws of the land. By being 'private' it had all the earmarks of being something that couldn't have been done publicly for fear that the public would object, or fear that if it wasn't done 'immediately', a greater force might stop them. It wasn't the action of someone who was supposed to be a 'good guy' or a leader of the people, but of a thug.



Who says it was secret? Secret from Damian, maybe, but I doubt very much that Lucian would hide the fact that he executes members of the Black Ring (who are EVIL, by the way). Making it clear that Black Ring members will be executed deters people from joining them, encourages defection, and shows the people that the Divine is fighting evil (WHICH THE BLACK RING ARE).


Quote
As for the actions of Rhode and her extreme antipathy toward me -- show me one example of a female, in history, who rose through the ranks to be a leader among her people, who's prejudice against a group was so murderous that she would turn upon a former pupil who was found to have 'tainted blood'.


What, does having two X chromosomes make you immune to being a jerk? Now that is a special kind of magic, all right.
Posted By: legionangel Re: Story line annoyances... - 03/04/11 11:12 PM
Im not going to sit here an quote everything you have said. Im going to make this plain and simple. If everything in the game was done the way that you wanted...

there would be no game!!!

And if you honestly think that if Larian is going to change everything in there next game just to suit you, then by all means keep writing your book in here.
Posted By: Stabbey Re: Story line annoyances... - 03/04/11 11:18 PM
Originally Posted by Astara

Two points here, the first being I don't see how she would know I was a full DK or not. For that matter, I don't see why I had to go through all that nonsense to become a DK anyway -- wouldn't Talana have had a dragon stone on her that she used to transform? What happened to that stone? That was another part of the story that was 'strained'. For that matter, what happened to Talana's Dragon Tower? It can't have been the one taken over by Laiken, as he had been doing business w/the bandits in the bandit camp long before the Dragon Slayer party (including me and Rhode) even arrived in Farglow.


I don't think there was a second dragon stone, only the one from Maxos's tower. If you're talking about Talana's Morph Stone, even if it was undamaged and on her, it wouldn't work until the Dragon Slayer->Knight touched the Dragon Stone.

What happened to Orobas's castle? What happened to Groblar's? Oh, that's right, the Dragon Slayers sacked them. I imagine the same thing happened to Talana's tower.

Quote
How would someone of Rhode's caliber begin to 'touch' Talana?


Did you miss the job description? "Dragon Slayer?" I'm sure that 50 years later the organization has figured out a way to fight them. It's also mentioned that she has killed many Slayers, so she probably underestimated Rhode, and was already mortally wounded by the time she realized she should attempt to escape.


Originally Posted by Astara

There are mistakes, and there are flaws that indicate deep-rooted problems. I'm sure some argue that hitler was a nice guy, except he made few mistakes, like killing off millions of innocents...
Ooops, just makes him more interesting... As for the description of Lucian being "generally a force for good"? If he had not kill Ygerna, then I feel it is unlikely Damian would have jumped to the side of the Black Ring to lead them against all humans.

In fact if Lucian had done the right thing and exposed her actions to Damian and let Damian decide her fate (including honoring his request to allow her to live), it would have cemented Damian's loyalty AND Ygerna's (assuming Damian still wanted her, which it sounds like he would). But by holding a 'tribunal' execution of Ygerna 'ASAP' w/o Damian's input...that was guaranteed to alienate him, no matter what he would have chosen to do with her.


I should point out that if anyone has been killing thousands of innocents in the Rivellon universe, it would be the Black Ring. Broken Valley was NOT a military target.

You are right, and I agree that if Lucian had told Damian and let him make the choice, the odds that he would turn against Lucian would have been smaller. I agree, executing Ygerna was a foolish mistake.


Quote
Ygerna may not be naïve, but 'guilty'? Of what? Teaching Damian magic? Um, seems like alot of people in this world know magic on either side of any dispute. That's no biggie. I don't see anything she willing did that deserves death. As far as Damian? From what we see in the game, his actions prior to her death indicate nothing that would qualify as evil, as far as I remember. In all of his action, it seems he's responding to 'being attacked' by someone who has somehow won the love of the people, who don't know of his misdeeds.


Ygerna was guilty of teaching black magic to the INCARNATION OF THE ULTIMATE EVIL, in case you forgot Damian's origins.

Damian was not evil before Ygerna was executed, but after that, he embraced the darkness. In Beyond Divinity, he committed genocide against the Raanaar. After that, he enslaved the orcs, possibly destroyed the elves, dwarves, and lizards.

Also, THE BLACK RING ARE EVIL.

I fail to see why your sympathies are so strong with the demon-worshiping, genocide-committing, torture-loving, orc-enslaving group.


Quote
That may be true, but can you show me any female fanatics from history that would instantly murder their apprentice/acolyte (who is more than willing to continue friendship and who really wants to be helpful -- i.e. someone who is not being antagonistic or defiant)?


Why do you include the qualifier "female" in there? Why are women immune from being jerks?

Rhode is a skilled warrior who behaves politely to people who are not her sworn enemies. Is it hard to imagine that she could gain respect and ranking?
Posted By: Raze Re: Story line annoyances... - 04/04/11 01:26 AM

I can't argue based on how the history is presented in FoV, since I have not played it yet.


There have been places and times when deserting from the army was punished by death. There was no great 'need' to kill any particular soldier for what may have been a temporary emotional state or possible extenuating circumstances, but that was still the policy. Undoubtedly there were people in charge who had some sympathy for at least some individuals to be executed, and yet followed procedure because they believed it was necessary - not that that person specifically needed to die, but that all deserters needed to be executed.

While you can argue about the appropriate punishment, I don't think anyone guilty of multiple murders is completely without blame if they were threatened to secure their cooperation.

The execution wasn't done in secret. They confronted Ygerna with the evidence against her, got a confession and carried out the prescribed punishment. Historically some people have been executed publicly as an example to others, and some have gotten lynched and hung from the nearest tree. During war, there are not a lot of breaks to have public trials.


Are you under the impression that somehow a women is incapable of being a zealot?

Show me one example of a female leader, who after dedicating her life to a single cause, is confronted with a trusted pupil (etc) who betrays that cause, and then responds by conceding that maybe everything she believed was wrong, and that her relationship with that person was too important to get in the way of the cause.


Damian's actions before Ygerna was executed were not particularly evil, but his response definitely was. Had he just attacked Lucien and the paladins you might be able to argue that he was justified. At some point starting wars, massacring anyone who gets in your way (or had any remote connection to helping anyone who got in your way), and attempted genocide stop being about justice and become just evil.
Posted By: legionangel Re: Story line annoyances... - 04/04/11 02:23 AM
I dont see how you could have even enjoyed the game to begin with. I have gone over some of your others posts, as I have done on many other people, and noticed something interesting.

When youre not asking how to do every single thing in the game...

Originally Posted by Astara
In madame's house (house of pleasure) -- I got the formula to expose pixie dust, and poured it and nothing happened, cept I got a quest reward -- but nothing was revealed -- there's blood all around the floor -- but it's every where -- not just there -- and was there before I poured it -- and now the head madam keeps asking me not to leave until I find the demon that killed everybody -- but the place is empty -- she won't engage in conversation -- just keeps spouting not to leave when I press 'e'.

Beginning to wonder if SHE is the demon, since there's nobody in the place. Feel bad, since if I leave, and come back later and she's dead, that would be sad, but there's nothing else to do.

Other stuck areas...no idea how to get the flower -- I found the room where it seems to be in with ladders at the bottom of some crypt, but after pulling the first lever I don't know how to proceed -- next ladder is out of reach as are other levers. Tried walking backwards down halls and into the transport that's there (hint from a stand before the room was when forward doesn't work, go backwards)....

Also don't know how to get into engineer's chamber/w/o killing the monk.



...you write a full page about how much you hated something.

You also say that the developers of the game suck.

Originally Posted by Astara
it seems the game devs are relative RPG-DND novices in designing game balance (though, good in graphics & other areas), but the lack of a well developed game system feels like another re-invention of the wheel -- something I'd associate with a less experienced team.


I wouldnt mind as much about your rants if there was a "Complain About Our Game" forum, if you were just ranting about what you have to do before the final battle in FoV, or if your rants werent half a page long each.

Raze and Stabbey or the most active and knowledgable people in here from what I have seen. After they explained something that you may not fully understand, like storyline from DD to FOV, you post another half page about something incredibaly minor as if it were in the real world, atleast what you think the real world is, and say how much that the person you are talking about is mentally insane and unjustified.

Please just let it go. If you dont like this game, stop playing it and buy one you do like. When most people dont like a game, even as much as you, they dont keep playing it to find out what else they hate.
Posted By: Raze Re: Story line annoyances... - 04/04/11 06:37 AM

If you mostly like a game, though, complaining about (or at least reporting) the parts you don't like gives the possibility that those issues may be taken into consideration for the next game.
Posted By: legionangel Re: Story line annoyances... - 04/04/11 04:30 PM
If you mostly like a game then yeah thats true. But saying that the whole storyline is bad, every character in the game is insane, and that the people who made the game are amateurs... thats not going to change anything.
Posted By: Procrastes Re: Story line annoyances... - 04/04/11 10:23 PM
Originally Posted by Astara

As for the actions of Rhode and her extreme antipathy toward me -- show me one example of a female, in history, who rose through the ranks to be a leader among her people, who's prejudice against a group was so murderous that she would turn upon a former pupil who was found to have 'tainted blood'.


I agree with all previous answers concerning the equality of the sexes, and their equal ability of being jerks.

That being said: Cleopatra VII of Egypt allegedly poisoned her younger brother, Ptolemy XIV, in order to secure the kingdom for her son with Julius Caesar, Ptolemy XIV Caesarion. Cleopatra was a leader among her people, her prejudice against her own family were murderous (quite rationally so, since they had an established historical tradition of sibling assassination), and it could be said that it was precisely Ptolemy's blood - i.e. him being a blood relative - that made it necessary to kill him.

I am sure that more examples could be found. But the post asked for one example.

Posted By: Astara Re: Story line annoyances... - 05/04/11 06:43 AM
The post asked for an example of someone who had murderous intent (prejudice), who would turn on someone close who was found to have tainted blood. Her murdering her bro was based on political aspirations, not a need to purge the world of some 'taint' that she discovered her brother had become infected with.

In terms of plotting or being 'nefarious', women may have an edge, on the average, as they usually have to be 'sneaky' in order to overcome the male's advantage of muscular strength. However, among the pinnacles of nefarious, cannot be ignored the writings of Machiavelli -- while women might average higher in some area, males almost always have a greater std. deviation, and can produce single examples that are likely to exceed the best female (with the converse also being true -- i.e. chances of producing the greatest idiots).

Posted By: Astara Re: Story line annoyances... - 05/04/11 06:56 AM
You are twisting words, which indicates that you are arguing an indefensible point.

I didn't ask that a female leader give up everything she believed. Just that she not immediately kill. There's a big difference there.

My contention is she wouldn't kill.

Neither did I say a woman is incapable of becoming a zealot -- I was talking about a murderous zealot who would turn on a close follower for suspected 'taint'.

I'm saying such doesn't exist.

I didn't say Ygerna was *completely* w/o blame -- I said the level of her crime was considerably mitigated by the fact that her actions were coerced. We don't hold people, fully, responsible for their actions when they were under coercion. Also, *in the game*, her crime was telling Damian about his past -- no mention is made of any supposed murders she had done.

I can make up side stories to justify any point of view -- but I'm looking at what goes on in the game -- not in side stories about the game that could have been written after they wrote the script for FoV and needed further justification for Lucien's actions.


Posted By: Raze Re: Story line annoyances... - 05/04/11 08:01 AM

I was talking about a murderous zealot who would turn on a close follower for suspected 'taint'.

So no women have ever instigated or participated in a (so called) honour killing?
Posted By: Procrastes Re: Story line annoyances... - 05/04/11 11:07 AM
Originally Posted by Astara
The post asked for an example of someone who had murderous intent (prejudice), who would turn on someone close who was found to have tainted blood. Her murdering her bro was based on political aspirations, not a need to purge the world of some 'taint' that she discovered her brother had become infected with.

In terms of plotting or being 'nefarious', women may have an edge, on the average, as they usually have to be 'sneaky' in order to overcome the male's advantage of muscular strength. However, among the pinnacles of nefarious, cannot be ignored the writings of Machiavelli -- while women might average higher in some area, males almost always have a greater std. deviation, and can produce single examples that are likely to exceed the best female (with the converse also being true -- i.e. chances of producing the greatest idiots).



I admit that the comparison with Cleopatra is not a perfect simile. It was the closest I could come on short notice, however, since my search for a historical female who turned on a close associate on account of the latter having contracted dragon taint, regrettably came up short. If I do find a perfect match, I'll let you know.

I'll stand by the view on basic equality, however. While Machiavelli is always interesting, I'd say that the theories of genus psychology have advanced quite a bit since his time. If history gives more examples of extreme deviation on the male side, I suggest that this is because men have generally been given greater opportunity to deviate. If a woman deviated in renaissance Italy, for example, she would probably have been locked up in a convent.
Posted By: Procrastes Re: Story line annoyances... - 05/04/11 11:47 AM
Originally Posted by Raze

I was talking about a murderous zealot who would turn on a close follower for suspected 'taint'.

So no women have ever instigated or participated in a (so called) honour killing?


That is a good example. And in one of the witch trials burnings in 17th century Sweden, the daughter of one of the accused had actually testified against her own mother, who was then sentenced to burn at the stake. As she stood on the pyre, her daughter cried out to her, begging her to confess and thus save her soul from damnation. She replied by cursing her malignant offspring (all this is recorded in the court protocol). I don't recall if the daughter had been the one to turn her mother in, but whether or not, I think she would qualify as the kind of murderous zealot we are talking about here.
Posted By: Stabbey Re: Story line annoyances... - 05/04/11 01:00 PM
Originally Posted by Astara
You are twisting words, which indicates that you are arguing an indefensible point.

I didn't ask that a female leader give up everything she believed. Just that she not immediately kill. There's a big difference there.

My contention is she wouldn't kill.

Neither did I say a woman is incapable of becoming a zealot -- I was talking about a murderous zealot who would turn on a close follower for suspected 'taint'.

I'm saying such doesn't exist.



You specified that you believe women are not capable of that kind of behavior, which implies that you believe men are capable of that behavior. Several posters here find that logic to be absurd, and will continue to find it absurd no much you protest.


Quote
I didn't say Ygerna was *completely* w/o blame -- I said the level of her crime was considerably mitigated by the fact that her actions were coerced. We don't hold people, fully, responsible for their actions when they were under coercion. Also, *in the game*, her crime was telling Damian about his past -- no mention is made of any supposed murders she had done.

I can make up side stories to justify any point of view -- but I'm looking at what goes on in the game -- not in side stories about the game that could have been written after they wrote the script for FoV and needed further justification for Lucien's actions.


The "Child of Chaos" Novella was written for Beyond Divinity, which was released in 2005. It was probably written before or during the writing of Beyond Divinity. It was not written as a retroactive justification.

You have decided that no matter whatever else the Divine did, no matter how many lives he saved, killing Ygerna makes him evil. Another point of view is Lucian as a protective father, except that he not only has to protect his son from the world, but also protect the world from his son.


I don't think you read the Novella, (found in The Fansite Kit 20 MB) because it does not ignore Lucian's questionable actions dealing with Ygerna.


Quote

‘Why did you do it?!’ screamed Damian. ‘Why her? Why couldn’t you let us be happy?!’

‘She was a murderer, Damian. A killer of innocent children,’ retorted Lucian, holding the
boy off with a shield spell at the same time as back-stepping his way towards the temple.

‘She was just protecting her father. She knew that if she didn’t do what the Black Ring wanted,
then they would kill them both. Now you’ve made me go to them, Lucian. You made me
do it. They told me who I really was and what you have been hiding from me all these
years.’

‘I did that for your own good, Damian. I did it to protect you from yourself.’

<snip>

‘You did it because you were afraid I would become greater than you. And I will, Lucian, I
will. When you killed Ygerna, you took away my right to choose. And now there is no
choice to be made anymore!’

‘There is always a choice, Damian,’ shouted Lucian and then realised that he was exactly
the wrong person to be saying that. Had he really not had a choice in killing the girl?

<snip>

‘You should have killed me when you had the chance,’ he spat. ‘Day by day I grow more
powerful, while you grow weaker by clinging to your pathetic values of law and order. Can
you not feel it, Lucian? Can you not feel the world moving in my direction?’
Posted By: pall Re: Story line annoyances... - 05/04/11 07:13 PM
So Lucian realized(or started to realize) that killing Ygerna wasn't the brightest idea. She was evil, lucian was good, but executing Ygerna pushed Damian into becoming big bad guy.
Instead Zandalor could imprisone her in some sort of magic prison (like Lucian was imprisoned) and try to explain to Damian truth.
But past deed cannot be undone, and if Ygerna would be alive and Damian would remain good guy then there would't be divinity 2 to play, so it's alright smile
Posted By: legionangel Re: Story line annoyances... - 05/04/11 08:52 PM
Originally Posted by Astara
The post asked for an example of someone who had murderous intent (prejudice), who would turn on someone close who was found to have tainted blood. Her murdering her bro was based on political aspirations, not a need to purge the world of some 'taint' that she discovered her brother had become infected with.


Procrastes gave a great example as to what you asked for, and just because Cleopatra murdered her brother under
Originally Posted by Astara
political aspirations
according to you who knows all, means that there have been no women in history that have done exactly 120% what youre looking for? Oh please.

Originally Posted by Atara
Neither did I say a woman is incapable of becoming a zealot -- I was talking about a murderous zealot who would turn on a close follower for suspected 'taint'.

I'm saying such doesn't exist.


Again, just because one word is different you are still right and that there has been no woman in history that has been a
Originally Posted by Astara
murderous zealot who would turn on a close follower for suspected 'taint'


Are you forgetting that this is a game, a make believe world made for entertainment purposes, and not real life?
Posted By: needshelps Re: Story line annoyances... - 07/04/11 03:33 AM
Originally Posted by Astara

As for the actions of Rhode and her extreme antipathy toward me -- show me one example of a female, in history, who rose through the ranks to be a leader among her people, who's prejudice against a group was so murderous that she would turn upon a former pupil who was found to have 'tainted blood'.

To be honest, I cannot think of any times in history when a human female leader (because, you know, there are just so many records of female leaders) has not turned on one of her former pupils, when that pupil has turned into a flying, fire-breathing reptile.
Posted By: virumor Re: Story line annoyances... - 07/04/11 11:25 AM
If Ygerna really loved Damian, why would she have revealed his true nature and awaken the Demon within, who would eventually completely take over Damian's personality?

She wanted nothing but power. Damian, for his part, is an idiot for even wanting to become the Demon of Lies.
Posted By: legionangel Re: Story line annoyances... - 07/04/11 03:05 PM
What ever said that Ygerna was awakening Damians powers so that she could awaken the demon? All that was ever said in D2 was that she was just trying to awaken his powers because of what he is, not to awaken the demon.

If you didnt know that there was a demon inside of you but there was somebody who said they can make you more powerful, would you say, "lets go for it" or "forget that. I like being normal"?
Posted By: virumor Re: Story line annoyances... - 07/04/11 07:50 PM
She's Black Ring, their goal is to bring back the Demon of Lies.

The Demon of Lies wasn't exactly a demon, but rather an evil god. Damian was merely a vessel for his power. If the demon awakened, the demon would completely take over and his personality would be erased.

Ygerna must've known this, but mayhap was so "blinded by love" that she chose to believe that Damian would be strong enough to control the Demon?
Posted By: Demonic Re: Story line annoyances... - 08/04/11 05:37 PM
Ygrna's crime was unleashing the demon in Damien's soul. That's what Lucien says at the end of Ego when you witness the "trail". (Someone correct me if I'm wrong, it's been months since I finished Ego again) To me, unleashing a demon in someone's soul is quite evil. No good can come of it and thus Lucien's actions were justified when he slew that bitch.

Hell. He should have brought her back from the dead just to kill her all over again.
Posted By: legionangel Re: Story line annoyances... - 08/04/11 06:25 PM
Nah. Killing her a second time is no good. I think ramming a zeppeling up her a** is a whole lot more fun. pwned weird!
Posted By: scalla Re: Story line annoyances... - 08/04/11 08:07 PM
The Demon of Lies died with the sword wink Damian is the Lord of Chaos (who had a fragment of his soul in the sword of lies, that's correct)
Posted By: Lucreel Re: Story line annoyances... [SPOILERS] - 12/04/11 07:14 PM
Originally Posted by Astara

In a similar way, though not to same extent, I hated the dialogue choices w/Rhode. Said this before and will say it again. Her response to my 'conversion' as being a 'Betrayer' was completely without sense.


I think you must have missed the part where "Betrayer" is a title that the Slayers use for Dragons. She's not saying that you betrayed her, but simply that now that Talana 'got' to you, you've become a "Betrayer", e.g. become a dragon knight.

Quote

* Second, leaving they task of executing me to 'underlings' would be an entirely irresponsible action of my 'commander'. It would be like some manager telling 3 employees to go off and 'fire' one of their coworkers...


I had a couple thoughts on this while playing the game. . . first, she clearly expects you to commit suicide - she hands you Arben's Sword and tells you to remember your oaths. Secondly, if you do fight back, and manage to win, it would be important to her that *somoeone* gets away to let the rest of the Order know that you have become a new Dragon Knight - such intelligence would be important to the Order. That said, you'd think she'd send one of the Underlings to tell the order, and stay herself - it really isn't well explained why she leaves instead.

It's clear that the developers didn't want you to kill Rhode in this game, but to leave her alive to confront you in the next game. I think a major component of the next game will be being hunted by the Order. Also, arguably, they want Rhode to be a higher-level character - she's supposed to be one of the elite among the Order, and the Order are already supposed to be elite. It would be like being part of an elite unit within the Navy Seals or Army Rangers. Having you kill her at level 10-15 would be too soon for such a confrontation.

Quote

* Third, I was initially willing to work w/her & help her. The entire bit about her not wanting to listen to me or anything I had to say was completely illogical. It wasn't as if she and I had been long time enemies -- instead, I was her new pupil, maybe the last to become a Slayer (what need for Slayers if no more Dragons?)


As others have said, the Rhode character is not supposed to be reasonable. That's just who she is - a heartless fanatic. A true believer. You have been 'tainted' by the dragon essence, now you must die, that's all there is to it. You're right that it's not reasonable of her to hold you accountable - THAT's the POINT.

Quote
* Fourth, this really bothered me after thinking about it for a while. Since when is it considered remotely 'reasonable' to exterminate all members of a group for the actions of one?
Such behavior is considered backwards at 'best', like punishing 7 generations of a family, or automatically condemning and executing all known associates and relatives of some criminal, w/o regard for how those associates or relatives thought of the actions of the criminal. However, in general, such behavior is a prime example of the bigotry present in racism and genocide -- generally considered to be among the most evil of actions.


Again, you're correct, and again, that's the point. The writers wanted you to think this through and come to the conclusion you have. The Slayers are not at all reasonable. I decided that in Farglow. To hold all dragon knights responsible for one DK killing the Divine, is not at all reasonable. It's why Zalandor is now persona non grata - because he tried to defend the knights against the order, but the order had captured public opinion.

Quote

* Fifth, wasn't the real enemy the 'Black Ring'? It wasn't so much that Dragons (Dragon Knights) were enemies of humans, but that supposedly they had betrayed humans. While that might have been true about *some* DK, in the past, it certainly wasn't true of me who was her protégée.


Yes, and several characters throughout the game make that same point - Talana as she's dieing says so, I think ZixZax makes a similar statement, Zalandor, etc - that the humans have become distracted by their quest against the Dragon Knights, and turned their eyes away from the real threat.

In fact, I somewhat expect in the next game that we'll find out that some of the Slayers (probably Rhode), were really Black Ring agents, intended to make sure that the Slayers stayed Polarized, and kept hunting down dragon. Some might have been propagandists whose mission was to keep the population turned against Zalandor and the Knights.

Quote

In general, I was bummed about my choices w/Rhode -- I didn't want to fight her -- I really liked her.

Anyway, those were issues that really hurt the story 'immersion' effect, in that they were so unbelievable and infuriating. Except for Damian's actions against all humans as his 'vengeance' quest (which can't be allowed to continue), I felt he was one of the least evil characters considering him w/Rhode (and Slayers in general), and those who executed Ygrna. Those actions felt more like they were the actions of 'evil', rather than 'good'...


It's true that the story doesn't seem entirely believable at times. It's a bit of a soap opera, or a melodrama in most regards. Most of the villains are classic 'comic book villains' - so two-dimensional you could slip them in an envelope and mail them.

Perhaps in the next game, we'll have a chance to try to win Rhode over to our side (it could be one of the moral choices presented in the game - seek revenge against Rhode, or attempt reconciliation).
© Larian Studios forums