Full lore

Status
Not open for further replies.

DavidBVal

Developer
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
28/02/2015
Messages
7,427
For a Wiki entry what would be your preferred version on the war timeline for EK?
  • Ten year war 85-86
  • Change the date to 85
  • Keep 95 and just make Raegar wrong perhaps just a slip of the tounge or whatever
I really don't mind, but probably the third is the most logical, as twenty years is probably too long. I'll change the date (the timeline has already other minor alterations, I'll share a revised version soon)

I understand your reasoning with QEII but "young queen" was tabloid commentary not history-type-history. In England, four Kings of England were under 10 years old (one of them was just months old!). Fifteen Kings of England were under 20 years old. Up north, Mary Queen of Scots was 6 years old at ascension. As for English Queens, Victoria was 25 when she ascended, Elisabeth II was 27 at ascension. (Whereas Mary and Ann were 37 on ascension).

Well, kind of a semantic argument (what does "young" mean?). For me the point is, only for extremely brief periods were kingdoms ruled by truly young kings/queens: following the english example, in the last 250 years, an english subject only had maybe 10 years in which he was ruled by a "young" monarch, combining those in which Victoria and Elizabeth II were in their 20s. That makes "young" a remarkable trait to describe a king or queen.
 

VDX_360

Staff member
Moderator
Joined
20/01/2017
Messages
6,128
I like the idea of having some little errors in the dialogue. Not only does it build in some flexibility, but it's more authentic.

Historically, people were pretty bad at keeping track of time. Modern people are, too. I bet there's at least one person in this forum that has referred to something happing "four or five years ago" when it was a decade ago.

For Raegar, its been a rough life after the war so it's going to seem like a lifetime.

David is obviously free to define the lore as he sees fit, but I really dislike overly exact lore.

It's like reading a character description that has too detailed. E.g., The bartender stood at 1.93 meters, weighed a lean 113 kilograms, and had eyes the color of 450 nanometers in wavelenth.

Vagueness is more real.
 

stonedwolf

Loreseeker
Joined
06/02/2019
Messages
1,163
The man Napoleon feared the most was Admiral Sir Sidney Smith. I want to briefly quote a paragraph from Wiki because the "truth" behind the words is not obvious.

Admiral Sir Sidney Smith was born into a military and naval family with connections to the Pitt family. He was born at Westminster, the second son of Captain John Smith of the Guards[3] and his wife Mary Wilkinson, daughter of wealthy merchant Pinckney Wilkinson. Sidney Smith attended Tonbridge School until 1772. He joined the Royal Navy in 1777 and fought in the American Revolutionary War. From June 1777 to January 1778 he served under Commander Jalheel Brenton on board the storeship Tortoise. He moved to the post ship HMS Unicorn, and in her saw action in 1778 against the American frigate Raleigh. For his bravery under Rodney in the action near Cape St Vincent in January 1780, Sidney Smith was, on 25 September, appointed lieutenant of the 74-gun third-rate Alcide.[3]

OK, so what's the big fuss about this bloke? The relevance to EK or this thread? What the Wiki fails to make clear is his age on those dates. Smith was born 1764. So he joined the Royal Navy at 13, saw action at 14, and was a lieutenant at 16. And that's the BRITISH Royal Navy at the peak of the Age of Sail. So IMO taking an immortal bloodwitch to the woods is relatively fine.

And vagueness is good, agreed. Most of the game is vague because you don't get huge dialogues or reams of text. Demetrius for example talked about the war but was vague enough about it. The issue is Raegar is NOT vague:

We were recruited as mere teenagers two decades ago, when the Corsair Princes challenged the King and pillaged Port Malan.

He should have said "years ago", that would have been vague.
 

Kakost

Active Member
Joined
06/12/2022
Messages
375
. E.g., The bartender stood at 1.93 meters, weighed a lean 113 kilograms, and had eyes the color of 450 nanometers in wavelenth.

Vagueness is more real.
You just lost your entire American audience.

I bet to them this must've felt like "he had 5'5" and 150 pounds", which to me means absolutely nothing (and I bet must've been some absurd values)
 

VDX_360

Staff member
Moderator
Joined
20/01/2017
Messages
6,128
I used the metric system to be more global.

PS: I live in the US. And just to be nerdy, only 1 of the 35 countries in the "Americas" use the imperial system, the rest use the metric system.

PSS: No one uses "nanometers" to describe a color. I was being overly pedantic to add emphasis to the point.

PSS: Those are the metric conversations of my real measurements (slight rounding) --- So, not absurd
 

VDX_360

Staff member
Moderator
Joined
20/01/2017
Messages
6,128
Taking Gris into the intense combat? Sure, why not. She's tough.

Pushing Adaon onto traps? Sure, why not. He robbed you in your sleep, so fine.

Taking 16 year-old Hirge for a stroll through a swamp with wildlife? Absoluty, the eff not. She's a princess!

Just so we're clear where the lines.
 

Kakost

Active Member
Joined
06/12/2022
Messages
375
PSS: Those are the metric conversations of my real measurements (slight rounding) --- So, not absurd
What? 5'5" (whatever that means in american) and 150 pounds are your measurements?

I don't have the slighest clue of what those mean. To me I'd say that it may range between a Hobbit and a Giant and weight between a dog and tiger...
Post automatically merged:    

Taking Gris into the intense combat? Sure, why not. She's tough.

Pushing Adaon onto traps? Sure, why not. He robbed you in your sleep, so fine.

Taking 16 year-old Hirge for a stroll through a swamp with wildlife? Absoluty, the eff not. She's a princess!

Just so we're clear where the lines.
She's a Cleric thou.

Screw Clerics.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top