Empress Prazac's Reign
Pages
- 1
- 2
| Author | Topic: Empress Prazac's Reign |
|---|---|
|
Triad Mage
Member # 7
|
written Thursday, April 1 2004 00:52
Profile
Homepage
Grakh doesn't have to be a human - it's possible that he's an intelligent goblin or something of that sort. If you discount Erika's text, then is there anything that you would keep? You have to go with what's in the games, even if the dates are wrong. Which is why we standardize them, just to make them make sense. If the text is copied from Exile, it means that Jeff obviously still agrees with it, and I don't really see the problem with it. It seems to me like you're just being contrary for the sake of being contrary. -------------------- "At times discretion should be thrown aside, and with the foolish we should play the fool." - Menander ==== Drakefyre's Demesne - Happy Happy Joy Joy Encyclopedia Ermariana - Trapped in the Closet ==== You can take my Mac when you pry my cold, dead fingers off the mouse! Posts: 9436 | Registered: Wednesday, September 19 2001 07:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Thursday, April 1 2004 04:40
Profile
Homepage
Okay, let me repeat myself AGAIN. The reason that I somewhat (but not entirely) discount Erika's text in A3 is that some of the stuf in that region contradicts things that are already pretty well established elsewhere in the Avernum universe (ie that the darn thing is called Avernum, NOT Exile, and that Micah has been the leader for well over fifty years, not just twenty). I'm saying he left it over from Exile because he was SLOPPY, not because he still agrees with it (and the reason I say that is that he already changed some of this in earlier Avernums). This argument doesn't entirely convince me, but it does make me wonder just enough that I'd like to see something else in the games that corroborates what she says before I believe anything. I'm being contrary because I want to be sure beyond a shadow of a doubt. You could convince me at any point by providing additional evidence and not just your say-so. So could anyone else, too... but it seems like we're the only ones paying attention by now. Grahk may not have been human (I don't remember if we know anything about him), but Prazac pretty certainly was, and the date given for her birth doesn't work with the dates displayed in the games. Hence, even among humans, there are competing calendar systems. -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 2984
|
written Thursday, April 1 2004 10:31
Profile
Homepage
Grahk could not have been anything but a surface explorer imho. That little peninsular is so insignificant that only someone who just happened to teleport directly onto it from the surface (someone tells you that is where the First Expedition first arrived) would be intrigued enough to put on a sign (and a reasonably well-written one in human language, too, ruling out goblins, Vahnatai, Sliths and most non-humans), saying he did so. Not in accord with arrogant Karzoth being the leader though... he doesn't seem the type to let anyone else discover a place and put his name under it. quote:Maybe Jeff read some discussions pertaining this on the board and decided to opt for more consistency? :P quote:. It is generally assumed that the Hawthorne she wanted to assassinate is the third, the second (her father) exiled her, and the first discovered Avernum. If anyone has any additional evidence (or evidence suggesting otherwise), please post here. -------------------- Encyclopaedia Ermariana • Forum Archives • Forum Statistics • RSS [Topic / Forum] My Blog • Polaris • I eat novels for breakfast. Polaris is dead, long live Polaris. Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair. Posts: 8752 | Registered: Wednesday, May 14 2003 07:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Thursday, April 1 2004 15:02
Profile
Homepage
quote:I just did, dude. That's kind of what started this conversation. Okay, to summarize everything I've argued so far: in the date counter, the first scenario your party plays is in the year 855, and the subsequent scenarios increment the year by 1. Based on this, I suggest that VoDT takes place in 855, because it is clearly the first scenario that the party is supposed to play. Point one: VoDT takes place in 855. In VoDT, the message that tells you that the School is closed says it has authority " 'BY THE ORDER OF EMPEROR STEWART, MOST HIGH RULER OF THE EMPIRE.' " It also says, "The proclamation is dated eighty years ago. Emperor Stewart was dead well before you were born" (state 13 in town 13: Libraries). We can probably assume that eighty years is an approximate figure. It doesn't really matter for the sake of my argument. Thus I reason that Emperor Stewart was the emperor of the Empire around 80 years before VoDT. By point one, that would be in the year 775. Point two: around the year 775, Emperor Stewart was the emperor of the Empire. The date counter in A1 says it is the year 817. Thus I assert that A1 takes place in 817. Point three: A1 takes place in 817. In the entrance to the Ancient Crypt in A1 (the one in the northeast corner of Avernum, near Motrax), a message pops up that includes the statement, "It was thought that the First Expedition from the Empire about fifty years ago was the first group of humans to explore these caves." From this I say that the First Expedition occurred roughly fifty years before A1. By point three, that would be near the year 767. Point four: the First Expedition took place near the year 767. Let's review. The First Expedition took place around the year 767. Around the year 775, Emperor Stewart was the emperor of the Empire, after the First Expedition. No one has so far asserted that Hawthorne I came before Emperor Stewart, but the First Expedition came before a date when we know that Stewart was in power. Thus Hawthorne I could *not* have been the emperor who sent the First Expedition. It had to have been Stewart or a predecessor. Does someone have a counter-argument? -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Triad Mage
Member # 7
|
written Friday, April 2 2004 00:18
Profile
Homepage
All we have is a lot of general inconsistencies. I disagree with point one, mainly because 855 is an arbitrary date. I'd be more inclined to go with 843, since BoE VoDT was 10 years after Exile III. -------------------- "At times discretion should be thrown aside, and with the foolish we should play the fool." - Menander ==== Drakefyre's Demesne - Happy Happy Joy Joy Encyclopedia Ermariana - Trapped in the Closet ==== You can take my Mac when you pry my cold, dead fingers off the mouse! Posts: 9436 | Registered: Wednesday, September 19 2001 07:00 |
|
Apprentice
Member # 4160
|
written Friday, April 2 2004 05:37
Profile
In terms of designing scenarios I suggest people stay away from dates because the year will shift 1 year for each new area you enter... and dates in the game may clearly contradict what time the present is. (or appears to be?) Hehe..but its an interesting discussion. Maybe Jeff should change the year thing and let designers decide the scenario year. Maybe he already has, but i havent found anything to do that yet. Correct me if im wrong. Posts: 40 | Registered: Saturday, March 27 2004 08:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Friday, April 2 2004 12:25
Profile
Homepage
quote:I actually haven't found any, other than the aforementioned inconsistencies around Erika's dialogue in A3. Everything else is surprisingly consistent. Let me be specific: everything in the Avernum games is noticeably consistent with everything else in the Avernum games, but NOT necessarily with Exile or with the BoE community's histories. If you find inconsistencies other than the ones I mentioned, let me know, because I would like to see them. quote:Arbitrary is the wrong word. It would've been arbitrary if I had said, "VoDT takes place in 855 because I say so." I gave reasons. I admit that my logic is on shaky ground. Still, I have nothing else to go on, except for your statement that VoDT in BoE says that it takes place in 843 (which doesn't even entirely relate, because the Avernum timeline is not consistent with the Exile timeline). I tried to verify that BoE VoDT takes place in 843, by the way. I did a text dump on BoE VoDT and searched it for the word "year," and got nothing relevant to its placement in time. I searched for "exile" (hoping to find some reference to the treaty in E3) and got nothing relevant. I can't find anything anywhere that places VoDT ten years after E3. Searches for "empire" and "treaty" likewise yielded nothing. I even looked at the vahnatai dialogues, and they yielded nothing to date the scenario. So I'm wondering where the ten-year figure comes from. quote:Apparently the beta-testers asked for this, and he refused, although I still don't know why. Apparently it's possible to shut off the date counter, too, but I don't know how. EDIT: Apparently with the call force_start_day(-1); [ Friday, April 02, 2004 17:35: Message edited by: Kelandon ] -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Canned
Member # 5435
|
written Thursday, February 17 2005 08:46
Profile
Homepage
this may be a stupid question but when or you going to release Lost Bahssikava cause i am bored out of my wits thank you and please dont ignore me like my brothers and sisters do :mad: bye -------------------- my web page Posts: 25 | Registered: Wednesday, January 26 2005 08:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 2210
|
written Thursday, February 17 2005 10:34
Profile
Inconsistent dates are a sign of well done history. In the history of the Roman empire, dates were not always consistent about when things happened. Also you have different historians writing opposing texts on what happened. Some will try to put a positive spin on a particular person, or in some cases will trash them. I imagine a history of Garzahd in the time of Empress Prazac would read something like the story of Caligula written by Plutarch. The political importance of the dates would be more important than their accuracy. In imperial Roman times and Chinese times histories were mainly political documents written to tell how great the current rulers were. -------------------- Wasting your time and mine looking for a good laugh. Star Bright, Star Light, Oh I Wish I May, I Wish Might, Wish For One Star Tonight. Posts: 1084 | Registered: Thursday, November 7 2002 08:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 247
|
written Thursday, February 17 2005 21:21
Profile
Homepage
History texts are like English essays, bull****, but with people and events that actually happened. The smaller details are mainly opinions, jaded one way or another. -------------------- The Knight Between Posts. Posts: 2395 | Registered: Friday, November 2 2001 08:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Friday, February 18 2005 06:33
Profile
Homepage
Note that none of the dates in my argument actually came from history texts, though. They all come from narratorial sources in each of the games (the date counter, the statement "The proclamation is dated eighty years ago," the statement "the First Expedition from the Empire about fifty years ago"). Fallibility was never really an issue here. I still think that the community entirely made up the Hawthorne I, II, and III stuff. I think what Jeff intended was that Stewart was king when the school in VoDT was shut down and when Avernum was discovered and the First Expedition sent, and that his son and successor, Hawthorne, was the one who started exiling people and was king until the adventurers of A1 killed him. Then Prazac succeeded Hawthorne directly, with no Garzahd regency particularly. He was just a powerful figure at court. [ Friday, February 18, 2005 06:39: Message edited by: Kelandon ] -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Warrior
Member # 1425
|
written Friday, February 18 2005 08:11
Profile
It's very easy for these dates to make sense. If the eighty and fifty years ago are taken as a rough date then it would just need to be considered that the more accurate dates are eighty five and fourty five years ago. This maeans stewart would have to die the year of closing the school and would also suggest why there was a struggle among the mages for the NEW Emperors favour at roughly that time. Posts: 190 | Registered: Wednesday, July 3 2002 07:00 |
Pages
- 1
- 2