Jump to content
  • 0
Sign in to follow this  
Phenomenum

Furrante didn't read the Cyclopedy

Question

12 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0

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?


Nerf Troubadour!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

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

Edited by Verde

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

 

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  :getlost:


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

 

 

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  :getlost:

 

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?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

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.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

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 by thelee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

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 by Phenomenum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

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:

 

tenor.gif?itemid=4759685

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

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..."

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Answer this question...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...