MOE in TSL

[Baggins]

Cez context please, the discussion was about the games, and how games portray things.

If I had said oh btw, some mermaids can talk as shown in the companion (as a few sections imply, and mostly relating to mermaids seen in KQ2). Cray would be saying, oh but that doesn't happen in the games (so it has no merit)...

Since Cray was talking about 'consistency amongst" the games, and not expanded universe as a whole. Then we can only discuss the context based on the standards he set forth.

Yes, I can understanding how discussions can be confusing, when different fans have different views of the world, and what sources the accept over others.

[Lambonius]

Cez context please, the discussion was about the games, and how games portray things.

If I had said oh bte way mermaids can talkin the companion (as one part implies). Cray would be saying, oh but that doesn't happen in the games...

Since Cray was talking about 'consistency amongst" the games, and not expanded universe as a whole. Then we can only discuss the context based on the standards he set forth.

True, true.  Cez, rebuttal?  lol

[KatieHal]

True, true.  Cez, rebuttal?  lol

[Cez]

If I had said oh btw, some mermaids can talk as shown in the companion (as a few sections imply). Cray would be saying, oh but that doesn't happen in the games (so it has no merit)...

Which is exactly what you ALWAYS do. Swing from one point of view to the next, so that your points are never wrong

the KQ Companion is the source of all info!!! Until! it doesn't help you prove a point

[Baggins]

I thought it was said or implied that the dragon had also specifically demanded Rosella for that year's sacrifice. If so, he may well have demanded other specific girls before her."

Great question, hmm need to go hunt up those quotes from KQ3 again. I forget how it explained it exactly.

Which is exactly what you ALWAYS do. Swing from one point of view to the next, so that your points are never wrong

the KQ Companion is the source of all info!!! Until! it doesn't help you prove a point

Its impossible to keep things to one discusison, because people keep changing positions, and there are lots of positions... You come across one person that wants to discuss the entirety of the universe, and those that what to ignore huge sections of the universe. If I stick to a "complete all sources" rule, there is always someone that go about saying, what's your point? Those don't count in there opinion.

Then there are those that say, the games are great, but they they are so inconsistent to be taken at face value...


Then there are the discusisons from people who want to discuss fan fiction, like KQ2+ as the central part of a its own continuity, while ignoring the official game. Those discussions make things rather difficult as well... Since the other person is already going in with preconceived interpretation that leaves another source out of the equation. If I bring up KQ2 original stuff, its certainly not going to add anything insightful to the discussion.

In anycase I was stating a fact, that in the games, there is no mention of 'seperate' races. This doesn't mean that racesn't aren't mentioned in the expanded sources outside the game, but its still a fact that its not established in the games.

Its a bit like Hagatha, this is a fact. There is no place in the game that says that she is Manannan's sister. The second fast is that King's Questions and the Companion are the source that states they are related.

You people make it difficult to keep discussions in one form, because you are always asking me to limit things (or not bring things up in discussions)...

Believe me all these different viewpoints in discussions started by people just confuses other people that come into the discussion. They get even more confused if you bring up something that is outside of their preconceived ideas...

Would you like me to go and toss all and every alternative viewpoint and possible thought process, and reference from every source related to a subject?

BTW, I for one am someone that admits that King's Quest as a whole is not consistent. I can point out lots of incosistencies between sources... They may all be considered equal sources of information, that still doesn't mean that inconsistencies somehow magically "disappear".

[crayauchtin]

KQ1 does not use the term "Bridge Troll", and as far as I know KQ4 doesn't use the term "Cave Troll". KQ7, just uses the term 'trolls'.

You could actually be right about KQ1 and KQ4 (although it's clear they are different) but I know that in at least one place the trolls are called "trolls of (or maybe from? I have to go watch an LP I think...) the Vulcanix Underground" implying that there are more varieties even in Eldritch.

[Cez]

I thought it was said or implied that the dragon had also specifically demanded Rosella for that year's sacrifice. If so, he may well have demanded other specific girls before her."

Great question, hmm need to go hunt up those quotes from KQ3 again. I forget how it explained it exactly.

Which is exactly what you ALWAYS do. Swing from one point of view to the next, so that your points are never wrong

the KQ Companion is the source of all info!!! Until! it doesn't help you prove a point

Its impossible to keep things to one discusison, because people keep changing positions, and there are lots of positions... You come across one person that wants to discuss the entirety of the universe, and those that what to ignore huge sections of the universe. If I stick to a "complete all sources" rule, there is always someone that go about saying, what's your point? Those don't count in there opinion.

My point is that if it was the other way around, and Craig was trying to defend the point that there's no different races, you would have quoted the companion and said that isn't true. Because the companion is official source because it was approved by Roberta Williams --which is what you've said before.

Which is something that you do all the time. However, in this case, because you are trying to defend the point of not having different races, the Companion is now relegated to secondary material. So what's your stand, really, what is it going to be? You can't keep changing stands just so that you are never wrong.

[Baggins]

Well, "trolls of.." indicates a descripion of home location, not necessarily their race.

But ya, if you were to accept companion/KQ7 Authorized guide it gives them the race name, "trollkin".

Trolls actually change alot throughout the games, I have a composite image somewhere that shows all the variations of trolls made throughout the games, visually.

My point is that if it was the other way around, and Craig was trying to defend the point that there's no different races, you would have quoted the companion and said that isn't true. Because the companion is official source because it was approved by Roberta Williams --which is what you've said before.

Which is something that you do all the time. However, in this case, because you are trying to defend the point of not having different races, the Companion is now relegated to secondary material. So what's your stand, really, what is it going to be? You can't keep changing stands just so that you are never wrong.

No had the discussion been based on companion to begin with, which it was not (there was indication early on that he didn't want any discussion of the companion). I would have said, ya he's right that in the greater lore there are separate races. In this case, I was just trying to keep things consistent to the standards he set forth. Since he requested that in the first place :p... Go up to an earlier post I even alluded out that "mermaids seemingly can talk" in some of the external sources, but that he might be right that going by the games only, that mermaid in KQ2 doesn't talk.

What you people do all the time, is tell me to "shove" the companion, then you switch grounds when I point contradictions just going by the games, and start quoting the companion... yourself... Maybe you haven't noticed it but imo from my perspective there are individuals in this forum that do the same thing.

Besides, i'm talking to cray, and his basis of his discussion keeps on changing form, every time we discuss things, so I don't know when he's taking the companion as a source, or choosing to ignore it. Most of his discussion is based around his ideas for fan fiction. Most often he goes for the choice to ignore it (beyond taking a few bits of inspiration from it).

[Cez]

I'm really not quoting the companion. I stand clear by the information given by the games, and have always kept that position. This is an observation on your behavior, because you seem to be the one switching from the companion being game lore to not being game lore depending on what helps you to prove your point. So, in this case, I'm just playing the devil's advocate on yourself, really.

[Lambonius]

Nothing is true.  Everything is permitted.

[Baggins]

Ya, but from my perspective, alot of the forum members do the same thing as well. If you check the omnipedia, you'll note that I treat it all equally. I just point out where two or more things aren't necessarily consistent. or how one things describes things vs. another. I point out where information comes from, and people can decide to ignore if they want to or not.

Its still not choosing sides, to point out that according to "such and such this is all it says about it" in relation to "according to this source, this what it says about it".

That's not the same thing as, "I ignore a in favor of b.". Rather I'm just point out that this is a and this is b, but I generally treat a = b, even if they don't necessarily fit each other.

Nothing is true.  Everything is permitted.

The ends justify the means? Heh heh. more machievelli... Yes, I love AC.

So back to your discussion cray, another race like the trolls are the elves. Portrayed differently in the three versions of the games they appear in. Only called "elves" in the games, but have slightly different cultural differences portrayed in those games.

King's Quest companion seperates them in two or more races, incidently.

Then there are the dwarfs... The narrations in KQ1, and KQ2, suggests that "dwarfs are dirty, evil, deceitful little beings, and this dwarf is no different". Yet, in KQ4, we have very nice and friendly dwarfs (they might be still dirty though).

Let's not forget the ogres... They are very different between the portrayal in KQ1 (both versions) and KQ4.

[Lambonius]

Its still not choosing sides, to point out that according to "such and such this is all it says about it" in relation to "according to this source, this what it says about it".

That's not the same thing as, "I ignore a in favor of b.". Rather I'm just point out that this is a and this is b, but I generally treat a = b, even if they don't necessarily fit each other.

That's easily understandable, Baggins.  People here are often quick to take offense when they think you're implying that "ignoring a in favor of b" is silly.  Which I haven't seen you do.  Insecurities of the audience, I think.

[Baggins]

Hell, I'm an anthropologist, they try to indoctrinate us to have more pluralistic world views... But that just might be left thinking education in general... I.E. while I studied in Hawaii for undergrad, I took Hawaiian history courses, which treats hawaiian traditions and beliefs as alternative history = so called scientific history... I think they try to explain this as "broadening your mind"... although it kinda reminds me of 1984 doublethink :p.... But I suppose that there is often alot of truth in myths, and they may offer explanations that traditional recorded history might have missed. In the same way that looking an artifact might offer information on a culture's history that might have been lost by normal means.

[crayauchtin]

Which is something that you do all the time. However, in this case, because you are trying to defend the point of not having different races, the Companion is now relegated to secondary material. So what's your stand, really, what is it going to be? You can't keep changing stands just so that you are never wrong.

Actually, Cez, Baggins is quite correct that I absolutely kiboshed the Companion in this discussion in my very fist post in this thread and I appreciate that he's sticking to that.

Also, I am not nor have I ever been "Craig". Psssssssh.

As for the trolls... yeah just watched playthroughs of all three and I seem to have been wrong about all of that. Still... it makes sense!!

[Baggins]

Thanks cray (and that goes out to Lambonius as well) for stepping in on my defense.

Btw, our friend the KQ1 troll, is also called a forest troll in yet another expanded source (might have been the companion)  if you want to keep count :p...

[Cez]

I guess that would stand true and smart on its own, but the evidence of continuous bickering between you and other forum members indicate otherwise. Maybe it's just your way about taking stances. Instead of trying to prove everyone that you are right, which is really how you come across, you could just expose all different points.

A simple "you are right on that accord" every once in a while goes a long way. However my perception, and I may be wrong, is that you always try to be right  by all accords, and even when you give in, it seems twisted in a way that others are still wrong.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that if you were really all about pluralistic worlds views, you would be more accepting about others' point of view and would only refer to give the information without trying to prove a point so badly, and therefore become so involved in arguments with every forum member that enters a discussion with you.

I truly think that your knowledge of King's Quest lore is more than impressive and impeccable, and I'd certainly like to retain half of what you know in terms of knowledge. I just think that this knowledge could be used more in the informative way that you use it for the Omnipedia, and less in the way it's used to get into endless arguments with anyone that tries to rebutt your opinion. In brief, you could be informative while acknowledging that others are right as well.

Again, that's all an observation. I'm sure there's a rebuttal coming to this about me being wrong

[Baggins]

Well I don't agree with "pluralistic" world views when it comes to reality topics... It always came across as a problem when history that is believed is different than history that is definitely known as happened. Like I said it seemed like they tried to to 'idoctrinate' us with that view... but I resisted it... Other historian profs were definitely annoyed by that perspective of 'pluralism', again the reference to "doublethink", and what could happen if you take pluralism too far.

That's another subject for another time...

BTW, I do quite often point out all the different official views, quite often. That doesn't mean that someones personal view fits with any of the variant 'official' views given. A (manual) and B (game) and C (companion/hintbook, etc) might each be different/similar, but certainly not the same as Z (fan idea). If someone was close to hitting a, b, or c on the head, sure I'd point it out. I've even point out where a, b, and c might even support their viewpoint.

Most of the time though when I pont something out, its its to point out where Z, ignored (i'm not accusing of intentionally ignoring, but probably more passive ''missed', 'overlooked') A,B and even C. So that an inconsistency was created, probably by accident, but the inconsistency still exists (square peg doesn't fit into round hole).

[Cez]

My mistake. I read that you agreed with pluralistic world views.

Still, taking that out, the rest of my observation still stands. There have been times when we've thought about consulting with you for plot points and the four winds, because of the impressive knowledge, but it's the attitude about this knowledge that has stopped us from doing so.

[Baggins]

By all means, if you want to consult me about something, just ask. I'd just try to point out all the possibilities that official points out. If you choose to ignore them, that's your preragative... I understand sometimes the material has already been locked down, and thus its too late to fix, this might create the occasional glaring issues. But its not something that can be fixed.

I not trying to belittle you as people, i'm not trying to battle you or fight you. If and when I point out something where it differs from what you portrayed don't take that is being an attack on you... It is never intended to be...

If it helps, if you don't want me to read the Four Winds material before its released, just ask me on a topic, and I'll try to do research for you if I have the time... You can then do what you will with that research...  I'll probably take the time to include whatever I researched into the omnipedia. Which is I would definitely recommend consulting.

BTW, I've pretty decided to stop pointing out the occasional inconsistency in your game in the forums anymore. Since people tend to get awefully self defensive about it, as if I was "attacking the designers" or team personally, and trying to attack the game...

I mean where you someone accuses me of calling calling them "ignorant", because I said oh, oh I think you "missed such and such", or I say,"my point of view based on what I read", is a little uh... How can I say this, there is no reason to feel insecure. So perhaps its best, if I never point out potential descrepencies at all?

[KatieHal]

It's the how you phrase things, honestly. It's one thing to say 'this was different over here, in this source', etc, and another to post the wall of text about how some fact--often a small one as well, I might add--is wrong and proven wrong in a list of eighteen different sources. (And there is, as discussed, inconsistency in said sources as well.)

For two examples--a FW article referred to the Isle of Mists (or Isle of the Mist, I forget) as a slightly different name. You went to the trouble of pointing and saying you were 'sure [we] had a reason for changing the name.' A minor point like that I don't think most people would even consider a full-on name change (which it wasn't--as I pointed out at the time, we refer to that island at least 3 different ways, but all are similar and it's clear what's being talked about) (and admittedly because I know we kept forgetting which exact form was the official name). It's the kind of thing that, personally, nettles me a lot because it's not a change and it really doesn't matter. And then there was the long debate with Rich about just how devastated Valanice was or was not at which point in time. Which is so minor in the overall context of the game and even in that article, yet it brought on many quotes and lengthy posts about how a slight difference in how it was stated was entirely wrong.

You may not intend it as belittling, but it often comes off that way when that's the approach you take.