Furrante didn't read the Cyclopedy

[Phenomenum]

Not a technical bug, but still. This issue was posted on one of russian's Deadfire forums.

 

Edited March 31, 2019 by Phenomenum

[Frak]

I haven't reached that point in the story, but in't Furry talking from the Vailian Republics perspective - vailians love them some slaves - and not the Deadfire Archipelago perspective?

[Verde]

It's legal as long as the slaves aren't native to the Deadfire. Supposedly.

Edited March 31, 2019 by Verde

[thelee]

It's legal as long as the slaves aren't native to the Deadfire. Supposedly.

this is the justification that the colonist groups use, but if you talk to the huana queen I think she mentions the whole affair illegal.

 

i think the justification is more like a legal loophole (huana has no jurisdiction over non-deadfire residents) than an actual "permission" to have slaves.

 

i think what furrante works on one of two levels:

a) the justification that verde mentioned

b) furrante could also be lying to you. NPCs are under no obligation to be truthful to the player.

[Phenomenum]

 

It's legal as long as the slaves aren't native to the Deadfire. Supposedly.

this is the justification that the colonist groups use, but if you talk to the huana queen I think she mentions the whole affair illegal.

 

i think the justification is more like a legal loophole (huana has no jurisdiction over non-deadfire residents) than an actual "permission" to have slaves.

 

i think what furrante works on one of two levels:

a) the justification that verde mentioned

b) furrante could also be lying to you. NPCs are under no obligation to be truthful to the player.

 

 

You forgot about c) bad writing 

[thelee]

 

 

It's legal as long as the slaves aren't native to the Deadfire. Supposedly.

this is the justification that the colonist groups use, but if you talk to the huana queen I think she mentions the whole affair illegal.

 

i think the justification is more like a legal loophole (huana has no jurisdiction over non-deadfire residents) than an actual "permission" to have slaves.

 

i think what furrante works on one of two levels:

a) the justification that verde mentioned

b) furrante could also be lying to you. NPCs are under no obligation to be truthful to the player.

 

 

You forgot about c) bad writing 

 

people are free to have their own opinions about the writing quality whichever way, but at least in this case the lore is pretty consistent in painting a specific portrait of how slavery works in deadfire (and to a certain extent in rautaui and in the vailian republics). furrante's answer really can be interpreted in whether you think he's a good-faith character or a bad-faith character. a good-faith character is using the legal loophole. the bad-faith character is just lying to you. (furrante will literally lie to get aeldys killed. why wouldn't he lie to get you to help his cause?)

[Phenomenum]

Aha, aha... And the 3-colors ending in Mass Effect is just a Shepard dream sequence. I don't buy it.

In this case i see a clear inconsistency between cyclopedia information and character's words. So why you biulding some cheap theories to justify it?

Imagine how it looks for some new players, not so familiar with lore as you.

[thelee]

Aha, aha... And the 3-colors ending in Mass Effect is just a Shepard dream sequence. I don't buy it.

lolol haha

 

In this case i see a clear inconsistency between cyclopedia information and character's words. So why you biulding some cheap theories to justify it?

Imagine how it looks for some new players, not so familiar with lore as you.

i don't know what you mean by "cheap theories" honestly. the game is pretty consistent about this fact. you can even ask aeldys or her informant at crookspur about slavery (having just done this quest again), and they'll concede something along the lines about legality and try to convince you on a moral level about basic rights to freedom that all kith possess (pretty enlightened view for a bunch of looters). ultimately one of the main ways you are able to (legally) justifiably dismantle crookspur is by seeing that the slaves consist of proven deadfire inhabitants (wahaki folk).

 

as for "imagine how it looks for some new players?" furrante is a liar, obviously, then. but i find the aforementioned legal loophole equally likely (if not as immediately understandable by a player) as whether furrante is a liar, since it really depends on what you think about furrante's character in relation to the PC and whether or not you think he would just straight-up lie to your face.

 

but regardless of whether furrante is explicitly lying or simply using a legal loophole, furrante is being deceptive. you spend like 10 minutes in crookspur and you learn that not all is cracked up to be (aforementioned wahaki prisoners, i think the death godlike being sold also claims to be a native inhabitant).

Edited April 1, 2019 by thelee

[Phenomenum]

Well, then Furrante should say something like: "My opinion bla-bla... is a little matter, becose my accociate consider this legal, unlike many of our own activities". Thats it. Case closed.

Edited April 1, 2019 by Phenomenum

[thelee]

Well, then Furrante should say something like: "My opinion bla-bla... is a little matter, becose my accociate consider this legal, unlike many of our own activities". Thats it. Case closed.

honestly curious what the difference is between "it is legal" and "my associate consider this legal" for you? especially since furrante is ok with it.

 

an important part of dialogue writing is to convey character, and furrante doesn't strike me as someone who would hem and haw about this stuff anyway, though i could be wrong, mostly just wanted an excuse to post this gif:

 

[Verde]

Aha, aha... And the 3-colors ending in Mass Effect is just a Shepard dream sequence. I don't buy it.

In this case i see a clear inconsistency between cyclopedia information and character's words. So why you biulding some cheap theories to justify it?

Imagine how it looks for some new players, not so familiar with lore as you.

Well that's simply gamers getting creative to help ease the pain of the worst ending ever

 

 

But I did spawn my fav meme - "Hey brah, heard you didn't want to get killed by synthetics..."

[Phenomenum]

But you (Thelee especially) writing a very similar creative, trying to logically explain a simple inconsistency, ne?

[Verde]

Oh I prefer to [try and] write creatively, regardless of its legitimacy