MOE in TSL

[Baggins]

Ok, shame I have to resort to Godwin's law... let's put this into perspective. You are the leader of a small country in europe that has been conquered by a violent dragonic force bent on killing and destruction. This force demands the death of a certain part of your society? If you do not they will probably kill/imprsion all of your people? Or do you choose to turn in this small group of people. What happened when these countries decided to 'collaborate' with the forces demands? Sure they protected there people, making it slightly less dangerous. But what about that demographic of society that got "tossed under the bus"?

Well once the trials began, quite a few "collaboraters" were arrested, for committing the reprehensible act.... There are ways to "justify" any action, and frame it in the "Greater Good", needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few scenario. But often someone's legacy will be tained by the decision they made...or revisions try to rewrite history and white-was a tyrant/murderer out to be a good guy for his decisions to follow the 'needs of the many' ideals ('Che Gueverra')...

Certainly not anyone who would take Graham to trial for his decision, considering he controls the courts... But still its definitely machievian/dictatorial decision. I from my perspective I would consider anyone who tried to use those kinds of justifications for government endorsed murder, or supported it; to still be an evil.

In general in most cases in the real world where "needs of the many' was followed to its ultimate conclusion in history, it always ended in horrible outcome (with many dieing). It never got to that point with Graham, which is good. But it could have easily turned him into one of those characters of Trajedy plays, that also follow the path of the "needs of the many..." fallacy.

If you think its a good ideal, you are welcome to the opinion. But its something I personally do not agree with (and that's something molded by years of research on subjects related to the idea)...

(Posted on: December 06, 2010, 05:18:51 PM)

You just quoted the Bible, really? What about the one they call Jesus. The Son of God sacrificed to save humanity. Do people think less of God because of what he did?

Are you serious? The ones who killed Jesus, such as Caiphus and Pilot are described as being darned...

Jesus was the one "sacrificed", because Caiphus thought he was doing the will of the "greater good". Jesus didn't do the sacrificing to anyone else.

So your analogy is broken...

Btw, the only reason I quoted the bible verse, was because it is one of the original sources, of the "The needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few"idea ,btw, no, that quote didn't originate from Star Trek...
But somethign thinks had I quoted the quote, and it was closer to star trek, you would have ridiculed my post, claiming I was citing "Spock".

The tale/myth/story in the bible is one of the earliest examples of the "greater good" logic, and its also one of the ones where culture decided that said decision ended in grief for those who commited the fallacy.

[Cez]

I'm not saying Jesus sacrificed anyone. Read again.

God sent his Son down to earth to save humanity. And when he speaks to Him before he's given away, God tells him not to fear. So God pretty much knows what's going to happen to his son, and knows that he will be sacrificed to save humanity.

Which is basically the same idea behind Graham sacrificing Rosella to save the people of Daventry.

And again, nobody looks down on God for what he did, right?

[Baggins]

Ya, and I have spoken to many athiests and anti-theists they consider the idea or concept of the SkyDiety/God a tyrant/dictator... Because of such actions, or because ultimately its said he won't allow people freedom to believe whatever they want to do... I know alot of people that think christianity is evil... So your point?

The point of using the quote, was not to point out validity/inspirtation or fallacies/fiction of the bible (depending on one's viewpoints). But rather to point out the variations in human belief on the subject. The bible was written by many authors, with many different viewpoints...

The world is filled with plenty of philosophies and alternative views... Like I said I do respect, that, but again I said I would have to "agree to disagree with you" if you viewed things differently.

Also your analogy for Rosella as Jesus would work, if itwasn't for the nagging bit that he was sacrificing other maidens before her... She was apparently the last maiden he had to offer, and he was concined to give up... after that. Talk to Rosella in KQ3, listen to the Gnome, and listen to the oracle. It would probably have been far more selfless, and less selfish, if he has offered Rosella first.

[Cez]

Ya, and I have spoken to many athiests and anti-theists they consider the idea or concept of the SkyDiety/God a tyrant/dictator... Because of such actions, or because ultimately its said he won't allow people freedom to believe whatever they want to do... I know alot of people that think christianity is evil... So your point?

The world is filled with plenty of philosophies and alternative views...

Yeah, but that didn't stop millions (or billions) of people of looking up to God and praying to Him. There will always be people that don't agree, but the majority of people that were affected by Christianity loved God and are ever thankful to him for Sacrificing his Son to save them.

My point is that I'm giving you a very hard fact based on the history of humanity that dismantles what you are trying to defend when you say people would have looked down on Graham for sacrificing his daughter to save them.

[Baggins]

Also like I said, your analogy for Rosella as Jesus doesn't really work. There is that nagging bit that he was sacrificing other maidens before her... She was apparently the last maiden he had to offer, and he was forced to give up... he was concined to allow the kingdom's destruction after that I guess. Talk to Rosella in KQ3, listen to the Gnome, and listen to the oracle. It would probably have been far more selfless, and less selfish, if he has offered Rosella first. Graham's order of events was far more tyrranical than "Gods" decision. Its not like God was offering up other people's sons (except for that one time the story of him asking Abraham to sacrifice Isaac to test the patriarch's loyality, but had no intent of following through with it, )...

[KatieHal]

If you think its a good ideal, you are welcome to the opinion. But its something I personally do not agree with (and that's something molded by years of research on subjects related to the idea)...

I didn't say I did. I just argued that you cannot make a black and white, right and wrong judgment call on it. If this is how you view my opinion and consider it "uneducated" just because I don't agree with you and/or argue on your side of the matter, there's no point in continuing a debate on it with you.

Also, btw, my minor in college was Philosophy, so no, I'm not uneducated on this subject area either.

[crayauchtin]

I wasn't talking about "references to previous games" but rather references to King's Quest themes. Freesa like Icebella are both fairy tale tropes. As is the crystal dragon, etc. Something that was huge part of Roberta's vision.

No, you weren't. But Damar was.

There are a few references to things from previous games like Castle Daventry, the the Royal Family, Graham, Valanice, and the magic map. I agree these are very few and far between.

Right, but Castle Daventry was not at all recognizable as the "Castle Daventry" that we'd seen in the past.

As for the "throne rooms" they seem the same in each game. But actually if you analyze them there are lot of issues with each one :p... Unfortunately Sierra never really kept those consistent (mostly a color issue, and some archictecture, and furniture differences as well). BTW, look where Graham keeps his hat at the end of KQ3, and where he keeps it in at the beginning of KQ4 (same cutscene or is it?). In addition there is a door to the 'south' of the throne in KQ4? What happened to it in KQ6 (what is that gold wall doing there)?

But those throne rooms were still totally recognizable as the one previously seen.

The drastic change though I would equate to a landmark like castle daventry's halls being replaced with a courtyard...or the Door into Mountain's staircase being replaced with wooden catwalks, or other major changes to the geography and complete changes to the landmarks made between KQ1 and KQ1 remake. Even KQ5's geography (looking down from the hill) doesn't have much of anything in Daventry that resembles any major landmarks from the previous games. You know that hill, is right about where the Door into Mountain or Ancient Well was located in KQ3 (and there is no evidence of their existence), and there was no hill there in KQ3.

You'll notice that in my list I did not make any reference to KQ5's Castle Daventry or indeed Daventry at all. And in KQ3, I didn't say "Daventry" or "Castle Daventry" -- I cited specific landmarks that looked the same.
And KQ1 isn't on the list because it's the first one in the series. The remake of KQ1 is still KQ1, there is nothing "previous" for it to refer to or be consistent with.

[quote[Also I think its a bit silly to blame every aspect you don't like about the game as "she lost control of the game" (that smacks of pulling theories out of one's ass, and hindsight wishful thinking on your part).[/quote]
I don't. I'm fully aware of the fact that combat was her idea. I didn't even suggest it was a bad idea. What I suggested was that, if she had been more fully in control of the game, there might have been consistency with previous games. There was not any, or at least not enough. THAT smacks of not being Roberta's work, when it was obviously something important to her (and the other developers) in every single other episode of the King's Quest series.

You know what, based on the material I've found it doesn't look like any of her earliest ideas wouldn't have made any more direct references to previous King's Quest games than the few that are already in there.

The references would likely have been little details -- recognizable features or names mentioned in passing. I doubt they would have been in the design notes of boss monsters, puzzles, quests, etc.
But, with Rosella and Valanice having been cut that's at least *one* reference that would have been in the game and was cut.

At one point they even thought about tossing in a leprechaun (which apparently had no connection to previous games), and would have just been a boss battle. Actually he's still in the game, just been swapped out for that spriggan at the top of the castle... Just a mindless battle, with no real plot point...

But unlike a spriggan, a leprechaun is a creature we've seen before. In Daventry, no less.

About the only idea that Mark Seibert explained to me that would have tossed in a 'connection', was that they thought about naming that Wizard you encounter, "Crispinopher" but decided against it... Probably for the better, because then you'd have to explain why he was with Dante, and not Cedric (they apparently had no intention of putting Cedric in the game, since many at that point found him annoying).

I agree that Cedric is annoying and Dante is much better, and putting Crispin in the game would have left some loopholes. Still, it might have been better than Sir Wizard, as it would have clearly connected Mask of Eternity to the series without alienating new players.

You can also find some early documents from the third stage of design, where they were calling land "Underworld", and the river in DOD, the "River Styx" (this was a name dropped reference to the myth. This realm was still said to be ruled by Azriel (Azriel's graphic at the time was the same as in the released game). [/quote]
As I said, Roberta is a genius but that doesn't mean all of her ideas were good.

That being said Roberta didn't have much work on KQ6, KQ1, or apparently even KQ7. With KQ6, she had a few brainstorming ideas, then Jane Jensen took over and wrote everything, and the story, while Roberta was in Europe. Roberta was busy working on KQ5, to do anything for KQ1 remake (that was pretty much all handled by Josh Mandel). With KQ7, Roberta was too bush working on Phantas, and put most of the work under Lorelei Shannon. She didn't hold full control over it, its apparently mostly  Lorelei's ideas. The story is even said to be Lorelei's and not Robertas in the credits. I think the last game Roberta actually personally worked on to some degree (not counting last stage of MOE), was probably back during KQ5...

And yet, in that quote you made earlier she took full credit for every game in the KQ series while defending MOE. I would submit that this qualifies of a case of her putting on a "public face" to defend her work. Everyone does it.

Its certainly not something that was affected by "losing control of the game". Roberta's strong point and involvement in the games was always more about the gameplay, and pushing the boundaries of current technology, than the story.[/quote]
But even where she was involved in the story, there were at least references to previous games. She didn't need to use the Black Cloak Society -- although fans of the series would have loved it -- but more subtle references would have worked just as well without alienating players. It's a massive oversight, plain and simple.

n KQ2 the mermaid can't speak in the human language. I'm going by the fact that she does NOT speak in the human language in the game on this one. It is plain as day. She only ignores you before you give her flowers. She summons a sea horse for you -- but she never says anything to you. She doesn't invite you to ride it, you surmise that all on your own. To me that indicates she can't speak. No, it doesn't explicitly say it but to take a different opinion in this context -- especially since the only other place we meet a mermaid in the series she is unable to speak in the human tongue -- is just being disagreeable for no reason.

It could be thought of as speaking when it says that she "summons a magical seahorse" but since she's not speaking to Graham, even if this involves talking it's not likely to be in the human tongue. The next line of the description says "Maybe you could ride it!" She doesn't invite you, you have to figure it out on your own.

Cupid's arrows are pure love.... it's hard to argue that shooting Lolotte was violent. Yes, it was painful but Rosella was not being violent.

Damar was saying violent solutions as in, the actions you take, are seldom rewarded. The subsequent description may be violent, but firing love at someone is not. The action is not violent, and as such in that case violence is not rewarded. Violence being the noun meaning a "a violent act or proceeding" in this case.

The idea that many usually bring up is that in KQ games you don't usually "kill" your foes. These are examples where that idea is tossed out the window.

But no one said anything about killing, we were talking about violent actions.

Of course let's talk about the troll, its an evil sort of baddie, its too powerful to defeat by normal means. You could take the non-violent approach and offer it some treasure (why not give it a walnut? That tree is loaded, with enough to go around)... But the game rewards you for taking it out violently, by getting it head butted into the river, and depending on which version of the game (there is some implication that it may have drowned)...

Although technically speaking Graham didn't act here (), this would have been a much better example but it's still in KQ1 where we have pushing Dahlia into the pot. I think that's more violent than a goat performing its natural reaction to bridge trolls but maybe that's just me.

Seriously you claiming that Graham had no intent to get rid of the Yeti?

Uhm, no, I said the next step was going to be bash in the yeti's face. I said he was likely planning to be violent, he just never got the chance. Seriously, read much?

What do you think he intended to do, make the Yeti even more angry? A yeti with a pie in its face flailing its arms would be just as dangerous as one without the pie in its face... So even to get close enough to use that tiny cobbler hammer would have a chance to be lethal... BTW, cobbler hammers are quite tiny

So.... you're claiming that Graham believed that the pie was a deadly weapon and he was proven to be right? What other inventory item could Graham possibly have been planning to use to defeat the yeti after the pie?
The thing is -- one end of the cobbler's hammer is quite sharp. Impaling a yeti through the eye with that end would not have been hard. Hitting the yeti in the same spot in the eye repeatedly would have killed it.
You're right though, he could also have been planning to shove the yeti off the edge.

In anycase from a real world standards, the game's solution is quite illogical. Alot of the puzzles in that game are fairly illogical, or quite obscure. Cheese machine anyone?

My laptop runs on moldy cheese....

*YAWN

That really is the most constructive thing I can think of to add to this thread.

Oh good, because I was worried people would run out of constructive things to say.

Of course what happens when they run out of maidens to give? Do they start coming for the young boys? or the older women?

Probably the adult women who haven't hit menopause yet. The reason it was so important to sacrifice maidens (if I understand the tradition correctly) is that it is not JUST the maiden who is killed, but any future generations she may have born.
I mean, I could be totally wrong on that one but it makes sense!

[Baggins]

I didn't say I did. I just argued that you cannot make a black and white, right and wrong judgment call on it. If this is how you view my opinion and consider it "uneducated" just because I don't agree with you and/or argue on your side of the matter, there's no point in continuing a debate on it with you.

I never said you were "uneducated", please do not accuse me of that... I just said that from my own studies on the subject, my point of view on the issue, and that it usually never ends well. The 'needs of the many' usually never saves anyone. Its pure dumb luck, that Alexander returned, had he died. There would have been no one to stop the dragon from destroying the kingdom. The maidens wouldn't have even save anything. It would have just lead to more murder and death. So its just a matter of "agreeing to is disagree" on each perspective.

But unlike a spriggan, a leprechaun is a creature we've seen before. In Daventry, no less.

Actually, i'd point out that creating new races is quite normal for the series. You don't necessarily see the exact same races in each game of the series. New races are shown.

Of course let's point out an example of something from previous games being brought back into newer games in a different form...  Remember the trolls in KQ7, they do not follow trolls from previous games. Completely different personality, culture and appearance...

Probably the adult women who haven't hit menopause yet. The reason it was so important to sacrifice maidens (if I understand the tradition correctly)

Depends on the tradition. In many of the traditions it had to be a 'virgin' (some cultures it didn't matter if it was male or female). So a bar wench that had making one too many trips around the bar, probably wouldn't work.

[KatieHal]

The 'needs of the many' usually never saves anyone.

Well, in the case we're talking about, it actually saved quite a few people.

[Baggins]

Well, not necessarily... its suggested that Daventry was nearly emptied of everyone, most people fled :p... All that was left was the castle.. If some of the peole who left or were leaving, were killed or not who knows... Probably explains why Graham was running out of maidens though, parents must have been leaving the country to get away from the king (and the dragon).

[wilco64256]

Well, not necessarily... its suggested that Daventry was nearly emptied of everyone :p... All that was left was the castle.. If they were killed or not who knows... Probably explains why Graham was running out of maidens though, parents must have been leaving the country to get away from the king.

Or maybe... the dragon?

[Baggins]

Ya, and the dragon, and the droughts/famines/earthquakes. But the potential to losing your daughter because some king, forces them to be killed by the dragon, would certainly probably been an influence. It wasn' t as if the Dragon was going after the maidens on its own. It takes two to tango.

[KatieHal]

Can't flee if you aren't living!

[crayauchtin]

But unlike a spriggan, a leprechaun is a creature we've seen before. In Daventry, no less.

Actually, i'd point out that creating new races is quote normal for the series.

Of course let's point out an example of something from previous games being brought back into newer games in a different form...  Remember the trolls in KQ7, they do not follow trolls from previous games. Completely different personality, culture and appearance...

BUt it's been established there are different races of trolls. The KQ1 troll is specifically a Bridge Troll. KQ4 has a Cave Troll. These are Vulcanix Trolls, and they are, in fact, from another realm.
I'm not saying creating new races is a bad thing in these series and yes, it's quite normal. On the other hand, in a game needing something to tie it to previous games this is yet another missed opportunity.

[Baggins]

Well that's the thing its unclear how many were died from other disasters/famine, killed by the dragon (before the sacrifices began), how many maidens actually were killed, and how many those died trying to flee, to those who made it out. It will never be known.

[Lambonius]

Yeah, seriously...if Graham has ordered the sacrifice of all eligible maidens in the kingdom and only offered up Rosella as a last resort, it certainly paints him in a different light.  It calls to mind the story of Perseus and Andromeda (which almost certainly served as inspiration for the scenario), where Andromeda is set to be sacrificed to the Sea Serpent Cetus.  Although in that case, her father was forced into it by the gods, and he didn't try to sacrifice other people's daughters first...so...yeah...

[Baggins]

BUt it's been established there are different races of trolls. The KQ1 troll is specifically a Bridge Troll. KQ4 has a Cave Troll. These are Vulcanix Trolls, and they are, in fact, from another realm.
I'm not saying creating new races is a bad thing in these series and yes, it's quite normal. On the other hand, in a game needing something to tie it to previous games this is yet another missed opportunity

Not quite, the manauls and games only call them trolls. Only the secondary material like King's Quest Companion, and an obscure reference in King's Questions refers to the trolls by separate races.

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'.

[KatieHal]

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.

[Cez]

BUt it's been established there are different races of trolls. The KQ1 troll is specifically a Bridge Troll. KQ4 has a Cave Troll. These are Vulcanix Trolls, and they are, in fact, from another realm.
I'm not saying creating new races is a bad thing in these series and yes, it's quite normal. On the other hand, in a game needing something to tie it to previous games this is yet another missed opportunity

Not quite, the manauls and games only call them trolls. Only the secondary material like King's Quest Companion, and an obscure reference in King's Questions refers to the trolls by separate races.

so now the Companion is "secondary material" and not the source of all info?

[Lambonius]

BUt it's been established there are different races of trolls. The KQ1 troll is specifically a Bridge Troll. KQ4 has a Cave Troll. These are Vulcanix Trolls, and they are, in fact, from another realm.
I'm not saying creating new races is a bad thing in these series and yes, it's quite normal. On the other hand, in a game needing something to tie it to previous games this is yet another missed opportunity

Not quite, the manauls and games only call them trolls. Only the secondary material like King's Quest Companion, and an obscure reference in King's Questions refers to the trolls by separate races.

Wait, wait...Baggins is citing the manuals and purposefully ignoring the Companion??  Role reversal much???  lol