A lesson on lore

[xr0yc3x]

correct!!

[Apolloin]

I'm just saying, we have circumstantial evidence fingering Asphel for the death of Vitara and we have stuff completely pulled out of the air that supports the Balaur deciding to kill one of their own.

I'm not saying that we have a conviction of Asphel beyond reasonable doubt, I'm just saying that we have literally no information from either history that supports the idea that the Balaur would do this themselves.

I'm also seeing a lot of people who seem to feel the need to sort out a 'bad guy' and a 'good guy' when we should all know that these are inherently dangerous terms for people who actually want to understand history.

[xr0yc3x]

Originally Posted by Apolloin

I'm just saying, we have circumstantial evidence fingering Asphel for the death of Vitara and we have stuff completely pulled out of the air that supports the Balaur deciding to kill one of their own.

I'm not saying that we have a conviction of Asphel beyond reasonable doubt, I'm just saying that we have literally no information from either history that supports the idea that the Balaur would do this themselves.

I'm also seeing a lot of people who seem to feel the need to sort out a 'bad guy' and a 'good guy' when we should all know that these are inherently dangerous terms for people who actually want to understand history.

you keep making me wonder if you actually read my original post or not. there are no fingers pointed to the balaur in the lore because both sides were trying to find someone to blame to pin it on the opposing faction. the person who's telling the story of the elyos was not present at 70% of the events, namely the cataclysm while the asmodian book is written by someone who was present for 100% of the events spoken about. it should be clear that neither side did anything so i don't know what you're still wondering about. the biographies the DEVS made about the lords clearly point to who was at fault and that is the balaur.

of course, i understand if you want to get into your character and choose a side and say asphel did it for sure and hate the asmodians for ever (IN YOUR CHARACTER) that's fine, but when you actually think that way in real life, it's quite sad given while you were given all this evidence proving and disproving numerous events.

Also, those trying to make Asphel sound like a blind berserker, it says in his lore that he is meticulous, which pretty much tells you he wouldn't do anything without taking everything into consideration.

the only evidence you have of asphel doing it was your silly book of Elyos. the amount of evidence we have suggesting asphel DIDN'T do it, outnumbers the book ~5 to 1.

[Xykes]

Originally Posted by Apolloin

I'm also seeing a lot of people who seem to feel the need to sort out a 'bad guy' and a 'good guy' when we should all know that these are inherently dangerous terms for people who actually want to understand history.

I suppose I can lay to rest this part at least. People want to be the good side or the bad side in video games, as it's also typical of a person to defend their side. It's like people who become defenders for their choice of console. Just scroll through posts where people are choosing a side based on beauty, the base immediate lore, immediately judging them graphically, and so on.

For example, the Emodian insult you've probably seen throughout the forums, if you read the lore, it actually makes little sense. They are not really at all that 'emo' for what the slang word actually means, where as the only people reasonably 'emo' lore wise are pretty much on the Elyos side. But graphically, people assume this to be true. Besides, except for really poorly thought out insults to throw at the opposing side, the labeling of things in a game rarely make sense to begin with.

Also, true historians don't take sides, if you were to ask them about something the entire world considers atrocious and inhumane, they usually won't comment on it for a reason. Good and bad are a matter of perspective.

I'd of written far more, including things you find out about the inner workings of their society within the game. But the post would be so long it would make people gouge their eyes out reading only 1/3 of it.

[Pexxithan]

I don't pick a side based on good or evil. I pick a side based on what I feel fits me.

That being said, I am also not one to take a biased approach on things (although it does happen) and I also like to analyze things as much as I can... often creating hypothesis and theories. It helps me understand the world a bit more.

[romple]

Originally Posted by Apolloin

I'm just saying, we have circumstantial evidence fingering Asphel for the death of Vitara and we have stuff completely pulled out of the air that supports the Balaur deciding to kill one of their own.

I'm not saying that we have a conviction of Asphel beyond reasonable doubt, I'm just saying that we have literally no information from either history that supports the idea that the Balaur would do this themselves.

I'm also seeing a lot of people who seem to feel the need to sort out a 'bad guy' and a 'good guy' when we should all know that these are inherently dangerous terms for people who actually want to understand history.

Bad guy = the other side. As you said, you can't absolutely specify it, especially in Aion.

I don't understand where the Balaur hericide theory comes from. The Balur
a) don't need a reason to kill
b) don't seek approval from anyone and hence have no reason to make themselves look innocent and
c) are powerful enough to to basically take everyone out as soon as they were through the shield

It's interesting to me to think that the Balaur actually wanted peace. Their goal was to usurp Aion's power, so to compromise with the Atreians seems a little dubious to me. However the fact that they actually made it to civil negotiations and didn't just go nuts as soon as the doors were open makes me wonder if perhaps they did earnestly seek peace.

The one conclusive party I do know that did not want negotiations were Asphel's clique. They were the only ones adamantly opposed to speaking with the Balaur, fearing it was basically a trick. But perhaps (and what i'm biased to believe) is that they brought upon the very thing they were fearful of. I doubt they wanted war just for the sake of war, but they definitely did not believe that speaking to the Balaur was the way to go. They saw the Balaur as a scourge that needed to be removed.

So it is plausible to think that Asphel was so fixated on seeing the Balaur as mortal enemies that he preemptively struck and somehow one shotted Lord Vitra. It would make no sense for the Balaur to kill one of their own, and the supporters of Israphel certainly wouldn't make such a move. Only Asphel (and his supporters) had the motive to conspire such an act.

Is that what happened? I bet the Elyos would agree with me. Asmodeans certainly would not. That's why I love this story. :-)