POStudios Forum

The Royal Archives => Fan Feedback => Topic started by: Sir Perceval of Daventry on February 22, 2011, 10:56:42 PM

Title: Plot-holes (spoilers)
Post by: Sir Perceval of Daventry on February 22, 2011, 10:56:42 PM
I've noticed some potential plot holes:

Shadrack realizes Manannan has divided mixed feelings, guilt, etc about sending Valanice away (he references these ''mixed feelings" specifically), and yet he sends Alexander--presumably someone who Shadrack feels is very important--to someone who has mixed feelings and thus, divided loyalties. He tells him not to treat the boy kindly so that Manny doesn't get mixed feelings again. He also chides Manannan for failing to recover the Magic Mirror, or stop Graham from doing so, as they need it to recover Pandora's Box.
That said:

1) If you're Shadrack, the evil leader of an evil organization, would you really want someone on your team who isn't totally evil--who has something of a heart? Wouldn't it just be a wiser decision to send Alex to someone who doesn't have these feelings? Moreover, would you place somene who is incredibly important to your plans under this man's care and instruct him to act even more evil and teach him Dark Magic? He's already suffering from what could turn into divided loyalties.

2) Manannan is told not to treat Alexander kindly so that he (Manny) doesn't have "second thoughts". That doesn't make sense. If you put a little child into the hands of Manannan, someone who isn't totally evil, and this child is his own grandsn, wouldn't treating them even worse than you treated your daughter (whipping him, for example)--which obviously bothers Manny--Wouldn't treating Alex so horribly make Manannan feel more confused about his feelings? Blood is blood.

Not only that, but wouldn't treating Alexander horribly make him less inclined to join your cause? They seem to want him to join the BCS' cause or at the very least Dark Magic, so...wouldn't Manny treating him kindly actually make Alex more inclined to join them?

3) Manannan is told to teach Alex the Dark Arts. Yet we never see him doing this, and in fact, if Alexander is in posession of ANY of Manannan's magical items, or happens to find his way into Manannan's laboratory, Manny kills him. In fact, hiding such items is a key part of the gameplay of KQ3. Killing him if he happens to stumble onto some magical spells doesn't seem to be a good way to introduce him to magic. Also, in KQ5, Alexander explains he ACCIDENTALLY stumbled onto some magic spells--He makes no mention of being taught magic.

4) Manannan was apparently tasked with stopping Graham from getting the Magic Mirror. I'm guessing that means Manannan was the wandering enchanter in KQ1--No one actively tries to stop Graham from getting the Mirror, except the Dragon (and he's cowed down very easily). Why didn't they use the Mirror when Mordack kidnapped the Royal Family and captured the castle in KQ5? Why didn't Manannan just go into the Castle and steal it while Graham was away from Daventry to rescue Valanice during KQ2?

I'm presuming that the Sorceror who tricked Edward out of the Mirror in the first place was a member of the BCS. Which would mean in the decades before and up to KQ1, it was in their possession. Leaving them decades to use it to find Pandora's Box--why didn't they find it anytime in this period? We're shown even though Shadrack is apparently in some sort of prison, he is able to leave his prison at least for brief times by the time of KQ2, why couldn't they just have Shadrack do a quick look into it in this period?

Why didn't he or a minion of his come to Graham between KQ2 and KQ3 under the guise of helping Graham make the Mirror unclouded and then abscond with it?

Moreover, if they needed the Mirror in their posession to get Pandora's Box, how were they able to know where the Box was in KQ4, when the Mirror was safely in Graham's possession?

5) Shadrack wants Graham and Valanice to get together, and even sets the events of KQ2 in motion it would seem. In fact, he hopes that they have offspring. If Hagatha is part of the BCS and Graham and Valanice having kids was (possibly) instrumental to Shadrack's return to power, why does Hagatha try to catch and eat Graham? Wouldn't that be counter-productive to Graham rescuing Valanice and having children with her?

6) Shadrack, in his letter to Abdul Alhazred in KQ6, mentions that Mordack was a "ninny at chess"--implying he had played it with him at least more than once. If Shadrack can only leave his prison briefly, how is he able to spend his precious and very evil time playing games of Chess with Mordack? Why is he wasting his time in this way? How is he able to send dozens of letters to Alhazred?

7) Not a plot hole exactly, but...Valanice is Manannan's daughter, and thus Mordack's niece. Yet in KQ5, Mordack threatens to feed the Royal Family to Manannan, starting with Valanice...Thus Manny would be eating his own daughter. A little freaky, no? And isn't Valanice important to all of this? Why kill her off?

I'm assuming they were involved in KQ6 as well, related somehow to the Royal Family. How would they know Alexander would fall in love with Cassima?

A few others but my fingers are tired....
Title: Re: Plot-holes (spoilers)
Post by: Arkillian on February 22, 2011, 11:00:53 PM
Personally, I'd like to think these will be explained. They've just been presented to us, so they can't be plot holes till the end of the story, right? Right now, they're just hook lines. As long as all the hook lines catch plot in the end, it'll be fine :) There IS a lot of explaining to do though, I must admit >.>
Title: Re: Plot-holes (spoilers)
Post by: Sir Perceval of Daventry on February 23, 2011, 01:22:12 AM
Another plothole:

In KQ2, there's a lion guarding the door to Valanice's tower, which can kill Graham. Yet Shadrack WANTS Graham to meet Valanice, and Manannan agrees...So why put a lion, which could kill him, thus ending the possibility of Valanice's union with him, in front of the door to her room? If it was there to kill Valanice if she tried to escape, that doesn't make sense, since she's apparently important to them.
Title: Re: Plot-holes (spoilers)
Post by: Arkillian on February 23, 2011, 01:33:36 AM
They said that they could put it to their advantage. Didn't mean they wanted Graham to survive.
Title: Re: Plot-holes (spoilers)
Post by: Sir Perceval of Daventry on February 23, 2011, 01:39:33 AM
They said that they could put it to their advantage. Didn't mean they wanted Graham to survive.

They said they hoped for a union which would produce children. He basically set up the plot of KQ2 by implying that he'd make Valanice appear in the Magic Mirror for Graham.
Title: Re: Plot-holes (spoilers)
Post by: oberonqa on February 23, 2011, 01:51:10 AM
Now see.... I noticed that in the final cutscene, Manannan specifically says "She called me Father".  This implies to me that Valanice was brainwashed by the BCS... probably to wipe away any memories of her life prior to being kidnapped.  Also, Manannan tried to "unlock her potential".  Manannan specifically tells Valanice in that cutscene that he wasn't supposed to have done that and could be severely punished by Shadrack if this came to light.  Obviously Shadrack knows that Manannan developed a soft-spot for Valanice and specifically instructs Manannan to not be kind to Alexander and not run the risk of developing a soft-spot.

Also remember that Faan's parents sent candles that Faan had made using a portion of her own life force to the Archdruid so that he could try to locate Faan.  Also remember that only someone who was truly interested in helping Faan could move the unlit candle and that person happens to be Graham.  Valanice is Faan... who was kidnapped from her parents and home.  Manannan would not have had any contact with the Archdruid, and he certainly would not have sent the Archdruid anything that belonged to Faan... especially something that was supposed to be used to find and aid Faan.

Removing the familial connection between Valaince/Alexander/Manannan/Mordack, then Manannan's behavior towards Alexander in KQ3 is perfectly normal... as is Mordack's behavior towards the Royal Family.

As for Manannan's orders to teach Alexander Dark Magic.... remember we only see Alexander when he is a few weeks shy of 18 years old.  Manannan had Alexander for the entire length of his life, having received Alexander as an infant (the means and method of Alexander's kidnapping are not covered in the original KQ3, but the game makes a specific point to mention Alexander was kidnapped as an infant).  Who can say what happened to Alexander during his childhood?  No one really knows.  Perhaps Alexander was taught Dark Magic sub-consciously by simply being in such close proximity to Manannan for so many years.  There would have to be something done there, as Alexander was able to cast the spells from Manannan's spellbook... and someone who didn't have any knowledge (either conscious or subconscious) of Dark Magic would not have been able to cast those spells (which goes all the way back to D&D's establishment of assorted schools/circles of magic and the rule that wizards of one school/circle of magic could not cast spells from a different school/circle).  While most of the spells that Alexander cast were rather ambiguous or neutral in terms of alignment, the Cat Cookie spell was most definitely a Dark Magic spell.  The purpose of the spell is to cause the eater of the cookie to be transformed into a cat with no way to reverse the spell unless the spell caster casts the proper counter-spell.  Actually... the Cat Cookie spell isn't so much a spell as it is a curse, which in my book makes it Dark (evil) magic.

As for the Magic Mirror and why Mordack didn't use the mirror while he had possession of the Royal Family in KQ5... the mirror would have been shrunk down to a minuscule size along with the rest of the castle and it's inhabitants.  Mordack would not have had any convenient way of getting the mirror... short of either returning the castle to it's normal size and retrieving the mirror.... or shrinking himself down to the appropriate size and teleporting into the castle and getting the mirror.  Both methods might have worked... or they might not have worked.  Either way, the question that should be asked is why didn't Mordack try either of these methods?  Perhaps because he wasn't supposed to have kidnapped the family in the first place?  There is no evidence in official cannon (read: the games... not the Companion.... sorry Baggins) that suggests that Mordack was acting under Shadrack's orders.  He was simply trying to get Alexander to reverse the Cat Cookie spell/curse he cast on Manannan.  Mordack's only official BCS business in KQ5 was keeping/taking care of Cassima.

As for why Mordack didn't steal the mirror while Graham was off rescuing Valanice, perhaps it was decided by the BCS that Pandora's Box wasn't needed until the proper time and was safer in it's resting place than in the hands of the BCS.  After all, the BCS did hide the Mirror when they had it in their possession rather than keep it in the possession of one of their members.  This could be a potential plot hole, as there really is no compelling reason not to at least use the mirror to find out where the Box was stored... but even if the BCS used the mirror to divine the location of Pandora's Box (and by extension of that, the key to opening the crypt door) when they had access to it prior to KQ1, that knowledge would not have served them, since the only person who knows where the key is hiding now is Rosella (who left the key inside the crypt, effectively sealing the crypt for all time).  Still a potential loop hole, as the BCS could send either Hagatha or Alhazared to Daventry to steal the mirror to find out this information.  Or Shadrack could teleport himself to the mirror and use it without stealing it.  But it does stand to reason that they knew where the Box was... or at least the general region (unless it's just a coincidence that Llollote is seeking the box and she's NOT a member of the BCS).  And that does imply they used the mirror sometime while it was in their possession prior to KQ1.  I'm sure POS has something up their sleeves to explain this...

As for Hagatha's involvement in KQ2, ever hear the old saying "there's no such thing as a free lunch?"  Hagatha had to make a good show of impeding Graham's progress in Kolyma so as to avoid arousing Graham's suspicions.  If she truly was interested in stopping Graham, all she really had to do was push him into the poisoned moat surrounding Dracula's castle.  As it currently stands, she is more of a minor inconvenience in KQ2... she does not truly stand in Graham's way, but she doesn't make it too obvious that she's not standing in Graham's way.

In regards to the letters Shadrack sent to Alhazared and his famous chess matches with Mordack, this is a legitimate plothole.... at the very least I can think of nothing that would convincingly explain these things with Shadrack still imprisoned.  Actually.... there is one thing.... but it's rather flimsly as an explanation.  The physical being that is Shadrack remained imprisoned until the events of TSL... but Shadrack was able to send a shadow of himself outside the prison where he could communicate with the other members of the BCS, but could not tap into any part of his vast power.  Like I said... it's flimsly... but it might be the direction POS goes in explaining this potential plothole.

As for Alexander falling in love with Cassima, I honestly don't think the BCS knew this would happen.  Especially if, as I said earlier, Mordack was acting alone and independently of the BCS when he kidnapped the Royal Family.   It was a chance meeting and could not have been predicted.  Furthermore, Alexander falling in love with Cassima put into jeopardy (and foiled) a rather elaborate BCS scheme to put Alhazared on the throne of the Green Isles.  If the BCS did, by some chance, foresee Mordack's independent actions in KQ5 and Alexander meeting and falling in love with Cassima, they most certainly would have foreseen Alexander foiling their plans in the Green Isles and would have taken steps to ensure that didn't happen.
Title: Re: Plot-holes (spoilers)
Post by: Baggins on February 23, 2011, 02:21:43 AM
I don't know with the revelation that Manannan is Val's father the reference to Cedric as her father in the Four Winds kinda confusing since It doesn't directly explain how she ended up in Cedric's hands? Maybe it's a matter of too much info on part of Four Winds trying to force elements of Companion while overall ignoring it on most details.
Title: Re: Plot-holes (spoilers)
Post by: Sir Perceval of Daventry on February 23, 2011, 02:38:10 AM
Now see.... I noticed that in the final cutscene, Manannan specifically says "She called me Father".  This implies to me that Valanice was brainwashed by the BCS... probably to wipe away any memories of her life prior to being kidnapped.  Also, Manannan tried to "unlock her potential".  Manannan specifically tells Valanice in that cutscene that he wasn't supposed to have done that and could be severely punished by Shadrack if this came to light.  Obviously Shadrack knows that Manannan developed a soft-spot for Valanice and specifically instructs Manannan to not be kind to Alexander and not run the risk of developing a soft-spot.

Also remember that Faan's parents sent candles that Faan had made using a portion of her own life force to the Archdruid so that he could try to locate Faan.  Also remember that only someone who was truly interested in helping Faan could move the unlit candle and that person happens to be Graham.  Valanice is Faan... who was kidnapped from her parents and home.  Manannan would not have had any contact with the Archdruid, and he certainly would not have sent the Archdruid anything that belonged to Faan... especially something that was supposed to be used to find and aid Faan.

Just wanted to respond to this point.
Shadrack says Manannan's "sacrifice" is noted. If he wasn't her father, why would giving her up be a 'sacrifice' for him? Why would he feel bad about it, and stare out the window, deep in thought when she calls him "Father"? He also tells her she is the only "part of him" that remains pure--She is his blood, part of him.

Also, in context, Manannan isn't talking about being punished for "helping realize her gift", he is talking about going away with Valanice, leaving the Society, and also of letting her get away with her helping their enemy. She is punished for helping Graham in some way, that's why she's sent to the Tower.

What if Fann, or Aria, is actually Valanice's mother? Think about it...She has druid blood, and Manannan is her father. She says her parents, who Manannan says clearly are actually "not [her] parents", reside in Kolyma. Also, where is the grove of Druids in Kolyma if that were the case?
Title: Re: Plot-holes (spoilers)
Post by: oberonqa on February 23, 2011, 02:56:58 AM
Now see.... I noticed that in the final cutscene, Manannan specifically says "She called me Father".  This implies to me that Valanice was brainwashed by the BCS... probably to wipe away any memories of her life prior to being kidnapped.  Also, Manannan tried to "unlock her potential".  Manannan specifically tells Valanice in that cutscene that he wasn't supposed to have done that and could be severely punished by Shadrack if this came to light.  Obviously Shadrack knows that Manannan developed a soft-spot for Valanice and specifically instructs Manannan to not be kind to Alexander and not run the risk of developing a soft-spot.

Also remember that Faan's parents sent candles that Faan had made using a portion of her own life force to the Archdruid so that he could try to locate Faan.  Also remember that only someone who was truly interested in helping Faan could move the unlit candle and that person happens to be Graham.  Valanice is Faan... who was kidnapped from her parents and home.  Manannan would not have had any contact with the Archdruid, and he certainly would not have sent the Archdruid anything that belonged to Faan... especially something that was supposed to be used to find and aid Faan.

Just wanted to respond to this point.
Shadrack says Manannan's "sacrifice" is noted. If he wasn't her father, why would giving her up be a 'sacrifice' for him? Why would he feel bad about it, and stare out the window, deep in thought when she calls him "Father"? He also tells her she is the only "part of him" that remains pure--She is his blood, part of him.

Also, in context, Manannan isn't talking about being punished for "helping realize her gift", he is talking about going away with Valanice, leaving the Society, and also of letting her get away with her helping their enemy. She is punished for helping Graham in some way, that's why she's sent to the Tower.

What if Fann, or Aria, is actually Valanice's mother? Think about it...She has druid blood, and Manannan is her father. She says her parents, who Manannan says clearly are actually "not [her] parents", reside in Kolyma. Also, where is the grove of Druids in Kolyma if that were the case?

Shadrack pointedly called what Manannan was doing as a "sacrifice" to drive home the point that he knew that Manannan had grown too close to Valanice and had developed feelings for her he should not have developed.  If Valanice was brainwashed into thinking Manannan was her father and Manannan played a kind and gentle fatherly figure, this would make sense.

As for his purity comment, if he had any part in Valanice's upbringing, then this would account for that comment.  He clearly cared for Valanice and it's obvious this wasn't something that should have happened.  Again, Shadrack specifically using the word "sacrifice" directly plays into this, as does his very pointed directions that should any offspring from Graham and Valanice come to be, Manannan was to take the male child and raise that child, but not get too close.  That wording "don't get too close" further implies that Manannan has a penchant for growing attached to his charges, and this probably stems from him growing attached to Valanice when she was his charge.

The remainder of your post is based solely on taking the cutscene at face value and that it is exactly what it is presented to be, that Manannan is Valanice's father.  Does that also mean that Manannan is Alexander's father?  After all, there is a cutscene in Episode 2 where Manannan refers to Alexander as "his son".  There is a lot of subtlety in the writing here (a great credit to Katie and Cez's writing talent) that requires one to read behind the lines.  To see what is presented and look beyond to see the truth of what is being presented.

It is possible that it is exactly what it looks like, that Valanice is Manannan's daughter.  However.... I wouldn't be comfortable making a bet on that outcome...
Title: Re: Plot-holes (spoilers)
Post by: Cez on February 23, 2011, 05:45:57 AM
All these things will be explained in due time, and some of them already have an explanation, especially if you look closely.

For example, The chess thing. Well, Shadrack is standing next to Manannan in that cutscene 20 years ago, isn't he?

Valanice is Manannan's daughter, that's for sure. To answer Baggin's question, You like quoting lines a lot, and there are lines in that cutscene with Manannan/Valanice that should give you a very good idea of what happened.

Alex casting spell. The guy can read, so he obviously got an education from Manannan. But I'll cut this one short because talking more would be spoiling.

And for every other point, pay more attention to the story. A lot has been revealed already. And sometimes, it's not very subtle :)

Good to see you around again, Dave. You've been missed.

Cez
Title: Re: Plot-holes (spoilers)
Post by: Sir Perceval of Daventry on February 23, 2011, 06:10:42 AM
All these things will be explained in due time, and some of them already have an explanation, especially if you look closely.

For example, The chess thing. Well, Shadrack is standing next to Manannan in that cutscene 20 years ago, isn't he?

Valanice is Manannan's daughter, that's for sure. To answer Baggin's question, You like quoting lines a lot, and there are lines in that cutscene with Manannan/Valanice that should give you a very good idea of what happened.

Alex casting spell. The guy can read, so he obviously got an education from Manannan. But I'll cut this one short because talking more would be spoiling.

And for every other point, pay more attention to the story. A lot has been revealed already. And sometimes, it's not very subtle :)

Good to see you around again, Dave. You've been missed.

Cez

I do like the idea that he is able to appear in dreams while in (what I'm guessing) is some sort of magical prison. It's very similar to the idea found in the movie Excalibur. Morgana, King Arthur's treacherous half-sister and a pupil to Merlin, imprisons Merlin in the Realm of Magic. He is forever frozen, physically--But can manifest in dreams and as sort of a spirit, and aids Arthur and brings an end to Morgana in this form.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8mJwgPiarg see here if you wish.
Title: Re: Plot-holes (spoilers)
Post by: KatieHal on February 23, 2011, 06:15:22 AM
As for Mordack using the Mirror--remember the letters from Episode 2. Lolotte was in on the BCS as well, and she located the box via Rosella in KQ4. So by KQ5, discovering it's location was no longer the problem.
Title: Re: Plot-holes (spoilers)
Post by: oberonqa on February 23, 2011, 06:29:23 AM
All these things will be explained in due time, and some of them already have an explanation, especially if you look closely.

For example, The chess thing. Well, Shadrack is standing next to Manannan in that cutscene 20 years ago, isn't he?

Valanice is Manannan's daughter, that's for sure. To answer Baggin's question, You like quoting lines a lot, and there are lines in that cutscene with Manannan/Valanice that should give you a very good idea of what happened.

Alex casting spell. The guy can read, so he obviously got an education from Manannan. But I'll cut this one short because talking more would be spoiling.

And for every other point, pay more attention to the story. A lot has been revealed already. And sometimes, it's not very subtle :)

Good to see you around again, Dave. You've been missed.

Cez

Thanks Cez.  Glad to be back.  :)

You say Valanice is Manannan's daughter.... does that mean Valanice carries Manannan's blood in her veins (in other words, he sired her) or does that mean Manannan raised her?  There is a fine line there and I hate to split hairs about it... but as anyone who has a strained relationship with their parents can tell you, sometimes you end up with two sets of parents... the set that gave birth to you... and the set that raised and supported you.  Only one set is considered the "official" parents due to lineage and blood ties, but sometimes blood ties isn't enough.  

Given the writing, voice-acting, and animation in the key scenes in question, I can't help but wonder which one is actually the case here.  Valanice loves Manannan... that is made pretty clear.  She calls Manannan "Father" and looks to Manannan to protect her from being taken into the tower, just as a child would look to a parent to protect them from any perceived danger.  For Manannan's part, he loves Valanice.  This is made clear, like Percival pointed out, by his thoughtful and troubled facial expression after Valanice is taken away.  

The thing that makes this a case of "blood father or perceived father" boils down to Manannan's reaction to being called "Father" by Valanice.  The voice actor inflected an element of surprise at being referred to in this manner by Valanice... and if I'm not mistaken a hint of shock.  Perhaps this can be chocked up to inexperience on the part of the voice actor or the VA Director... but given the attention to detail that is present elsewhere in TSL, I doubt you (Cez), Katie, or Rich would have let a recorded take into the game unless the take in question imparted the correct emotion and tone for the lines in question.  

That being said, perhaps I'm reading too much into the delivery of the lines in question... and perhaps I'm applying elements of my own life (having a strained relationship with a parent who is still living and having a second parent, who while not a legitimate parent, supports me and is more a parent to me than the living biological one)... but it just doesn't add up in my mind.

As for Shadrack being there 23 years ago when Valanice was imprisoned in the tower.... could this be evidence that Shadrack is able to send his shadow into the world to interact with other members of the BCS but without access to his magical powers, as I suggested in a prior post?

Quote from: KatieHal
As for Mordack using the Mirror--remember the letters from Episode 2. Lolotte was in on the BCS as well, and she located the box via Rosella in KQ4. So by KQ5, discovering it's location was no longer the problem.

Ah but therein lies a slight problem.  Lolotte discovered the location of the box via Rosella in KQ4... but the BCS doesn't know that Rosella put the box back into the crypt after she shot Lolotte with Cupid's Arrow and killed her.  For all the BCS knows, Rosella gave the box to Genesta and she hid it somewhere else.  The BCS has no way of knowing the box is back in the crypt... so there would still be a legitimate need for the BCS to use the Mirror.  They can't even safety assume the box is back in the crypt, as they wouldn't know enough about Rosella's personality and/or character to make an educated guess that she would put the box back where she found it.

Though I did forget the letters from episode 2 that confirm Lolotte's membership in the BCS.  <<sheepish grin>>  :)
Title: Re: Plot-holes (spoilers)
Post by: KatieHal on February 23, 2011, 07:22:41 AM
A lot of your points/questions will be answered in later episodes, Dave, so unfortunately I can't into too much detail here. But as Cez has confirmed this much already, yes, we mean he's her father by blood--but the fact that she refers to other people as her parents first is not to be ignored either.

As for Lolotte: well, it's not likely Alhazred was the only one with a magic letter box. ;) But KQ4 did still take place in a day--so any information that Lolotte would've shared before her death would still have been limited, and while Rosella locked the box back up before anyone showed up, I'd say it's fair to assume that Lolotte at least got word out of where it was found to begin with.

No worries on not remembering the letters--if nothing else, it gives us an idea of what we should be sure to include in the 'previously on' segements in the future, since they are rather important!
Title: Re: Plot-holes (spoilers)
Post by: snabbott on February 23, 2011, 07:34:19 AM
It's good to see people speculating... :)
Title: Re: Plot-holes (spoilers)
Post by: Lambonius on February 23, 2011, 07:37:05 AM
I thought I felt the urge to speculate about TSL's plot, but it turned out to just be gas.
Title: Re: Plot-holes (spoilers)
Post by: Baggins on February 24, 2011, 01:59:07 AM
Quote
Valanice is Manannan's daughter, that's for sure. To answer Baggin's question, You like quoting lines a lot, and there are lines in that cutscene with Manannan/Valanice that should give you a very good idea of what happened.
Thank you, I'll probably understand it better when I get that far. I may just be misundertanding Percival's post.

(Posted on: February 23, 2011, 02:54:38 PM)


Quote
There is no evidence in official cannon (read: the games... not the Companion.... sorry Baggins) that suggests that Mordack was acting under Shadrack's orders.  He was simply trying to get Alexander to reverse the Cat Cookie spell/curse he cast on Manannan.  Mordack's only official BCS business in KQ5 was keeping/taking care of Cassima.
I'm not sure what you mean by this, not even the Companion has some convoluted explanation tieing Mordack to Shadrack, and the kidnapping of the Royal Family.

Infact, really the only source that even connects Shadrack to Mordack in any way is KQ6, and its over a game of chess!

The only connection all sources share is Abdul Alhazred's direct connection to Mordack mentioned in KQ5 and KQ6, over Cassima's kidnapping. But that's only Alhazred to Mordack, not some strong Shadrack to Mordack connection.

KQ5 only connects Mordack to Manannan as siblings. It's the fact that Mordack is hoping to cure his brother is the whole official motive behind the plot (which is the only thing said about the matter in any official sources actually).

Hell, if you go back to KQ6 information only, Shadrack's involvement is limited at most. In KQ6 the whole plan to capture Land of the Green Isles was Abdul Alhazred's idea, and his idea only. Shadrack had no involvement, but he was interested in hearing Alhazred's plans. There is nothing to suggest that Shadrack is the leader of their little group, but simply just another member BCS (infact that's likely the reason why the fan game, KQ2RTS created the Father as the leader of the group instead).

It was only the Companion that suggested Shadrack had a much deeper involvement, and that it may have been Shadrack's plans. Which if you are ignoring the Companion should have no relevance to you, anyways.

P.S. Cannons go boom! Canon does not.

Quote
As for Hagatha's involvement in KQ2, ever hear the old saying "there's no such thing as a free lunch?"  Hagatha had to make a good show of impeding Graham's progress in Kolyma so as to avoid arousing Graham's suspicions.  If she truly was interested in stopping Graham, all she really had to do was push him into the poisoned moat surrounding Dracula's castle.  As it currently stands, she is more of a minor inconvenience in KQ2... she does not truly stand in Graham's way, but she doesn't make it too obvious that she's not standing in Graham's way.

BTW, I'm not sure what KQ2 you are referring to, but in the canon version of the game, Hagatha doesn't do anything to "impede" Graham's progress in Kolyma.

She has next to no role in that game at all! She doesn't give any show really... I wouldn't count stirring the cannibal pot, or chasing after Graham, any show at all. Besides Graham can be immune to her, if he encountered the fairy.

The only thing that ties her into KQ2 story at all, is a brief reference in the KQ2 manual, and the 'little old lady' at the antique shop, explaining that Hagatha stole her nightengale if you talk to her. But none of that really "impedes" Graham's progress directly (Graham can get the magic lamp by trading away some of the Sapphire Jewels).

To be fair the only thing that really tied her into direct role with other villains was the Companion, when it made her Manannan and Mordack's sister. Something that Roberta herself denied later on (suggesting it was never her intent), but the other Sierra producers acknowledged in the King's Question's game.



Seriously when it comes down to it, the only people who try to create convoluted connections between all the villains in the KQ series, are the fans in their fan games and fan fiction.

The Companion connects some of the villains to a lesser extent but it only connects through smaller groups of villains. I.E. the Companion connects Hagatha, Mordack, and Manannan as a group, it connects Manannan and the Sorcerer/Enchanter/Wizard as one group, it connects Mordack and Alhazred together as a group (suggesting that Mordack was Alhazred's master), and it connects Shadrack and Alhazred together as another group, but none of those smaller groups are tied together directly.

No official source has ever connected Malicia or Lolotte to any other villain in the game series. Not even Lolotte is connected to Malicia in any source (not even the game developer notes that were reprinted in the various official hintbooks). Infact those same notes specifically seperate Lolotte and Malicia as separate groups.
Title: Re: Plot-holes (spoilers)
Post by: Enchantermon on February 24, 2011, 01:11:13 PM
BTW, I'm not sure what KQ2 you are referring to, but in the canon version of the game, Hagatha doesn't do anything to "impede" Graham's progress in Kolyma.

She has next to no role in that game at all! She doesn't give any show really... I wouldn't count stirring the cannibal pot, or chasing after Graham, any show at all. Besides Graham can be immune to her, if he encountered the fairy.
I dunno, I would think that killing Graham and eating him would qualify as impeding his progress..... :P
Title: Re: Plot-holes (spoilers)
Post by: Arkillian on February 24, 2011, 01:37:59 PM
BTW, I'm not sure what KQ2 you are referring to, but in the canon version of the game, Hagatha doesn't do anything to "impede" Graham's progress in Kolyma.

She has next to no role in that game at all! She doesn't give any show really... I wouldn't count stirring the cannibal pot, or chasing after Graham, any show at all. Besides Graham can be immune to her, if he encountered the fairy.
I dunno, I would think that killing Graham and eating him would qualify as impeding his progress..... :P

Lol.
Title: Re: Plot-holes (spoilers)
Post by: Baggins on February 24, 2011, 02:30:10 PM
Quote
I dunno, I would think that killing Graham and eating him would qualify as impeding his progress.....

Two thumbs up!

Although I suppose being eaten, would probably prevent Graham's suspicions from being aroused in a literal sort of way?
Title: Re: Plot-holes (spoilers)
Post by: Enchantermon on February 24, 2011, 11:49:38 PM
Indeed. Being eaten makes it hard to do a very large number of things.
Title: Re: Plot-holes (spoilers)
Post by: glottal on February 25, 2011, 01:19:49 AM
I always thought that it was a plot hole in the original KQ3 that Alexander was treated like a slave, had no contact with the world beyond Mannanan's house *yet* he was literate.  If Mannanan were really serious about making sure that Alexander wouldn't be able to oppose him, he should have kept him illiterate.  It makes sense that if Mannanan either educated Alexander or let him be educated by someone/something else, that he did not intend to keep Alexander a slave forever.
Title: Re: Plot-holes (spoilers)
Post by: Baggins on February 25, 2011, 01:28:53 AM
Ya, the Companion, and some of the manuals touched on that a bit, giving their own explanation. They stated that he hated his slaves being ignorant (he hated ignorance in general). So he taught them how to read, but forbid them read anything having to do with magic and spellbooks. He chose specifically what his slaves were allowed to read.
Title: Re: Plot-holes (spoilers)
Post by: Arkillian on February 25, 2011, 01:29:30 AM
Yeah, but I think Manannan wanted to be around someone slightly intelligent. Besides, he kept Alexander on a short leash. Could you imagine Manannan having an illiterate person around? He would've killed them so fast.

What I don't get is Manannan every 18 years stealing a baby and raising it just so it can be his slave for 13 or so years :/ That's alot of responsibility.
Title: Re: Plot-holes (spoilers)
Post by: glottal on February 25, 2011, 01:38:57 AM
Yeah, I can see it being convenient for Mannanan having a slave who can read a cookbook.  Actually, I suspect Mannanan would have a magic book lying around that can teach people to read, so that he wouldn't have to go through the bother of doing the teaching himself.

As for the deal with kidnapping babies every 18 years or so for 13 years of slavehood ... it does sort of make sense if it was the responsibility of the previous slave to raise the replacement ... maybe that's how Alexander found out about the killing slaves at 18 business (it's what happened to the boy who raised him) ... in which case Mannanan not giving Alexander a replacement to raise would indicate that he wasn't going to kill him in the TSL timeline.
Title: Re: Plot-holes (spoilers)
Post by: Baggins on February 25, 2011, 01:40:19 AM
They never explain how he teaches his slaves. But its suggested he always picks up a new one, after he offed the previous one.
Title: Re: Plot-holes (spoilers)
Post by: Arkillian on February 25, 2011, 01:45:25 AM
Why didn't he have a new one by KQ3 then? Alexander was about to turn 18. He had alot of teaching to do.
Title: Re: Plot-holes (spoilers)
Post by: Baggins on February 25, 2011, 01:53:41 AM
Ya ark, exactly. In the official canon, he would have offed Alex and then kidnapped another baby.
Title: Re: Plot-holes (spoilers)
Post by: Arkillian on February 25, 2011, 01:59:29 AM
Hurp Durp- I meant 18. Typed 13. It must be my bed time again XD
Title: Re: Plot-holes (spoilers)
Post by: Sir Perceval of Daventry on February 25, 2011, 02:01:53 AM
They never explain how he teaches his slaves. But its suggested he always picks up a new one, after he offed the previous one.

In the manual, doesn't it say he could conjure spirits and the like? Couldn't he have conjured some creature to teach Alex? He could've even taught his slaves himself, I don't see why not.
Title: Re: Plot-holes (spoilers)
Post by: Baggins on February 25, 2011, 02:08:48 AM
Yes he could of but it also says he doesn't like spirit Helpers. Dificult to control. Too unpredictable, a bit mischievous. A bit against his more serious personality.

So much easier to off boys who misbehave.
Title: Re: Plot-holes (spoilers)
Post by: glottal on February 25, 2011, 02:11:37 AM
Well if he could conjure spirits to teach and raise his slaves, then getting a replacement every 18 years would not be a big deal ... but then he's be living 5 years without a slave, and if spirits or whatever did the housework in that time, then why did he need a slave at all?  For entertainment, maybe, but not for practical reasons.

My point is that even the canon version is a bit far-fetched, and *by this standard* the TSL adjustments aren't far-fetched at all.
Title: Re: Plot-holes (spoilers)
Post by: Arkillian on February 25, 2011, 02:16:05 AM
Heh- I think that Manannan enjoyed the slaves company as a kind of a Schadenfreude. He may not like his slaves, but he enjoys having someone there to punish when he feels like it :/ And if you teach someone from a baby, that become their way of life. I saw a documentary about how circus people chain up baby elephants with heavy link chain so that by the time they're adults, they know that anything around their foot is impossible to break, even if it's a rope.

It's really sad.
Title: Re: Plot-holes (spoilers)
Post by: Baggins on February 25, 2011, 02:17:45 AM
Let's be fair his slaves never do that good of a job keeping the house clean. Manan just enjoys tormenting the kiddies. Almost everything is dusty, and Alex does everything half-heartedly.
Title: Re: Plot-holes (spoilers)
Post by: Arkillian on February 25, 2011, 02:27:22 AM
Let's be fair his slaves never do that good of a job keeping the house clean. Manan just enjoys tormenting the kiddies. Almost everything is dusty, and Alex does everything half-heartedly.

You can say that again. I think he shifts the dust from one spot to another... besides leaving big bald spots. I should teach that boy a few lessons on house keeping :/
Title: Re: Plot-holes (spoilers)
Post by: Nilan8888 on February 26, 2011, 08:27:19 PM
1) If you're Shadrack, the evil leader of an evil organization, would you really want someone on your team who isn't totally evil--who has something of a heart? Wouldn't it just be a wiser decision to send Alex to someone who doesn't have these feelings? Moreover, would you place somene who is incredibly important to your plans under this man's care and instruct him to act even more evil and teach him Dark Magic? He's already suffering from what could turn into divided loyalties.


Shadrack may not exactly have a choice in the matter. Mannanan HAS come through in this instance, and he might be the only one powerful enough or capable enough to actually teach Alexander what Sharack wants him to be taught. Or Mannan might be the only one with the knowledge of what Shadrack wants.

What's more, Shadrack might possibly be preparing for Mannanan to turn on him. And Mannanan might in turn know that Shadrack is expecting this. They might need one another for only a period of time.

I would not characterize this as a plot hole, since reasons may be yet forthcoming.



2) Manannan is told not to treat Alexander kindly so that he (Manny) doesn't have "second thoughts". That doesn't make sense. If you put a little child into the hands of Manannan, someone who isn't totally evil, and this child is his own grandsn, wouldn't treating them even worse than you treated your daughter (whipping him, for example)--which obviously bothers Manny--Wouldn't treating Alex so horribly make Manannan feel more confused about his feelings? Blood is blood.


Again, Shadrack might NEED to send him to Mannanan, as opposed to say, Hagatha.

Not only that, but wouldn't treating Alexander horribly make him less inclined to join your cause? They seem to want him to join the BCS' cause or at the very least Dark Magic, so...wouldn't Manny treating him kindly actually make Alex more inclined to join them?

That's a presumption that they actually want Alexander to join BCS at this point. They may just want him to learn, and be corrupted by, the Dark Arts. As Hamlet says, "Nay Madam I know not 'seems' " -- that they might SEEM to want something does not mean that's actually what they want.

3) Manannan is told to teach Alex the Dark Arts. Yet we never see him doing this, and in fact, if Alexander is in posession of ANY of Manannan's magical items, or happens to find his way into Manannan's laboratory, Manny kills him. In fact, hiding such items is a key part of the gameplay of KQ3. Killing him if he happens to stumble onto some magical spells doesn't seem to be a good way to introduce him to magic. Also, in KQ5, Alexander explains he ACCIDENTALLY stumbled onto some magic spells--He makes no mention of being taught magic.

Mannanan, because of his mixed feelings, might never have taught Alex Dark Arts, or been putting it off until he was 18. And for various reasons, maybe even contemplated killing Alexander instead of teaching him either to betray Shadrack, or because maybe he was starting to think it was better off for the boy anyway

So, let me propose a situation -- keep in mind I'm in no way associated with TSL -- Shadrack and Mannanan sort of have this "Sith-like" relationship.Shadrack is Mannanan's superior. Shadrack knows this balance does not sit well with Mannanan, and Mannanan in turn knows Shadrack is aware of this.

BUT: Shadrack is imprisoned. He needs Mannanan, in a way he does not need, say, Hagatha. So it's not a gesture of trust in assigning Mannanan this mission: Manny's the only one that can DO it, or do it right.

Mannanan, for his part, is evil but is perhaps not entirely without emotion or on board with the final goal Shadrack is working towards. He has previously had slave boys who he... or someone BCS related... killed when they were 18. After capturing the boy, Mannanan is not certain he wants to go through with this: maybe he knows enough to realize that teaching Alex could condemn him to a fate worse than death if he can guess what Shadrack has planned... or perhaps it would condemn the world to great suffering... or it would cement Shadrack as forever MAnnanan's superior where at least now with Shadrack imprisoned, Mannanan has some leverage of personal power.


For this or any other reason that could be articulated later, Mannanan instead chooses to wait. Because all his boys were eliminated at 18, that becomes the convenient time of decision. KQIII then takes place somewhere around the lead-up to Alexander's 18th birthday. At this time Mannanan is TRULY UNDECIDED about everything, and is susveptible to making any particular decision -- if Alexander angers him in the course of KQIII, that's what he seizes upon and makes his decision right there: "Dammit, that boy is trying to leave the house... kill him, it's better off this way anyway". Or: "Dammit, that boy didn't do that chore I assigned: kill him, it's better off this way anyway", etc.

If the situation were such that a 'moral' decision from a certain POV could be made in killing Alexander -- a justification -- I think that's all we'd need. And all that would have to be established is for Mannanan to think that whatever Shadrack has planned for Alex would be worse than the instant death Manny can provide.


4) Manannan was apparently tasked with stopping Graham from getting the Magic Mirror. I'm guessing that means Manannan was the wandering enchanter in KQ1--No one actively tries to stop Graham from getting the Mirror, except the Dragon (and he's cowed down very easily). Why didn't they use the Mirror when Mordack kidnapped the Royal Family and captured the castle in KQ5? Why didn't Manannan just go into the Castle and steal it while Graham was away from Daventry to rescue Valanice during KQ2?

From what the scene says, Shadrack actively changes the plan. I don't know what the KQ1 setup was, but Mannanan -- or Mordack -- might have set up that Dragon. I'd think setting up a Dragon to stop someone from getting a mirror is doing a good enough job: that's arguable a more secure solution than guarding it yourself.

As has been said, by KQ4, they know the location of the box. Starting from that scene 23 years ago in that conversation with Mordack, the plan is no longer to retain the Magic Mirror, but allow Graham to have it: thus, it sets in motion that the intro to KQ2 is actually a trap with wide-ranging ramifications. So from the start of KQ2 onward, Shadrack is trying a different plan of action. For Manny to steal the mirror back at that point is counter to the new plan.

What's more, Mordack has been completely out of the picture in what we've seen so far. We don't know how much Mordack was involved in any of this planning. Morsack might not even KNOW about the mirror, or a lot of what's going on (Mordack is stated to be 'more powerful' than Mannanan, but does that mean in terms of actual knowledge and ability, or because Mordack had more powerful wands and 'toys'?).


I'm presuming that the Sorceror who tricked Edward out of the Mirror in the first place was a member of the BCS. Which would mean in the decades before and up to KQ1, it was in their possession. Leaving them decades to use it to find Pandora's Box--why didn't they find it anytime in this period? We're shown even though Shadrack is apparently in some sort of prison, he is able to leave his prison at least for brief times by the time of KQ2, why couldn't they just have Shadrack do a quick look into it in this period?


The mirror might have its own rules -- the BCS might have been using it unsucessfully for decades with the mirror giving up squat... maybe the very reason Shadrack tried to go a different route.

Also, Shadrack specifically mentions he is using a "sending". To me that says he is not REALLY there, just an incorpreal image of him is.


Why didn't he or a minion of his come to Graham between KQ2 and KQ3 under the guise of helping Graham make the Mirror unclouded and then abscond with it?

Again, the scene laid out that they now want Graham to have the mirror.


Moreover, if they needed the Mirror in their posession to get Pandora's Box, how were they able to know where the Box was in KQ4, when the Mirror was safely in Graham's possession?


To my understanding, they don't. The deal in KQ4 is that Lollotte tells Rosella to find the Box. She doesn't give any hints to where it is.

This could mean MANY things:

1. The BCS has an elaborate plan to have Rosella find Pandora's Box, and causes Graham to get sick to put this into effect. Rosella unwittingly foils this plan, although she finds the box (this is, however, unlikely -- why did Rosella have to find it? It was just in a crypt that anyone could have opened).

2. The BCS never found out where the Box was, and they were shut out of KQ4 altogether: Lolotte is just some fairy who DOES know the Box is in Tamir and she herself doesn't know about the BCS.

3. The BCS knew that the Box was in Tamir, but little else. they put Lollotte in charge of finding it, but she can't get it done. This is a bit odd though, because you'd think they'd all be looking for it at the same time and have torn Tamir apart.

4. Lolotte is part of the BCS. Somehow she found out the box was located in Tamir. She doesn't share this information with any of the other BCS members, and moves to Tamir under the auspices that she decided to live there. Meanwhile, she's planning to backstab everyone and claim the box for her own and usurp at least Mannanan, or even Shadrack. Unfortunately Lolotte was never able to find it, and when Rosella shows up, decided to use her. Bad move, Lolotte.

Scenario #4 is probably the best one.


5) Shadrack wants Graham and Valanice to get together, and even sets the events of KQ2 in motion it would seem. In fact, he hopes that they have offspring. If Hagatha is part of the BCS and Graham and Valanice having kids was (possibly) instrumental to Shadrack's return to power, why does Hagatha try to catch and eat Graham? Wouldn't that be counter-productive to Graham rescuing Valanice and having children with her?

There's nothing in that scene showing that Hagatha is privy to that part of the plan. Remember, we don't know what each member is aware of. All we do know is that Shadrack and Mannanan seem to know everything that's going on, but they're the only ones so far.


6) Shadrack, in his letter to Abdul Alhazred in KQ6, mentions that Mordack was a "ninny at chess"--implying he had played it with him at least more than once. If Shadrack can only leave his prison briefly, how is he able to spend his precious and very evil time playing games of Chess with Mordack? Why is he wasting his time in this way? How is he able to send dozens of letters to Alhazred?

Again, this presumes Shadrack is actually leaving his prison when you see him. And Shadrack is apparently able to send messages through this prison. That he can do this is not a plot hole unless we then see the prison should be impossible to send messages through.

7) Not a plot hole exactly, but...Valanice is Manannan's daughter, and thus Mordack's niece. Yet in KQ5, Mordack threatens to feed the Royal Family to Manannan, starting with Valanice...Thus Manny would be eating his own daughter. A little freaky, no? And isn't Valanice important to all of this? Why kill her off?


Firstly, they might not be brothers in the literal sense. Shadrack refers to Mannanan as a brother. Mordack might have a similar 'brother' relationship: they're just members of the Silver Cloak society.

Plus, even if they ARE actual brothers, Mordack might not be in on a lot of the scheme. Or maybe he does, and doesn't care. But I'd guess that he doesn't... someone being a 'ninny at chess' suggests to me that Mordack's position in this was more of a pawn.


I'm assuming they were involved in KQ6 as well, related somehow to the Royal Family. How would they know Alexander would fall in love with Cassima?


I'm not sure they were involved in that at all. I think the plan there was just literal. Alexander's entry into the Green Isles was completely unexpected. In fact, I would think that since Manny got offed in KQIII, command and control for the Black Cloak Society has been in turmoil: they lost their local commander, and there doesn't seem to be agreement on who's in charge. They key pieces of the plan are in place, and this story appears to begin as someone is starting to put them at last into motion.

But I think it's fair to say that they've suffered a LOT of setbacks since the onset of KQ3. KQ1 had them set back and adopting a new plan. KQ2 is actually going according the plan of the BCS. Alexander then FOILS that plan (though Manny helps by not following through), and to me it seems that since that time the BCS has been just been infighting and getting wrapped up in their own petty schemes.
Title: Re: Plot-holes (spoilers)
Post by: Baggins on March 01, 2011, 01:39:51 PM
Here's an inconsistency for you.

Ok, in TSL its said that Shadrack is sealed away in the box right? He can only manifest himself for short periods of time...

Well I was going back through KQ6 script, and it states that Abdul Alhazred had thought about sending Cassima directly to Shadrack, but chose not to because he didn't want the same thing happening to him that happened to Mordack.

Quote
Well, on to it now. I'd send her to you, but as you know, I had no luck in doing so with Mordack.-Abdul's letter (KQ6)

If Shadrack is trapped in a box (one that Black Cloaks aren't sure of its location), how would Abdul Alhazred have been able to send Cassima to Shadrack? Why would Abdul be worrying about her being his destruction if he had sent her? Ooops?

Sounds to me this is even worse plothole/inconsistency than the Shadrack wasting his limited time during manifestations in order to play chess with Mordack...
Title: Re: Plot-holes (spoilers)
Post by: Cez on March 01, 2011, 02:07:01 PM
Shadrack is not inside the Box. There's a lot of back story that hasn't been told yet.

And yes, Abdul could have sent Cassima to Shadrack. That would have been very, very cruel to do, also very hard, but not impossible.

Also, Shadrack leaving to play chess was not a waste of time. You can consider chess to be a very good way to prove his mental skills outside of his prison --what that prison is, you have yet to see, but it's already been blatantly told at one point in ep2. Chess was simple task in which he needed to focus.

But you guys need to stop calling things plotholes until you've had access to the full story. I'm sure there will be angles that escape us at the end, but we have thought a lot about this story.
Title: Re: Plot-holes (spoilers)
Post by: Baggins on March 01, 2011, 02:11:53 PM
I thought it was said in Episode 2 that the Pandora's Box and Zodia Stone were one and the same thing?

I though its been suggesting that Shadrack is trapped there, along with the Shadows?
Title: Re: Plot-holes (spoilers)
Post by: Arkillian on March 01, 2011, 02:16:15 PM
Pandora's box doesn't have to be the key to Shadrack's release. It could be his power insteed or some weapon he uses, or something else.

Again- it's not a plot hole till the story has finished. Right now, it's a plot hook. :/
Title: Re: Plot-holes (spoilers)
Post by: Cez on March 01, 2011, 02:24:39 PM
I thought it was said in Episode 2 that the Pandora's Box and Zodia Stone were one and the same thing?

I though its been suggesting that Shadrack is trapped there, along with the Shadows?

Nope, they are not the same. And nowhere in the stories that the Ranger and Shamir tell it's said that they are the same thing. Again, there's a lot of back story that still needs to be explained.
Title: Re: Plot-holes (spoilers)
Post by: Lambonius on March 01, 2011, 07:25:54 PM
My question is: if you replace the name "Shadrack" with "Voldemort," and "The Black Cloaks" with "The Death Eaters," is this not basically Harry Potter with a King's Quest skin?  ;)
Title: Re: Plot-holes (spoilers)
Post by: Arkillian on March 01, 2011, 07:29:34 PM
Would it stop you playing the game if it where? Every plot is similar to another if you boil it down far enough. It's HOW you tell the story that matters.
Title: Re: Plot-holes (spoilers)
Post by: glottal on March 01, 2011, 07:35:56 PM
And then who would be Harry Potter? Alexander?  Actually, that makes sense...

James (& Lily?) Potter to the rescue!! :P

But I don't mind at all, it's a great game Harry Potterish or not, so play I will.
Title: Re: Plot-holes (spoilers)
Post by: Enchantermon on March 01, 2011, 08:15:23 PM
Would it stop you playing the game if it where? Every plot is similar to another if you boil it down far enough. It's HOW you tell the story that matters.
I'm pretty sure he was just kidding around. ;)
Title: Re: Plot-holes (spoilers)
Post by: Arkillian on March 01, 2011, 08:22:41 PM
Perhaps. My apologies if I don't pick up on sarcasm too easily. The internet isn't efficient at conveying emotion. I'm not too good with sarcasm without the net let alone with it :/ I can never tell.
Title: Re: Plot-holes (spoilers)
Post by: Enchantermon on March 01, 2011, 08:41:38 PM
Just remember this (http://www.postudios.com/blog/forum/index.php?topic=9923.msg314473#msg314473) and this (http://www.postudios.com/blog/forum/index.php?topic=9923.msg314477#msg314477). :)
Title: Re: Plot-holes (spoilers)
Post by: Lambonius on March 01, 2011, 08:52:45 PM
I did give it my best winking smiley. 
Title: Re: Plot-holes (spoilers)
Post by: Sir Perceval of Daventry on March 04, 2011, 11:45:32 PM
My question is: if you replace the name "Shadrack" with "Voldemort," and "The Black Cloaks" with "The Death Eaters," is this not basically Harry Potter with a King's Quest skin?  ;)

Harry Potter meets Star Wars, with a dash of KQ thrown in.
Title: Re: Plot-holes (spoilers)
Post by: sebpod on March 18, 2011, 10:06:13 AM
It's actually that KQ is to Star Wars, as TSL is more and more to the prequel Episodes 1,2,3 after the original 4,5,6.

You can probably make a mathematical equation and show that as episode number rises, TSL --> Star Wars prequels.
Title: Re: Plot-holes (spoilers)
Post by: Damar on March 26, 2011, 03:09:04 PM
Don't know if I'd go that far.  Mainly because TSL doesn't have the telling aroma of George Lucas scat that the prequels do.

I have to agree that none of these can be called plot holes when the plot hasn't been entirely told yet.  It reminds me of people who get into political debates by saying, "Obama (or George W back when he was in office) is the worst president ever!"  Well, setting aside the fact that you're ranking them as worse than, say, Harding who was inept, Buchanan who let the country fall apart, Pierce who was a clinically depressed alcholic, or Jackson who actively participated in genocide, they also haven't finished their term!  Seriously, are you so partisan and filled with hate towards others that you can't even wait to declare a sitting president to be the most epic fail in the past two centuries?  Really?

The story isn't finished.  You might hate the story.  You might think it's not King's Quest.  You might think it's melodramatic and can never be fully brought together to a satisfactory conclusion.  And you know what?  Maybe you'll end up being right.  But for now, none of this is a plot hole.  It's impossible for an unfinished plot to have a hole in it.

Also, I just have to point out my favorite "plot hole" is the one regarding the enchanter tricking Edward out of the mirror that begins with "I presume that...".  I think that answers your objection, dude!  You can't just presume an important piece of information then call it a plot hole!  I think it goes without saying but obviously Random Wizard Who Freezes You (that was his full name.  I checked the KQ Companion.  Really) wasn't a Black Cloak!  That's like saying, "I presume that the kleptomaniac dwarf was a Black Cloak, so why didn't he just take the Mirror off of Graham instead of other random treasures?"  Or, maybe the writers are going with the original KQ1 in which we were never told that Edward lost the treasures.  In fact, we were never told Edward even had the treasures.  Ed just hears about them and sends his most powerful knight to obtain them by any means necessary.  Which is probably the most historically accurate medieval thing ever to be in King's Quest.
Title: Re: Plot-holes (spoilers)
Post by: kindofdoon on March 26, 2011, 05:06:26 PM
Mainly because TSL doesn't have the telling aroma of George Lucas scat that the prequels do.

The prequels aren't on the level of IV-VI, but they aren't as bad as people on the Internet seem to think, either, imo. I personally enjoyed them very much. Anakin's acting in I is terrible, and Jar Jar is annoying. Otherwise, I-III have satisfying action and character development that frames IV-VI well.
Title: Re: Plot-holes (spoilers)
Post by: KatieHal on March 27, 2011, 11:05:51 AM
I think the acting is the real downfall of the prequels, versus the story being the biggest issue. There were some story bits that weren't great, but yeah, the fact that Anakin was acted horribly really makes hard to like. You need to have a good leading man if your entire three movies are *about* said leading man and everyone knows that going in.
Title: Re: Plot-holes (spoilers)
Post by: kindofdoon on March 27, 2011, 12:09:33 PM
I actually didn't mind Anakin in II-III. He did a pretty good job of portraying his descent towards to the Dark Side.

Anakin in I is pretty bad though.
Title: Re: Plot-holes (spoilers)
Post by: Baggins on March 27, 2011, 02:17:27 PM
I had no problem with Anakin in II-III, I just hated his mug being inserted into IV!
Title: Re: Plot-holes (spoilers)
Post by: kindofdoon on March 27, 2011, 02:29:53 PM
Yes, that was egregiously wrong.
Title: Re: Plot-holes (spoilers)
Post by: Damar on March 27, 2011, 04:31:50 PM
Actually the actors all around are pretty good, and some are very good.  Well except kid Anakin of course.  I still bust out laughing whenever I think of the line, "Are you an angel?" with that shrill, memorized delivery.  The problem with the acting is that these decent actors have to say lines written by George Lucas, which are among the most unemotional, banal, simplistic words ever placed on paper.  By anyone.  Anywhere.  And they have to say most of those horrifically written lines while walking and talking in front of a green screen.  Sir Alec Guinness himself could come back to life to act in the prequels (which he wouldn't since he hated Star Wars with a passion) and not even he could have pulled off a convincing delivery of those lines in front of a green screen.

Really, the prequels are horrific.  Lucas can't write and he can't even really direct.  Everything is so flat and unimaginative, except for the CGI which runs rampant and is completely gratuitous.  I agree that the internet "George Lucas raped my childhood" guys are ridiculous though.  I don't care how badly Lucas sucks, he can't rob you of your childhood (I'd use that same argument on the doomsayers that shout the same thing about TSL or Telltale getting the right to do King's Quest.)  Your memories are your own and your childhood is your own.  That said, the prequels are among some of the worst all-around films I've seen.  And I've seen the worst that MST3K had to offer.  At least those films are schlock done by amateurs.  The prequels don't have that excuse and they were made and released by people who should have known better.
Title: Re: Plot-holes (spoilers)
Post by: KatieHal on March 27, 2011, 04:55:58 PM
The writing was indeed pretty lacking. The thing is you could still notice how much better people like Ewan McGregor and Liam Neesan were over the really bad actors (Hayden Christiansen). Natalie Portman was...not at her best in those films either, suffice to say.
Title: Re: Plot-holes (spoilers)
Post by: crayauchtin on March 27, 2011, 10:15:39 PM
I think one of the issues people are having with TSL and it's "plot holes" is the assumption that the deaths you can have happen in all the games are canon. They're not. If they were, the series would have been much shorter because all the characters would be dead.

When we RP in WoW we always point out: game mechanics =/= lore. In other words, things that are part of the game are not necessarily part of the story. The fact that Hagatha can catch and eat Graham in the game is more to add an obstacle than it is to be a part of the story -- all that there is in the story, is that Hagatha is there and she seems to chase after Graham.

Yes, in KQ3, if you do something wrong Mannanan kills you -- it's an obstacle for the game. In canon, however, Mannanan never kills you (or KQ4, 5, & 6 would be verrrrrryyyyy short games :P). The deaths aren't canon, because they didn't happen. Therefore, it's not a plot hole to say they didn't happen. That's really all TSL has done.
Title: Re: Plot-holes (spoilers)
Post by: Lambonius on March 28, 2011, 09:14:40 AM
The deaths aren't canon, because they didn't happen. Therefore, it's not a plot hole to say they didn't happen. That's really all TSL has done.

Yeah, but the Manannan thing isn't about whether or not he killed Alex, it's about whether or not he INTENDED to do so, which is explicitly stated in every bit of official KQ3 backstory material that has ever been released.  If you want to ignore that, fine, but don't try to argue that it was always ambiguous, because that's just patently false.
Title: Re: Plot-holes (spoilers)
Post by: Arkillian on March 30, 2011, 05:34:22 PM
Actually, I agree with Lambonius here. Manannan may have had reasons for killing Alexander which are no longer strictly what we thought they were, but one thing is certain, he was going to kill him on his 18th birthday for SOME reason. In KQ3 we assume it's because he did so to all of his slaves. This may 'no longer be the case', but I'd be disappointed if TSL decide that it wasn't Manannan's intention whether it be willing or not. I'd buy it if he was going to unwillingly. I mean, you're not THAT much of an ass to someone that you like in any way. Just cause he's Valanice's son, doesn't make him necessarily special. It could be like Snape and Harry Potter. A sort of 'It's my duty to do this but I still hate you' thing.
Title: Re: Plot-holes (spoilers)
Post by: Damar on April 01, 2011, 08:32:03 AM
I suspect that whether someone accepts the explanation that Manannan wasn't really going to kill Alexander depends entirely on whether they accept the plot of TSL.  If someone likes the plot a lot, I think they'll give that explanation the benefit of the doubt.  If someone doesn't like the plot as much or doesn't see it as being in the spirit of King's Quest, then they'll call foul on that explanation.

Personally I haven't decided yet.  On a rational level I don't buy for a second that Manannan wasn't really out for blood.  Even without the manual it's strongly implied that Manannan will put you down if you step out of line (like when you take the wand.)  If the plot of TSL is engaging and immersive, however, then that reworking of the past won't really matter to me.  It will just be a little thing that you accept so that the plot moves on.
Title: Re: Plot-holes (spoilers)
Post by: Arkillian on April 01, 2011, 05:35:28 PM
This is true. If it goes against King's Quest canon in my eyes, I'll just seperate it from the canon. I mean gesh- it's a FAN GAME. Why can't a few rules be broken? I see enough fan art / comics/ fics to know that ANYTHING goes in a story.

I guess then I'd be dissapointed if they don't make it believable. The cut scene with Manannan and Alexander where he's all 'You want to be my partner in crime' is believable cause the death threats could be to raise Alexander's anger and assertiveness- I looked at it as more of a taunt, but I guess it could be the truth. To make him all flowers and 'I never meant to hurt you' though... That I'd actually object to. I'd have to really separate it from canon then. Manannan is evil. Evil intent and stuff. I don't want to like him. Pity I guess is ok, but not like. He'll likely have some good left in him, but I guess what I mean is that I don't want to like him. THAT was annoy me.
Title: Re: Plot-holes (spoilers)
Post by: KatieHal on April 01, 2011, 07:14:34 PM
Whatever else we may get into with him, Mannanan is a bad person. He still murdered a lot of other boys (as Alex points out).
Title: Re: Plot-holes (spoilers)
Post by: Lambonius on April 02, 2011, 08:56:18 AM
It'll definitely be interesting to see whether or not Darth Manannan can ultimately redeem himself by saving Luke Valanice before the end.
Title: Re: Plot-holes (spoilers)
Post by: KatieHal on April 02, 2011, 09:03:31 AM
Okay, who leaked Valanice's lightsaber fight scene?!
Title: Re: Plot-holes (spoilers)
Post by: dark-daventry on April 02, 2011, 09:30:11 AM
Okay, who leaked Valanice's lightsaber fight scene?!

XD Sorry. I just couldn't hold it in!
Title: Re: Plot-holes (spoilers)
Post by: Cez on April 02, 2011, 11:03:55 AM
Watch it with Valanice!!! She can kick some serious ass!

http://www.postudios.com/temp/KickassValanice.avi
Title: Re: Plot-holes (spoilers)
Post by: KatieHal on April 02, 2011, 11:06:56 AM
haha! I remember that from a few years back. I see we still didn't give her any real legs under that dress, lol.
Title: Re: Plot-holes (spoilers)
Post by: kindofdoon on April 03, 2011, 10:53:30 AM
Watch it with Valanice!!! She can kick some serious ass!

http://www.postudios.com/temp/KickassValanice.avi

Woah, this is awesome! Is it going to be in the game?
Title: Re: Plot-holes (spoilers)
Post by: Enchantermon on April 03, 2011, 12:44:24 PM
Valanice Norris: Daventry Ranger. ;)
Also, I can't watch that without thinking of this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjHmZHxfcqU).
Title: Re: Plot-holes (spoilers)
Post by: Arkillian on April 03, 2011, 05:31:41 PM
It'll definitely be interesting to see whether or not Darth Manannan can ultimately redeem himself by saving Luke Valanice before the end.

Does this mean that the Black Cloaks have cookies?  :D
Title: Re: Plot-holes (spoilers)
Post by: crayauchtin on April 04, 2011, 03:45:04 PM
Whatever else we may get into with him, Mannanan is a bad person. He still murdered a lot of other boys (as Alex points out).
That's what I'm saying. In the original KQ3, the only place it's really stated that Manannan will kill Alexander is in hints to the player -- which isn't canon because in canon there's not a player controlling Alexander. What *is* canon is that Manannan killed his other slaves, and that hasn't been changed. It also may (and should) lead Alexander to believe that Manannan was going to kill him. That belief is the driving force of his need to escape in KQ3, but a belief can be false even in the world of King's Quest.
Title: Re: Plot-holes (spoilers)
Post by: Lambonius on April 04, 2011, 06:05:10 PM

which isn't canon because in canon there's not a player controlling Alexander.

So uh...by that logic, none of the actual King's Quest GAMES are canon.

...

You've lost me.
Title: Re: Plot-holes (spoilers)
Post by: KatieHal on April 04, 2011, 07:36:34 PM
Basically, player knowledge does not equal character knowledge, would be what Cray (and this particular plot point) is getting at.
Title: Re: Plot-holes (spoilers)
Post by: Lambonius on April 04, 2011, 11:54:43 PM
Basically, player knowledge does not equal character knowledge, would be what Cray (and this particular plot point) is getting at.

I'm sorry, but this logic is incredibly flawed.

These are not novels.  They are GAMES.  The player and the ego character are one and the same for the duration of the experience, ESPECIALLY in games 1 through 4, where the game's narrations are entirely written in second person.  As a former English student, you of all people should understand this.  :)  The only way to really argue otherwise is to go to a literary source like the Companion, which rewrites the stories of the GAMES in third person, which you guys already have stated you didn't want to use as a reliable source (since it so inconveniently contradicts the aforementioned plot contrivance.)  ;)
Title: Re: Plot-holes (spoilers)
Post by: Cez on April 05, 2011, 01:02:36 AM
I still say Valanice kicks ass!
Title: Re: Plot-holes (spoilers)
Post by: KatieHal on April 05, 2011, 05:33:44 AM
YMMV, Lamb. We know you're not a fan of that plot twist, or some others, but it's not changing and we've been over our decision to go in that direction before, so I'm not getting into a debate about it again.
Title: Re: Plot-holes (spoilers)
Post by: Arkillian on April 05, 2011, 07:17:53 AM
Lamb is right though. What the player knows is what Gwydion is experiencing and knows. Since we don't get cut scenes like in KQ6 where there is plot device happening that the main character doesn't see but we do, everything that is announced in game is canon. Granted, only the perfect outcome is the canon storyline, but the best that you could argue is that Manannan might change his mind about killing him over the years to keep discipline up and to scare Alexander or something like that. Alexander picks up dark magic pretty quick though so who knows. Maybe Manannan does teach him more than reading and writing cause he knows what alot of the ingredients look like. Likely he talks to Alexander about the outside world sometimes. The possibility of AGDi's Kings Quest 3 is a highly likely story, but I also found it was also a VERY safe one. Safe is nice cause new stuff was added, but a new piece of edge to a story is more interesting for me. I like that TSL it finding a twist to it, but I'd like to hope that it doesn't deviate too far from what we thought was canon. A 'There's more to it' is interesting. Telling us that we assumed wrong in the original game though and... :(

We shall see though. I want to continue hating Manannan for what he did to Alexander. I don't wish to pity him directly for anything to do with Alexander at all. If you wish to make us feel sympathy for his relationship with Valanice however, that I will be very interested in :)
Title: Re: Plot-holes (spoilers)
Post by: KatieHal on April 05, 2011, 07:43:04 AM
Okay, I'll put it this way, then:

The player knows, thanks to the manual, why Manannan hates humans and how he fears what he once saw as his ultimate end. Do we expect that Gwydion knows this because we do? No, of course not.

Likewise, in the original game, you never get confirmation in-game of Manannan's plans (unless he DOES kill you, which, obviously, didn't happen since Alex lives on). So really we've already added to what Alex knows with his confirmation of knowing Manannan killed previous slaves. There are messages that give you relay Alex/Gwydion's suspicions that his master has some vile plans for him, but unless there's a message I've completely forgotten or never found, you, as the player/as Gwydion are never actually TOLD that he knows specifically that Manannan has killed before and plans to kill him. Most if not all of that information is in the manual, not the game.

So, that's what I mean by player knowledge does not equal character knowledge.
Title: Re: Plot-holes (spoilers)
Post by: snabbott on April 05, 2011, 08:11:58 AM
Alexander knowing or not knowing doesn't really change the facts - though I suppose you could argue that the "writer" of the manual didn't know Manannan's true intentions.

Anyway, from what I've heard, Roberta herself wasn't overly concerned with maintaining the continuity of the "canon." (Note that I'm not trying to say anything about what she would think about this particular plot twist.) It's certainly within the developers' creative license to break continuity with the original games, especially since they have explicitly stated (multiple times) that this game is not meant to be canon. If you like it, fine. Otherwise, nobody is forcing you to play it.

There's a certain amount of literary (?) integrity involved in developing a story you know not everybody is going to like and not cave in. True, you want to please the fans, but it's just not possible to please everybody and sometimes you just have to stick to your vision.
Title: Re: Plot-holes (spoilers)
Post by: KatieHal on April 05, 2011, 08:19:49 AM
Well-said Stephen :)
Title: Re: Plot-holes (spoilers)
Post by: Lambonius on April 05, 2011, 03:53:44 PM
It's certainly within the developers' creative license to break continuity with the original games, especially since they have explicitly stated (multiple times) that this game is not meant to be canon.

Right, stated it once they were called out on how fast and loose they were playing around with established series history.  ;)
Title: Re: Plot-holes (spoilers)
Post by: Cez on April 05, 2011, 06:24:44 PM
It's certainly within the developers' creative license to break continuity with the original games, especially since they have explicitly stated (multiple times) that this game is not meant to be canon.

Right, stated it once they were called out on how fast and loose they were playing around with established series history.  ;)

Right, because by originally calling it "The unofficial King's Quest IX" the day we first went live with a website, it clearly meant we thought it was fully canon. ;)
Title: Re: Plot-holes (spoilers)
Post by: Roivas on April 09, 2011, 01:16:09 PM
I personally always thought the Black Cloak Society was just a union of some kind for magical bastards around the world. The plot for these games are fine, I just always thought that Shadrack was just going to be a slightly more powerful wizard with a more labyrinthine plot to become king of some distant land.

The Silver Lining does have quite a few retcons to make their plot function, but they aren't so much holes as background alterations. Manannan could've been a reclusive black wizard with some good left in him and a paranoid streak a mile wide and now for the purposes of the plot he always was. Plus in terms of the story, he never actually killed Alexander, he just always seemed distant and menacing.

You have to keep in mind your hundreds of deaths throughout the series aren't considered canon.
Title: Re: Plot-holes (spoilers)
Post by: tslaccount on April 13, 2011, 03:48:09 AM
There is a canon King's quest 3 scene that shows Mannanan has a tiny soft side towards Alexander:

If you try to walk down the mountain and the wizard is still around, he stops you, but allows you to live that one time.

Every other transgression equals death.
Title: Re: Plot-holes (spoilers)
Post by: Arkillian on April 15, 2011, 05:17:00 PM
I don't think so. The same applies if you go into a forbidden room too often. The man doesn't want to train another baby boy how to talk and read without good reason >.>
Title: Re: Plot-holes (spoilers)
Post by: Damar on April 17, 2011, 01:38:02 PM
Yeah, the narration if you're off in Llewdor when Manannan comes back implies that Manannan was about to off you, but then he changes his mind and just sends you back home.  So it is a brief moment of mercy.  That said, I don't think you can use that as evidence that Manannan was actually not totally evil.  After all, just because he wasn't as purely evil as possible doesn't mean that he wasn't evil.

So I'm also in the camp of seeing Manannan as very evil.  It doesn't bother me that TSL is giving him a bit of internal conflict though.  If anything, that kind of slight good side just makes Manannan all the more infuriatingly evil.  He's not pure evil, he knows what he's doing is wrong, yet he does it anyway.  He's too morally weak to take a stand and he just justifies it as following orders.  He's like the Nazi officers put on trial at the end of the war who basically had the defense of "Well, what could I have done?"  How about you do what's right?  The good in Manannan doesn't complicate the character by making him more likable.  It kind of does the opposite.  It makes him more evil, just a different kind of evil than we thought.
Title: Re: Plot-holes (spoilers)
Post by: Arkillian on April 18, 2011, 07:08:42 PM
So I'm also in the camp of seeing Manannan as very evil.  It doesn't bother me that TSL is giving him a bit of internal conflict though. 

I feel this way too :) I like him having internal conflict :) It's some nice drama