PDA

View Full Version : soul reaver 'location'



sarafan_lord
2nd Nov 2005, 21:48
At the end of SR2, Raziel takes the soul reaver from the Sarafan Stronghold, then Kain gets it when he saves Raziel from being consumed by it. If the Soul Reaver is taken, then how can Kain have it in BO1 & 2? (This question probably came up in the past, but it would be too hard for me to find right now.)

Smoke_Z
2nd Nov 2005, 23:20
That's been the topics of many arguments.... I don't think we ever reached agreement.

My personal opinion is that the Reaver is going to do some more timestreaming.

sarafan_lord
2nd Nov 2005, 23:50
Could you please go a little more in depth on that (if possible) and tell me what the others came up with. Or, you could give me the link to the thread.

Riovanes
3rd Nov 2005, 00:05
The simple explanation:

Plot. Hole.

The longer version:

LoK was originally planned as a stand-alone game. After CD got ahold of the licensing rights, they made SR 1, which was additionally intended to be a stand-alone game. If you've looked at any of the deleted material on blinc's site, there was a whole section in which Raziel used the cathedral's pipes to play a blast of sound that would destroy all of the vampires in Nosgoth, thus purifying the land and redeeming himself. The Elder is even construed as a basically benevolent deity in this ending.

Unfortunately, the game ran into time constraints, and the end was cut, leaving things open for a sequel - apparently they had to ship by a certain date, and so the end was left on the cutting room floor. Thus, whatever happens in BO1 and SR1 was never intended to be continued - thus, major plot holes result.

What further complicates the matter is that the team that worked on BO2 was not the same team that had worked on SR1 or SR2, so canon (not the weapon, which is spelled with two n's before the o, but the idea of a contiguous story and pervasive reality) was ignored in favor of, "hey, this would be so cool!" Again, massive plot holes.

Defiance was an attempt to tie everything together, but when you're starting with threads that disparate and mismatched, it's hard to bring together a finished product that looks like much of anything.

It is also worth mentioning at this point that using the "search" feature is in no way difficult. Do not pass your lack of desire to do your own footwork off as difficulty - you'll get help here when you need it, but when you refuse to even use a simple feature, you tend to irk people.

sarafan_lord
3rd Nov 2005, 02:00
I know about the original intentions for BO1 and SR1, but thanks for the info. I am also aware of the plot holes in the LOK series; but it is still good to start discussions and try to reason towards an acceptable answer. I know about the search engine, but I am very bad at dealing with such tools.

rabban
3rd Nov 2005, 03:41
someone places the soul reaver in avernus cathedral...it's not so much a plot hole as it is a bookend...unless they never complete the series of course.

soothsayer
3rd Nov 2005, 05:32
no plot holes, after Kain is done with the reaver in the next game Moebius somehow gets it, gives it to WTJ, Kain breaks it, than Raziel fixes it in SR2. Then it ends up in Avernus.

WraithStar
3rd Nov 2005, 15:38
no plot holes, after Kain is done with the reaver in the next game Moebius somehow gets it, gives it to WTJ, Kain breaks it, than Raziel fixes it in SR2. Then it ends up in Avernus.

Indeed. I know BO2 was done by another team, but I am certain that Amy at least looked over it quickly (I remember reading that somewhere) and I find it hard to believe that anything major in BO2 (the Reaver, Vorador, Janos, etc.) was a continuity error. They just planned on explaining it all in Defiance, and then Defiance got cut down.

Riovanes
3rd Nov 2005, 16:49
*sighs*

If there are no plot-holes in the LoK series, then Anakin's turn to the dark side in Episode III also makes perfect sense, and was written and directed with such utter clarity that it did not, in fact, cause several people to get up and walk out of the theatre in utter disgust.

You can justify anything by saying, "I'm sure Amy approved it...," or, "Well, it's time-travel, see...," or even, "Well, after person X leaves item Y in location Z, person W gets item Y from location Z somehow, even though it's never explained, and gives it to person V." Using circular logic (or fanboy logic, which is an oxymoron in itself), one could even justify the reappearance of Vorador in BO2.

At some point, we must all come to grips with the fact that our favorite writers/directors/series are not infallible, and are just as susceptible to gaffes, glaring plot issues, and really crappy dialogue as anything else.

As for being bad with the "search" tool - it's a word finder, friend. Type in the term you're looking for, and the engine will spit out topics which most closely match your term. There's nothing difficult in that at all, unless you count sifting through 10-20 threads to find what you want difficult.

Where I come from, we call that 'research.'

Edit:

At this point, I feel it necessary to answer the statement, "after Kain is done with the Reaver..."

To the best of my knowledge, he NEVER parts company with that sword - until Raziel shatters it in SR 1. Yes, yes, the Sarafan Lord filches it in BO2, but that's hardly a canonical game in the first place, so it doesn't really count - and even if it does, the SL holds onto the Reaver all throughout BO2 until Kain wrests it from him at the end of the game. There is NEVER a point where Kain is without the sword that it is not either broken, or in the possession of someone OTHER THAN Mobius. The idea that Mobius could somehow get ahold of it and give it to WTJ without causing massive plot holes explicable only with the, "time travel," excuse is ludicrous at best, and fanboyish at worst. It's a total contrivance, placed so that the team could throw in a few dramatic moments that wouldn't have been possible without ripping suspension of disbelief apart like a rabid dog.

I'm not accusing any of the teams of being terrible writers - but the time travel bit is a contrivance - and anyone on those teams who has any training as a writer whatsoever is likely to agree with me. Even the classical poets of yesteryear admit to using contrivances - everyone does it at some point when they run out of good excuses for what they're doing with their stories/characters. But when a contrivance opens up a plot hole wide enough to pass a 747 through with room to spare, you've got an issue. Further, when you refuse to acknowledge it... Well, I can't really give my opinion of that kind of willful ignorance without breaking the ToU. Let's just leave it at that deliberately ignoring plot holes is akin to vicious fanboyism, and isn't something I'd be proud of.

WraithStar
3rd Nov 2005, 16:55
I haven't seen Star Wars episode III yet, so I can't comment on that. To be clear, I said there are no MAJOR plot holes in LoK. I specifically remember Chris@Crystal saying that Vorador's appearance in BO2 was explained in Defiance but it got cut down. That's what I'm referring to. Frankly, I don't care if Amy "approved" BO2 or not. It's my favorite game in the series and I'm glad it was written the way it was. I was merely saying that there was enough communication between the teams that I doubt someone just said, "Let's ignore the rest of the series and throw something in because it would be cool." :rolleyes: Most of these "plot holes" that people keep referring to didn't even occur to me because I naturally assumed that there were some parts to the story that I haven't seen yet. BO2 was the first game that I actually played, but prior to playing it I had read all of the dialogue of the previous games in preparation. I automatically understood exactly how BO2 fit into the series, even before Defiance was released, while so many other people were complaining that nothing in BO2 made sense. I can see perfectly simple explanations for the remaining questions in the series, so rather than make fun of the writers for having a deadline, I am content to wait for the next game. I'm not *ignoring* plot holes. I just don't care enough to bother ripping the story to pieces when I know it isn't finished yet. After the last game is produced, then anything that is still unexplained qualifies as a plot hole. Until then, why burst a blood vessel criticizing everything?


@sarafan_lord
About the search function, I just entered "reaver avernus" in the keywords field and a lot of threads came up. This seems to be the most useful :)http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthread.php?t=52578&highlight=reaver+avernus You just have to try different combinations of words related to your question and see what pops up.

Vampmaster
3rd Nov 2005, 17:57
He will have to part with it at some point though, because the Reaver he's holding at the end of Defiance is the recently created one and the one young Kain gets in BO1 is a not so recently created one. A plot hole is a contradition anyway, and that's the same thing as a paradox. It's also the same kind that happens all the time in LOK because it involves something existing at a time when it shouldn't locically be able to.

soothsayer
3rd Nov 2005, 19:12
it isn't a plot hole, except for Moe in Vor's mansion apearence, LoK has no plot holes.
Turel wasn't a plot hole, they just saved him for latter.
The same with the reaver, Kain has it after defiance, and Moe will eventually get it, but the stuff in between has yet to be explained.

As for Vorador's apearence in BO2, it can easily be explained by Janos reviving him.

He has the means, since he is awear he has the HoD, and he might have the magical knowledge on how to use it.
He has the motive, restarting the Vampire race.

Quote:
Raziel
Your bloodline is erased. The age of the vampires is coming to an end.

Janos is alarmed, trying to take all this in.

Janos
Then we must waste no time -


And he had the opertunity, right before Raziel enters the spitit forge.

Quote:
Raziel
And if I fail the test?

Janos
forebodingly
Then you will not return.

Janos takes a step backward and dematerializes, teleporting himself out of the room.


Also, it is quite obvious that in the third timeline that Vorador stayed dead.

Quote:
Raziel V.O.:
If I had any doubts about the era I now occupied, this grotesque tableau certainly eliminated them. For here was Moebius, long since murdered by Kain, lionised and beatified as the martyred leader of his bloodthirsty crusade. And if I required further evidence, I needed only to behold the gruesome trophy Moebius held aloft - the severed head of Vorador.


But he was quite alive in the forth timeline, and only in the forth timeline did Raziel live long enough to revive Janos.

Also, Vampmaster, you don't seem to understand what a temporal paradox is. Whenever on is created, which has happen only 3 times, time rewrites itself to remove the paradox.

rabban
3rd Nov 2005, 21:39
If there are no plot-holes in the LoK series, then Anakin's turn to the dark side in Episode III also makes perfect sense, and was written and directed with such utter clarity that it did not, in fact, cause several people to get up and walk out of the theatre in utter disgust.

:D that's a good one man!

i still say the plot hole is in fact a bookend for the series.

sarafan_lord
3rd Nov 2005, 22:57
Quote:
no plot holes, after Kain is done with the reaver in the next game Moebius somehow gets it, gives it to WTJ, Kain breaks it, than Raziel fixes it in SR2. Then it ends up in Avernus.

Seems to me that Moebius is out of the picture by that time as he does not seem to be present in BO2, but I guess someone else could do it. But, if Moebius was alive, would he do it, considering that Kain is alive? It seems that his actions would help to reinforce Kain's success. I guess it has to be an ally of Kain, or maybe Kain himself.

Umah Bloodomen
4th Nov 2005, 01:59
Rio's ripping on Star Wars again. **shakes head** We're so breaking up. :p

FearGhoul
4th Nov 2005, 03:28
Don't you love it when people say "Plot hole!" without actually explaining HOW it's a plot hole?
How is Kain having the Soul Reaver at the end of Defiance supposed to mean that young Kain never gets it? The Soul Reaver is going to have to travel back in time somehow, and Moebius gets it sometime in the past before he gives it to William. I also really don't get why people get so confused by time travel.
Hell, anything I say will just be restating what others have said here to explain it. So please try to back up your statements about the "plot holes" instead of just complaining about them.

Riovanes
4th Nov 2005, 03:42
Rio's ripping on Star Wars again. **shakes head** We're so breaking up. :p

So the week-long "relations" are coming to a close?

However shall I survive this?

...

*sniffle*

As for justifying any of the plot holes in LoK by saying, "it hasn't been explained yet," has anyone bothered to LOOK at the way this series is going? It's extremely unlikely that there even is going to be another game - Defiance was actually written as the last in the Kain/Raziel arc. Chris himself has said as much, if you'll look back to the older threads that came about when Defiance was first released. So unless they're planning on releasing a Mobius game (un-bloody-likely), the story arc is dead, and a LOT of things have been left unanswered.

"Well, Janos could've brought Vorador back..."

Have you seen him resurrect any vampire during the series? EVER? Mortanius is the only character in the series who ever resurrects anyone - and that's in bringing Kain back. Kain makes more vampires - but once a vampire is destroyed, it stays dead. Sure, you could say Janos might have the ability to bring a vampire back from the dead - but there's no proof for it anywhere in the series at all - and that argument is just weak and is an obvious cover for and obvious plot hole. And the first person to say, "Well, he could've used the Heart of Darkness," is getting kicked in the shin. It's HIS heart - and the heart itself is what restores life, not Janos. I seriously doubt the dude would rip his own heart out just to bring Vorador back - and "The Device" is not an excuse either. It kept Janos alive artificially - notice how in Defiance he is actually quite dead - and minus a heart to boot. Let's keep our continuity and logic caps on here, folks - you're grasping at straws that aren't even there.

Further - to say Janos could've done it right before Raziel enters the spirit temple - sure, because he's got time to just flit off to fix Vorador up all nice and pretty through whatever totally unfounded and unsupportable means you might make up for him. Fan-fiction aside, this is a bunch of tripe. Stop making poor excuses, please - if you're going to argue against the obvious and well-supported, dig up some facts of your own, and don't insult me by coming with a totally unsupportable argument.

"Kain has the Reaver at the end of Defiance - Mobius will somehow get it."

The end of Defiance is the beginning of BO 2 - it's really difficult to believe it would ever be anything else. Janos is named time and again as the portal through which the Hylden again gain access to the world of Nosgoth - and it is his body that the Sarafan Lord possesses in order to bring the rest of his kind to the planet. Once he's done with the body, the Hylden hook it up to The Device, and everything starts all over again. The history of the LoK series is cyclical - it's the same stuff happening over and over - that's what keeps the Elder God functioning as he does - he gets to cycle souls eternally. The difference is that this time Kain has a completed Reaver - however, who's to say that the Reaver in BO 2 was not, in fact, complete? Raziel doesn't appear anywhere in the BO 2 story, so it's entirely possible the Reaver is complete at this point.

Kain, at no point after acquiring the Reaver in Avernus, is ever without it. The only explanation whatsoever is that Mobius went back in time and removed the Reaver from Avernus before Kain got it - but that would then cause the Reaver in Kain's hand to disappear. The concept of a temporal paradox is actually quite close to what Vampmaster said it was, despite Soothsayer's objections - it's a situation which cannot exist because two instances of a single object/person are in the same place at the same time. In other words, it's a situation that literally cannot exist - so the entire justification for this series, from the ground up, is based on a logical fallacy - so to say that there are no plot holes is ludicrous - the whole series is one giant hole - but at least the ride was fun.

Riovanes
4th Nov 2005, 03:46
Don't you love it when people say "Plot hole!" without actually explaining HOW it's a plot hole?
How is Kain having the Soul Reaver at the end of Defiance supposed to mean that young Kain never gets it? The Soul Reaver is going to have to travel back in time somehow, and Moebius gets it sometime in the past before he gives it to William. I also really don't get why people get so confused by time travel.
Hell, anything I say will just be restating what others have said here to explain it. So please try to back up your statements about the "plot holes" instead of just complaining about them.

And please read the entirety of a person's post before you supply a snotty answer. You'll save yourself the pain of looking like you don't have the first clue what you're talking about.

Time travel is all fine and well, but if one instance of an item is removed from a place in a certain time, it will NOT be there afterward. So if Mobius goes back in time to snag the sword, it can't be in Avernus later for Kain to get it - because Mobius would have given it to WTJ. Two instances of a single object/person cannot exist in the same place at the same time - this is the nature of paradox - an impossible situation. To say, "It's a paradox, so that excuses everything," is the epitome of a complete lack of logical thought. Using a buzzword isn't the same thing as having proof or backup for anything.

For the record, you're talking to a person who's working on a terminal degree (PhD) in literature - I've spent the last six years of my life studying what does and does not constitute certain things within the context of literature - so do not presume to tell me I don't know my own business. Thanks.

Umah Bloodomen
4th Nov 2005, 04:10
So the week-long "relations" are coming to a close?

However shall I survive this?

...

*sniffle*



Easy, you won't. :D You may commence sucking up to me now. :p

I, for one, am certainly not disputing any plot holes here. It would be asinine of me to do so (as logically, I can't deny the fact they exist at various points in the series). The topic-at-hand though is one in which I'm limited with my responses to as my personal opinion quite often is construed as official fact (official facts of course being something I only convey when instructed to).

Blah, I really hope that made sense. :)

And of course, before I forget:

Obligatory PSA: We trust that the disagreement making its way into this discussion remains constructive.

:D

rabban
4th Nov 2005, 04:52
For the record, you're talking to a person who's working on a terminal degree (PhD) in literature - I've spent the last six years of my life studying what does and does not constitute certain things within the context of literature - so do not presume to tell me I don't know my own business. Thanks.

cool...but your surrounded by fanboys...


It's extremely unlikely that there even is going to be another game - Defiance was actually written as the last in the Kain/Raziel arc. Chris himself has said as much, if you'll look back to the older threads that came about when Defiance was first released.


*rabban sticks the plastic soulreaver toy into his mouth to get the left over halloween chocolate out of his plastic glow in the dark vampire teeth out*

heretic!!!
character arc sheesh...who needs that? don't delude yourself the only authentic ending is this...

elder god dies,
kain dies,
raziel dies,
nosgoth itself eventually dies...

no ressurection, no loophole, no twist in time and space...that is the true ending. everything else is sentimental and deceptive.

as long as there are lok addicts out there begging for a fix there will be an excuse to make another game.amy hennig obviously enjoyed blood omen's story and BO was a one shot deal.

it's why there even was a freddy vs jason movie...or 10 star trek movies...or why harry potter or lord of the rings ever came out as movies. eventually the enjoyment factor is not the logic of the series or the characters. rather it is the message that is conveyed by the storyteller...as long as that stays true the series can still thrive.

now i gotta go down stairs and eat a bowl of legacy of kain cereal...it has green soul marshmellows. :D

Riovanes
4th Nov 2005, 14:45
cool...but your surrounded by fanboys...

Indeed - and I've since realized that. The definition of insanity, as a great man once said, is to do the same thing over and over and expect different results. It's quite clear that a hole in the brick wall of fanboyism cannot be made by an application of logic and/or well reasoned argument, so I'll just revert to their tactics...

You don't like the same thing I like as much as I like it, so therefore you're a smelly head!


now i gotta go down stairs and eat a bowl of legacy of kain cereal...it has green soul marshmellows. :D

You eat SOULS for breakfast?!? Remind me never to mess with you. Also, pass the milk.

...

We totally need to make an LoK cereal commercial. But we have to do it in the vein of the Reese's Puffs commercials. Y'know, the one where the one kid tells his friend he had Reese's for breakfast, and his friend goes, "CANDY?!? For BREAKFAST?!?" Replace "candy" with "souls," and you'd have a commercial I'd laugh hard enough to wet myself over.

TempySmurf
4th Nov 2005, 15:24
Not disputing that there's plot holes, but I wanted to mention that the Elder God did resurrect Moebius on several occasions.

As far as time travel goes, did I mention a movie called Primer yet? :D

Riovanes
4th Nov 2005, 15:32
Not disputing that there's plot holes, but I wanted to mention that the Elder God did resurrect Moebius on several occasions.

As far as time travel goes, did I mention a movie called Primer yet? :D

Mobius isn't a vampire - so his resurrection has nothing to do with the HoD. Not taking a dig at you - just pointing out that this is irrelevant to any argument about Janos/Vorador.

In all fairness, I'm a big fan of SR 1 & 2 - mostly for the exploration and the Zelda-esque adventure quality of the games. CD pretty much lost me when they put Defiance out. If I wanted to play Devil May Cry with LoK skins, I'd have found a skin patch for DMC. But that's neither here nor there.

The crux of the problem here is that no matter how you look at it, two instances of the same thing (person, place, thing, what have you) cannot coexist at the same point in temporal space. It is, in a word, impossible. Suspension of disbelief is all well and good - and I'll give CD that they handled some of the time travel nicely - but to justify all of the gaffes, omissions, and glaring inconsistencies of the series by falling back on the time travel defense just isn't good argumentative style, nor is it sound in terms of logic, either.

That's a bit like saying, "Well, Santa Claus must exist, even though no one's ever seen him - but the proof is that NO ONE has ever seen him, so therefore he must exist!" It's circular logic with a logical fallacy as one of its primary operators - so you have a weak style of argumentation coupled with a neutering lack of factual backup. Not a good way to approach something, IMO.

WraithStar
4th Nov 2005, 16:55
As for justifying any of the plot holes in LoK by saying, "it hasn't been explained yet," has anyone bothered to LOOK at the way this series is going? It's extremely unlikely that there even is going to be another game - Defiance was actually written as the last in the Kain/Raziel arc. Chris himself has said as much, if you'll look back to the older threads that came about when Defiance was first released. So unless they're planning on releasing a Mobius game (un-bloody-likely), the story arc is dead, and a LOT of things have been left unanswered.

...

Kain, at no point after acquiring the Reaver in Avernus, is ever without it. The only explanation whatsoever is that Mobius went back in time and removed the Reaver from Avernus before Kain got it - but that would then cause the Reaver in Kain's hand to disappear. The concept of a temporal paradox is actually quite close to what Vampmaster said it was, despite Soothsayer's objections - it's a situation which cannot exist because two instances of a single object/person are in the same place at the same time. In other words, it's a situation that literally cannot exist - so the entire justification for this series, from the ground up, is based on a logical fallacy - so to say that there are no plot holes is ludicrous - the whole series is one giant hole - but at least the ride was fun.

I'm not justifying any plot holes, I'm merely saying that until the series is OFFICIALLY over, the incomplete storyline naturally has some unexplained aspects. To call those things "plot holes" just because Defiance ended in the middle of things is premature.

We all know that young Kain has the Reaver with him at all times from BO1 to SR1 (with the exception of the Sarafan Lord "borrowing" it for a brief period of time). What does that have to do with anything? It's Elder, post-SR1 Kain that has the newly made Reaver. Why is it so hard for you to believe that Elder Kain ditches the newly made Reaver somewhere where WTJ will pick it up? The LoK series is based on time travel. As long as the storyline makes sense and is well done, I don't consider the time travel to be a contrivance.

TempySmurf
4th Nov 2005, 17:39
The crux of the problem here is that no matter how you look at it, two instances of the same thing (person, place, thing, what have you) cannot coexist at the same point in temporal space.


So what about William the Just and Kain?

Vampmaster
4th Nov 2005, 17:49
Also, Vampmaster, you don't seem to understand what a temporal paradox is. Whenever on is created, which has happen only 3 times, time rewrites itself to remove the paradox.

Exactly. The paradox that occured at the end of SR2 would also have involved old Kain having the young Reaver. History must have arranged for old Kain to part with the Reaver at some point because if he doesn't then young Kain can never aquire it. If the paradox isn't resolved by the writers (in some future game) then they have left a plot hole. Like I said; in this case, paradox = contradiction = plot hole.

WraithStar
4th Nov 2005, 18:06
I think that if the writers make a mistake, for example Moebius's appearance in Defiance after he has been killed, then it is a plot hole. If the writers intentionally create a paradox in the story, then it's not a plot hole. The paradoxes in LoK may not agree with real world physics, but LoK has its own rules concerning time travel and as long as the story is consistent with the rules it has established, then it's not a plot hole. LoK has established that people and objects can move through time and be in the same time and place as younger versions of themselves. When the writers have this happen intentionally, it's not a mistake, so I don't consider it to be a plot hole.


Exactly. The paradox that occured at the end of SR2 would also have involved old Kain having the young Reaver. History must have arranged for old Kain to part with the Reaver at some point because if he doesn't then young Kain can never aquire it. If the paradox isn't resolved by the writers (in some future game) then they have left a plot hole. Like I said; in this case, paradox = contradiction = plot hole.

I agree. There is a simple explanation for how the Reaver can be given up by old Kain and acquired by young Kain. If the writers don't resolve it by the time the series is officially over, then it is indeed a plot hole. I'm choosing to be patient and give Crystal a chance to finish up the series and explain everything before I start criticizing the story for not being complete :)

rabban
4th Nov 2005, 18:32
"Well, Santa Claus must exist, even though no one's ever seen him - but the proof is that NO ONE has ever seen him, so therefore he must exist!"

who was the guy with the elf at the shopping store who told me i would shoot my eye out right before stealing everything in the mall?

i'm pretty sure the easy way out is to bring alternate realities into the story like what turel being pulled in via time and dimension...plot holes get filled up pretty quick when you got a quinn malory type in the fold.

FearGhoul
4th Nov 2005, 19:46
Do we all understand the history of the Reaver here? Talking the newest timeline:
Vorador makes the Blood Reaver
Maybe some Ancient Vampire guy uses it in battles against the Hylden (the murals seem to suggest that at least)
Reaver's given to Janos to wait until Raziel comes to use it
Sarafan take the Reaver
Kain gets it a bit later
500 years after that, it becomes the Soul Reaver when Raziel sacrifices himself
Something's going to happen to it where Kain loses it and it ends up -50 years from Blood Omen or around that time
Moebius gets it and gives it to William
William fights Kain and dies, William's Reaver breaks
Raziel finds the reaver at -30 Blood Omen and repairs it
Moebius moves it to Avernus for Kain to find
Young Kain finds it at Avernus
Kain goes back in time and kills William (I wonder what his motive is this time though?)
Kain keeps it for a few more centuries until he loses it to the Hylden Lord in battle
A few centuries later, Kain kills the Hylden Lord and gets the Reaver back
Kain keeps the Reaver until he smashes it on Raziel
Raziel has it until the time which he sacrifices himself around the time the Pillars collapse, then it apparantly enters Kain and heals him

What's so confusing? This sort of reminds me of how people complain about how in Metal Gear Solid 2, when Liquid talks though Ocelot. Sure, it didn't make sense then, but after playing MGS3 it makes perfect sense, if you get the clues that is.

Riovanes
4th Nov 2005, 20:14
Your timeline still assumes some random event that allows Mobius to lay hold of the Reaver, and STILL assumes the existence of more than one of these objects. The time travel itself is the greatest plot hole in the series, because if you remove an object from an area in one time, it cannot exist there in a later time. What's so hard about that, to use your own words?

As for MGS 3 - the principles of genetics do NOT allow for a person to take over another's body simply through the transplant of limbs. That's a bunch of BS Kojima came up with to bring back a favored character. Read his own thoughts on MGS 2 sometime - he hates it, and acknowledges that almost no one else liked it either by letting us slap Raidenovitch around in MGS 3.

In terms of these "clues" you mentioned - you're clearly trying to sound a bit more intelligent than you really are. Ocelot is involved in the game, and yes, they pretty clearly spell out how he falls in with Jack, the original Snake, who later becomes Big Boss. Nowhere in there is genetics mentioned at any time, nor the principle of switching bodies/possession/what have you. You sound an awful lot like a friend of mine who comes up with random theories based on a total lack of evidence - his current favorite being a romantic relationship between Naked Snake and Ocelot. Tell you what, I'll go hunt down the script for MGS 3, and you point out to me where I'm missing the talk about genetics - because that game focused entirely on duty, honor, and how those concepts are often betrayed by politicians for the sake of their own gain. Genetic material was NEVER MENTIONED.

Jesus, I hate fanboys... The MGS series is good, but it, like LoK, is nowhere near perfect. Nothing really is - not even my beloved Chrono Trigger, though it was pretty damn close for its day.

FearGhoul
4th Nov 2005, 20:26
You're looking at the Metal Gear thing the wrong way. It's not Liquid that allowed the possesion, it's Ocelot. I don't exactly want to say it out flat, because I'd rather that people find it out on their own, but let's just say: Call Eva a bunch after fighting Ocelot, and then pay attention to the part when you meet up with The Boss at the end in the flower field. I've already laid it out a bit too much by saying that even.
For LoK: Why can't it work like that? I really don't know how to lay it out even more than how I and the others have already done.
Oh yeah, and Chrono Trigger rules.

Riovanes
4th Nov 2005, 20:31
LoK can't work like that because the whole thing is one giant contrivance. It's a GOOD series, don't get me wrong - but if we could all stop kissing the team's feet for two seconds and look at it from a writer's perspective, is it honestly the most compelling thing ever?

I'll have to try the bit with Eva, though something like that being buried in the Codec conversations seems far-fetched. As for the fight at the end, the scar slithering off of the Boss might just be her attachment to a certain otherworldly character letting go - but it's not as if she had a piece of that character attached to her. I think you're reaching, but I'll check it out before I condemn your theory any further.

FearGhoul
4th Nov 2005, 20:38
Heehee. You're still looking at the Metal Gear thing the wrong way, but if you can't figure out my idea, I'll just tell you later instead of just hinting like crazy.
Now I agree that LoK isn't the best story ever, but it does work (well except maybe Moebius appearing at Vorador's place after the time in which his head should have been cut off by young Kain, but I'll just accept the explanation that it's an image like in SR2, and the fact that he didn't know that Kain was still alive at the end is still a strech, but I guess I have to just go with the "Human Error" explanation).

TempySmurf
4th Nov 2005, 20:46
Your timeline still assumes some random event that allows Mobius to lay hold of the Reaver, and STILL assumes the existence of more than one of these objects. The time travel itself is the greatest plot hole in the series, because if you remove an object from an area in one time, it cannot exist there in a later time. What's so hard about that, to use your own words?


Many different sci-fi/fantasy related stories that use time travel, use different rules for their "universe." Some say that you can not change time and that things are the way that they are no matter what you do. Some say that if you meet yourself, all existence stops. Some say that you can change time by doing something in the past. Some say that you can even create multiple selves by not doing what you were suppose to do in order to put yourself back to where you were when you started. Some say that there are multiple timelines or universes and that each decision that is possible creates different universes. Some say that if you meet yourself, nothing happens. Some you can kill your mother and father and others, something always happens to stop it. Its all just fiction, it doesn't have to follow physics or any such jazz. It just has to follow its own rules. Now if it creates a paradox following its own rules unless paradoxes are allowed, then there's a problem. The question isn't whether its possible in our world, but whether it breaks its own rules.

It seems like you're trying to base your conclusion on your own rules of time travel, correct me if I'm wrong. I think the question should be whether LOK's rules of time travel have been broken by the storyline and whether that breaks its own rules. Which I'm not saying it does or not, just saying.

sarafan_lord
4th Nov 2005, 21:16
As for MGS 3 - the principles of genetics do NOT allow for a person to take over another's body simply through the transplant of limbs. That's a bunch of BS Kojima came up with to bring back a favored character. Read his own thoughts on MGS 2 sometime - he hates it, and acknowledges that almost no one else liked it either by letting us slap Raidenovitch around in MGS 3.


Actually, it is possible for a person who receives a transplant of a body part to have an identity disorder. It does not mean that, as in the case of MGS 2, that Liquid Snake will take control of Ocelot's body at will. More likely that the person will have difficulty accepting the transplanted part as a part as his own on a mental level. (normally the body tends to reject forein cells, DNA, ect.; the immune system tries to destroy a foreign/enemy organism and there is a lot of therapy and drugs to deal with) Kojima probably just took this idea to the extreme. (sorry that I don't have the sources to back this up, but I did not make it up either)

WraithStar
4th Nov 2005, 23:38
Your timeline still assumes some random event that allows Mobius to lay hold of the Reaver, and STILL assumes the existence of more than one of these objects. The time travel itself is the greatest plot hole in the series, because if you remove an object from an area in one time, it cannot exist there in a later time. What's so hard about that, to use your own words?

The series laid out some rules for time-travel that work in Nosgoth. As long as the story doesn't break its own rules, it's not a plot hole. Your argument sounds like it's on the level of, "Kain is a vampire, and vampires don't exist, so Kain's existence is a plot hole." :rolleyes:

According to the Nosgoth time-travel rules, people and objects can travel through time and even meet themselves without anything happening (unless two versions of the Soul Reaver collide). Elder Kain has the brand new Soul Reaver. It follows Nosgoth's rules perfectly if he places the Reaver where WTJ can find it in time to fight younger Kain, then the events of the series happen as before. There is only one Reaver and this explanation allows for that. It's not a major gap in the storyline, we just have to wait and see what Elder Kain does with the brand new Soul Reaver before he arranges for WTJ to get it. If they had explained that bit in Defiance without explaining if/how Kain defeats EG, that would have ruined the continuity of the story.

sarafan_lord
5th Nov 2005, 00:37
Suppose Kain did reanimate Vorador. But I wander how many kegs of blood they drank before Vorador was up to date on the current and past events, or was Vorador's awakening as conscious as Janos'.

FearGhoul
5th Nov 2005, 01:12
Suppose Kain did reanimate Vorador. But I wander how many kegs of blood they drank before Vorador was up to date on the current and past events, or was Vorador's awakening as conscious as Janos'.

I'm not really sure what you mean here. The general idea we've reached is that when Janos disappears after giving Raziel the necklace, he teleports to where Vorador is and brings him back to life somehow. With that explanation, Vorador would have been dead for only a couple hours maybe, and Janos probably put some blood out for him to drink or something, but still did it in a way that Vorador doesn't know it was him, since he was surprised to see Janos alive in BO2.

sarafan_lord
5th Nov 2005, 02:26
So, Janos revives Vorador. Would that not be the same as being born again; a clean slate for Vorador's memories and knowledge? Or, would he be like Janos, conscious of everything after Raziel revives him?

Riovanes
5th Nov 2005, 04:08
So, Janos revives Vorador. Would that not be the same as being born again; a clean slate for Vorador's memories and knowledge? Or, would he be like Janos, conscious of everything after Raziel revives him?

If Janos did it, this would be a case of, "the story breaking its own rules," as has been so snidely thrown out several times. Only the HoD can resurrect a vampire in the LoK universe - and since Janos kinda' needs that sucker to live, I highly doubt he'd go digging it out of his own chest to reanimate Vorador - chiefly because, in case you haven't picked up on this one yet, it would shut him down, as is evidenced by his treatment at the hands of the Sarfan in SR2.

As for the time travel - the series itself lays out the problem of coexistence of two identical concepts in the same point in space and time. Kain himself says that Raziel's existence in the SR2 timeline, in his wraithlike form rather than his human self, is an irritant to the timestream - a technical impossibility. Now, if we allow for the fact that these paradoxes are allowed to exist (and the common application of paradox is "logical impossibility") in the LoK universe, that STILL leaves the problem of how Kain and WTJ manage to wield the Reaver at the same time.

The problem here is this - if the Reaver is removed from a location at a given time (as in, if it is taken out of Avernus Cathedral), then it is no longer in that place. Can we all agree on that? If I go into the kitchen and take a cup out of the cabinet, that cup is no longer in the cabinet - and will not be there later unless I put it back. So, if the Reaver is removed from Avernus, and remains in the possession of the person who took it - or is passed between other owners who do not return it to the previous location - then it will NEVER again be in that spot. This is the crux of my argument - irregardless of whatever "rules" the LoK team might've set up regarding time travel, they would have to produce a second Reaver in order to lay another blade in Avernus without the original being returned in the first place.

Furthermore, if the Reaver were removed at a certain time - and then someone went back in time to a point BEFORE the Reaver were removed and took it then - what happens? Does the first Reaver disappear because it was never there in the first place to be taken? Does it remain, creating a paradox?

For the answer to that, we need look no further than the epoch-spanning Soul Reaver 2. Every time Raziel does something that affects the course of history, things in the future change. Time has flowed in a certain manner, and reached a certain point, before Raziel's interference - but after his meddling, everything is different. Why is this? And what, then, is to stop Mobius or anyone else from going even further back in time and swapping things right back? Given that Mobius WANTS Raziel to do what he's doing - that's not the point. The point is that hypothetically, anyone with time travelling ability could continue to jump further and further back in time, continuing to alter events and remove and place items in an ad infinitum type of setting. The team has, by simple precedent, proven that a thing undone in the past remains undone in the future, and vice versa.

Whatever is spoken, actions always prove the rule more than any phrase ever could - and if you pay attention to the events in SR 2, you'll see that the team has clearly set up a linear progression for the events they trigger - event A happens, and effect B appears - event A does not happen, effect B does not appear. Simple powers of observation should've ended this argument long ago, but as some of you seem intent on cleaving to the infallibility of this series and deriding all others who disagree with you by applying simple circular logic (which is an invalid form of argument in anything other than politics, by the way), it seems clear that no matter how much proof, evidence, or dint of example I provide you, I won't sway anyone who's made up their mind that this series is perfect and anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool.

So, please, continue to think that there's nothing wrong here. As a published author, I fully understand authorial rights to set the rules for whatever universe it is you're setting out to create - but once you set those rules, changing them in the middle of the game is called "a bunch of garbage." Or, among those of us who work in the fantasy genre, "pulling an Anne Rice."

There's a reason no one reads fan fiction, folks.

TempySmurf
5th Nov 2005, 05:04
I'm with you on the whole contrivance thing. Although I think that's half the fun. How are they going to tie up all the loose ends and put them all together to make it work without any plot holes? Everyone sits around and posts their little theories about this and that, and how this has to work and so on. Then they put it all together, and you're thinking, that's awesome, or what about this or that thing.

Personally, I think there's plenty of questionable plot holes. The thing that gets me is this:


No. Time in the world of Legacy of Kain is basically immutable - those who travel through it can't change history, because they didn't. Jen, Richard, and Kyle mention the film 12 Monkeys at this point as an example of this concept [ If you haven't seen it, it's definitely worth checking out - blinc ]. While some things (like Ariel's role at the Spirit Forge) might seem out of place, it will all make sense in the end.
interview (http://www.thelostworlds.net/Defiance-JenRichardKyle.HTML)

With that in mind, I don't even see how the whole William the Just/Nemesis thing is even possible. I'm sure this has been discussed here before, maybe they can work it out, but I don't see how.

However, I'm totally confused about why you think the sword can't be put back in place. Moebius only needs the sword for a minute. Take it from one time for a minute, give it to another guy for twenty years in another time, get it back, go back to the origial time, put it back in the same place. To everyone else, its just been gone a minute.

FearGhoul
5th Nov 2005, 05:09
By the way, in case you didn't figure it out or don't care enough to check, I'll explain my idea for the Metal Gear thing (I just hope they don't get pissed I'm going off topic like this).
It's never directly stated in Snake Eater, but Ocelot is the son of The Boss and The Sorrow. This isn't just speculation, Kojima said in an interview with Electronic Gaming Monthly that they're his parents, plus there are hints, which I referred to earlier. The Sorrow is a Medium, and Ocelot is his son, and so, he apparantly inherited this power at least somewhat, and that's why Liquid could talk through him and even use his own voice. I've got a feeling that in Guns of the Patriots, he's going to have even more pieces of legendary warriors attached to him, but will have learned to take their knowledge without being possesed.
Back to LoK. You seem to think that time travel in LoK is like time travel in Chrono Trigger, where Crono and his buddies could kill Lavos and prevent the bad future they saw from happening (of course, wouldn't they have traveled to that good future instead at the earlier times? I guess Chrono Cross answered that well enough though, with it being a dead timeline that I guess they still went to), but they state quite clearly that time can only be changed by the Soul Reaver paradox, but I actually do see your side a bit. How about Moebius travels in time so that he can get two Soul Reavers from differant eras and then do whatever the hell he wants? Guess he just didn't think of that....

TempySmurf
5th Nov 2005, 05:30
Oh yeah, forgot about the "reaver effect". Good point.

Riovanes
5th Nov 2005, 12:58
However, I'm totally confused about why you think the sword can't be put back in place. Moebius only needs the sword for a minute. Take it from one time for a minute, give it to another guy for twenty years in another time, get it back, go back to the origial time, put it back in the same place. To everyone else, its just been gone a minute.

The problem comes in if the person who was holding the Reaver at the time Mobius (hypothetically) took it encounters the person Mobius gave it to.

Case in point, WTJ/Nemesis and Kain. That's two instances of the same weapon, in the same place, at the same time. By the game's own logical progression and the musings of Kain concerning the nature of temporal paradox, this is, in CD's universe, mind, completely impossible. Whether it was a cool moment or not is irrelevant in the context of it being a plot hole.

I agree with you that the series as a hole was still cool for all the gaffes and omissions in it - I suppose I just get irritated when people say it's perfect and call anyone who manages to see these things idiots - using circular logic and false pretense in the first place.

WraithStar
5th Nov 2005, 18:17
The problem comes in if the person who was holding the Reaver at the time Mobius (hypothetically) took it encounters the person Mobius gave it to.

Case in point, WTJ/Nemesis and Kain. That's two instances of the same weapon, in the same place, at the same time. By the game's own logical progression and the musings of Kain concerning the nature of temporal paradox, this is, in CD's universe, mind, completely impossible. Whether it was a cool moment or not is irrelevant in the context of it being a plot hole.

I agree with you that the series as a hole was still cool for all the gaffes and omissions in it - I suppose I just get irritated when people say it's perfect and call anyone who manages to see these things idiots - using circular logic and false pretense in the first place.

There was an entire speech addressing this issue in SR2. The Soul Reaver was *deliberately* placed in contact with its former self in order to create a paradox and change the timeline. It's not a plot hole because they clearly explained it in the story. If you don't like the explanation, fine, but that doesn't mean that the writers made a mistake in that instance. The entire series is based around what happens when two versions of the Reaver clash with each other. To call the premise of the story a plot hole seems a little strange to me. You can argue that you don't like it, or that it doesn't seem possible given our understanding of physics in the real world. That I could agree with. Anyhow, I think you aren't understanding the Reaver's own "life cycle." You keep making reference to the fact that pulling the Reaver out of a certain place will mean it's not there in the future. That's true, but no one was claiming otherwise. At the end of Defiance, Elder Kain has the brand new Soul Reaver. Presumably he fights EG with it. Then he goes back in time and leaves the Reaver for WTJ to find. William fights young Kain and the Reaver shatters. Raziel repairs the Reaver in SR2. Then the Reaver is left in Avernus where young Kain finds it. Young Kain goes back in time, fights WTJ, and then returns and lives through the events up until SR1. At that point, the Soul Reaver is shattered over Raziel and becomes the wraith blade. If you follow the timeline from the Reaver's point of view, you will see that there is indeed only one Reaver.

Riovanes
5th Nov 2005, 18:42
There was an entire speech addressing this issue in SR2. The Soul Reaver was *deliberately* placed in contact with its former self in order to create a paradox and change the timeline. It's not a plot hole because they clearly explained it in the story. If you don't like the explanation, fine, but that doesn't mean that the writers made a mistake in that instance. The entire series is based around what happens when two versions of the Reaver clash with each other. To call the premise of the story a plot hole seems a little strange to me. You can argue that you don't like it, or that it doesn't seem possible given our understanding of physics in the real world. That I could agree with. Anyhow, I think you aren't understanding the Reaver's own "life cycle." You keep making reference to the fact that pulling the Reaver out of a certain place will mean it's not there in the future. That's true, but no one was claiming otherwise. At the end of Defiance, Elder Kain has the brand new Soul Reaver. Presumably he fights EG with it. Then he goes back in time and leaves the Reaver for WTJ to find. William fights young Kain and the Reaver shatters. Raziel repairs the Reaver in SR2. Then the Reaver is left in Avernus where young Kain finds it. Young Kain goes back in time, fights WTJ, and then returns and lives through the events up until SR1. At that point, the Soul Reaver is shattered over Raziel and becomes the wraith blade. If you follow the timeline from the Reaver's point of view, you will see that there is indeed only one Reaver.

Thank you.

As odd as it might sound, all I was looking for was a well-reasoned and story-supported argument from one of you refuting me. Call it playing devil's advocate, being an ass, or whatever you like - but I kinda figured eventually someone was going to get sick of people providing really crappy defenses of their favorite series - and so you have come forward and offered a truly excellent rebuttal to my original contention.

I still don't like the way the whole thing was handled, but I remain a fan of the series as a whole. And no, the premise of the series itself cannot be accurately called a "plot hole," but there are still some very, very weak stretches in there that would need some serious shoring up before I'd bother calling it anything close to art.

So, we shall agree to disagree, and everyone can move on. Thanks for showing me that not everyone is an unreasonable fanboy.

rabban
5th Nov 2005, 21:31
wraithstar killed the troll!!!!
wait it was riovanes...well?

wraithstar found the inner fanboy in riovanes and brought him back to lightside of the force...hmm....

sarafan_lord
6th Nov 2005, 03:59
...Anyhow, I think you aren't understanding the Reaver's own "life cycle." You keep making reference to the fact that pulling the Reaver out of a certain place will mean it's not there in the future. That's true, but no one was claiming otherwise. At the end of Defiance, Elder Kain has the brand new Soul Reaver. Presumably he fights EG with it. Then he goes back in time and leaves the Reaver for WTJ to find. William fights young Kain and the Reaver shatters. Raziel repairs the Reaver in SR2. Then the Reaver is left in Avernus where young Kain finds it. Young Kain goes back in time, fights WTJ, and then returns and lives through the events up until SR1. At that point, the Soul Reaver is shattered over Raziel and becomes the wraith blade. If you follow the timeline from the Reaver's point of view, you will see that there is indeed only one Reaver.

I guess that my original question is a bit incomplete. Elder Kain (Defiance) has the Reaver in the time of the BO1. The point is not that there are two Reavers or two Kains in the same time, but that both of them cannot be holding the same Reaver. Kain takes it in the Sarafan Age of SR2 and has it throughout Defiance, which spans the Age of Sarafan and the BO1 timeline starting with Avernus and on. So, the two Kain's hold the same Reaver in same BO1 time, regardless of whether the Reaver's return is an assumption, fact, or impossibility. This is not about changing past by changing future and vice versa, but about present changing present. The elder Kain is rewriting the actions of a younger Kain in the same time zone.

This might be difficult to understand and might not make much sense (it is even tough for me to think of at times), but give it a try.

soothsayer
6th Nov 2005, 04:16
regardless of whether the Reaver's return is an assumption, fact, or impossibility. This is not about changing past by changing future and vice versa, but about present changing present. The elder Kain is rewriting the actions of a younger Kain in the same time zone.

That is quite impossible, Kain causing changes to his younger self would be a paradox. Kain is moving in a path fate has laid out for him so that the reaver will eventually get to WtJ's hands one way or another. Time in Nosgoth is niether directional or dimensional, and when a flaw occurs, it is made as though it never happened, even if it requires writing people out of existence to do it.

TempySmurf
6th Nov 2005, 07:33
That is quite impossible, Kain causing changes to his younger self would be a paradox. Kain is moving in a path fate has laid out for him so that the reaver will eventually get to WtJ's hands one way or another. Time in Nosgoth is niether directional or dimensional, and when a flaw occurs, it is made as though it never happened, even if it requires writing people out of existence to do it.

Not necessarily. If time travel allows one to over write time, then its not a paradox. Let me give you an example.

Suppose you have a cell phone. It rings around 2:30pm and you answer it and it's your wife. You talk to her and have a conversation. Later that day, around 7:00pm you decide to step in your time machine and go back in time earlier that day to around noon. You bring your cell phone along with you and it rings around 2:30pm. You decide to answer it.

What happens? Is this a paradox? It may cause the universe to implode on itself because of your time fumbling, or time just rewrites itself and goes about its merry way.

If it goes about its merry way, you'd still remember talking to your wife "earlier" that day and right now. Your wife, however, only remembers the last phone call.

WraithStar
6th Nov 2005, 19:01
Thank you.

As odd as it might sound, all I was looking for was a well-reasoned and story-supported argument from one of you refuting me. Call it playing devil's advocate, being an ass, or whatever you like - but I kinda figured eventually someone was going to get sick of people providing really crappy defenses of their favorite series - and so you have come forward and offered a truly excellent rebuttal to my original contention.

I still don't like the way the whole thing was handled, but I remain a fan of the series as a whole. And no, the premise of the series itself cannot be accurately called a "plot hole," but there are still some very, very weak stretches in there that would need some serious shoring up before I'd bother calling it anything close to art.

So, we shall agree to disagree, and everyone can move on. Thanks for showing me that not everyone is an unreasonable fanboy.

You're welcome ;) I think that everyone here was basically trying to say the same thing. I just managed to phrase it the right way to get the point across to you. I don't think anyone here was just blindly defending their favorite series, so I think your accusations of "fanboyism" were unfounded. You get really defensive sometimes and lash out, do you know that? :p Anyhow, I'll agree that the story could have been handled in a much better way in certain places. Hopefully there will be a next game and it will be done much more artfully :)



I guess that my original question is a bit incomplete. Elder Kain (Defiance) has the Reaver in the time of the BO1. The point is not that there are two Reavers or two Kains in the same time, but that both of them cannot be holding the same Reaver. Kain takes it in the Sarafan Age of SR2 and has it throughout Defiance, which spans the Age of Sarafan and the BO1 timeline starting with Avernus and on. So, the two Kain's hold the same Reaver in same BO1 time, regardless of whether the Reaver's return is an assumption, fact, or impossibility. This is not about changing past by changing future and vice versa, but about present changing present. The elder Kain is rewriting the actions of a younger Kain in the same time zone.

This might be difficult to understand and might not make much sense (it is even tough for me to think of at times), but give it a try.

I think I understand what you are asking. In Defiance, Kain has the Blood Reaver from the Sarafan age up until the very end of the game when it becomes the Soul Reaver. So, Elder Kain is holding the brand new Soul Reaver in the BO1 time period. Young Kain is holding the Soul Reaver as well, but young Kain's Reaver is several hundred years older. By the time young Kain gets his hands on the Reaver, it has already been used by Elder Kain and WTJ and repaired by Raziel. Elder Kain just has to return the Soul Reaver to the Sarafan age when he is finished with it and things will happen as they did before. So, Elder Kain and young Kain are not holding the exact same Reaver, which means that there isn't any danger of younger Kain not getting the Reaver just because Elder Kain has it.

Riovanes
6th Nov 2005, 21:33
You get really defensive sometimes and lash out, do you know that? :p


It would take a lot more than the angry rantings of the denizens of an online forum to put me in a defensive posture. If you think you or anyone else ever managed to upset me, then you are very much mistaken. Every now and then, I just like to push people to see what it takes to get them to actually think about their arguments before they post them.

The whole thing about time travel still has massive holes in it - but I don't see much point in tearing it apart now. Perhaps later, when I'm feeling irritated.

rabban
6th Nov 2005, 21:56
it seems like every veteran lokfan eventually becomes a sithlord...right umah?

Umah Bloodomen
6th Nov 2005, 23:18
it seems like every veteran lokfan eventually becomes a sithlord...right umah?

I wouldn't want it any other way, Dear. ;)

WraithStar
7th Nov 2005, 00:23
It would take a lot more than the angry rantings of the denizens of an online forum to put me in a defensive posture. If you think you or anyone else ever managed to upset me, then you are very much mistaken. Every now and then, I just like to push people to see what it takes to get them to actually think about their arguments before they post them.

The whole thing about time travel still has massive holes in it - but I don't see much point in tearing it apart now. Perhaps later, when I'm feeling irritated.


But when a contrivance opens up a plot hole wide enough to pass a 747 through with room to spare, you've got an issue. Further, when you refuse to acknowledge it... Well, I can't really give my opinion of that kind of willful ignorance without breaking the ToU. Let's just leave it at that deliberately ignoring plot holes is akin to vicious fanboyism, and isn't something I'd be proud of.


For the record, you're talking to a person who's working on a terminal degree (PhD) in literature - I've spent the last six years of my life studying what does and does not constitute certain things within the context of literature - so do not presume to tell me I don't know my own business. Thanks.


Indeed - and I've since realized that. The definition of insanity, as a great man once said, is to do the same thing over and over and expect different results. It's quite clear that a hole in the brick wall of fanboyism cannot be made by an application of logic and/or well reasoned argument, so I'll just revert to their tactics...

You don't like the same thing I like as much as I like it, so therefore you're a smelly head!


Jesus, I hate fanboys...


So, please, continue to think that there's nothing wrong here. As a published author, I fully understand authorial rights to set the rules for whatever universe it is you're setting out to create - but once you set those rules, changing them in the middle of the game is called "a bunch of garbage." Or, among those of us who work in the fantasy genre, "pulling an Anne Rice."

There's a reason no one reads fan fiction, folks.


I agree with you that the series as a hole was still cool for all the gaffes and omissions in it - I suppose I just get irritated when people say it's perfect and call anyone who manages to see these things idiots - using circular logic and false pretense in the first place.

No one called you an idiot or insulted you on this thread. You just naturally assumed that the people who disagreed with you were "vicious fanboys" and would eventually resort to such tactics. You sounded defensive to me :rolleyes:

Riovanes
7th Nov 2005, 01:57
Sarcasm.

XXXX-2005.

R.I.P.

Right next to...

Devil's Advocate

XXXX-2005.

R.I.P.

Oh literary humor, you were a fine - if infinitely misunderstood - companion.

:rolleyes:

rabban
7th Nov 2005, 03:26
Sarcasm was alive on the internet?...good lord do you realize what kind of devastation that must cause!!!??...every catastrophe on the net must involve that...or a typo.

and devil's advocate...well that poor shmuck should announce himself next time.

i mean if your in heaven and say "the devil asked me to do it." and your
within earshot of jesus you better say. "i was just playing."

soothsayer
7th Nov 2005, 05:57
Not necessarily. If time travel allows one to over write time, then its not a paradox. Let me give you an example.

Suppose you have a cell phone. It rings around 2:30pm and you answer it and it's your wife. You talk to her and have a conversation. Later that day, around 7:00pm you decide to step in your time machine and go back in time earlier that day to around noon. You bring your cell phone along with you and it rings around 2:30pm. You decide to answer it.

What happens? Is this a paradox? It may cause the universe to implode on itself because of your time fumbling, or time just rewrites itself and goes about its merry way.

If it goes about its merry way, you'd still remember talking to your wife "earlier" that day and right now. Your wife, however, only remembers the last phone call.

That ain't how it works in Nosgoth, an any other valid Sci-fi without creating a multiverse or total limbo.

If you did that, the cell phone wouldn't allow you to pick up the call so the self native to that time can pick it up.

Nosgoth follows consistant history, and few have free will.

A good exaple is Janos in SR2.
Raziel visits his reteat in the future, but he isn't there, cause his hearts been ripped out.
So he travels to the past, and blazes a trail across the retreat's security system.
This trail is followed by his younger self, who rips out Janos' heart.
If Raz hadn't done this, Janos would still be around in the future, but since he wasn't.
So he travels to the past, and blazes a trail across the retreat's security system.
This trail is followed by his younger self, who rips out Janos' heart.
If Raz hadn't done this, Janos would still be around in the future, but since he wasn't.
So he travels to the past, and blazes a trail across the retreat's security system.
This trail is followed by his younger self, who rips out Janos' heart.
If Raz hadn't done this, Janos would still be around in the future, but since he wasn't... to infinitum, consistant history is funny like that.

sarafan_lord
7th Nov 2005, 19:42
Originally posted by WraithStar
I think I understand what you are asking. In Defiance, Kain has the Blood Reaver from the Sarafan age up until the very end of the game when it becomes the Soul Reaver. So, Elder Kain is holding the brand new Soul Reaver in the BO1 time period. Young Kain is holding the Soul Reaver as well, but young Kain's Reaver is several hundred years older. By the time young Kain gets his hands on the Reaver, it has already been used by Elder Kain and WTJ and repaired by Raziel. Elder Kain just has to return the Soul Reaver to the Sarafan age when he is finished with it and things will happen as they did before. So, Elder Kain and young Kain are not holding the exact same Reaver, which means that there isn't any danger of younger Kain not getting the Reaver just because Elder Kain has it.

I'll buy your solution if you can explain me how the Soul Reaver that the Elder Kain carries at the end of Defiance becomes corrupted again.

Smoke_Z
7th Nov 2005, 22:12
I'll buy your solution if you can explain me how the Soul Reaver that the Elder Kain carries at the end of Defiance becomes corrupted again.

I seem to remember someone shouting "The Reaver is not pure." It might've even been the topic of the thread.

I seem to have to theories floating around in my head... the first one I think is more popular.

The Reaver that recieved the final baptism and purification was the final incarnation as the Wraith Blade. Raziel himself was not purified, so therefore the Soul Reaver blade isn't pure.

If you want to assume that Raziel did get some sort of purification in the spirit forge, then I assume that the purification went away just like Raziel's sanity.

sarafan_lord
8th Nov 2005, 01:52
If Kain returns this Reaver to WTJ and then the yournger Kain gets it, how does it become impure throughout this process?

Vampmaster
8th Nov 2005, 12:30
Maybe because Raziel himself was afflicted by Kains corruption when he was first made a vampire and later only the wraith blade was purified and Raziel himself wasn't when he entered the Reaver. Then again, the imbuements seemed to effect Raziel too, so I don't know why he wouldn't have been purified along with the wraith blade. Maybe that's a plot hole or perhaps it just wasn't really explained.

Edit: After re-reading, it seems the same thing was posted above.

TempySmurf
8th Nov 2005, 13:11
That ain't how it works in Nosgoth, an any other valid Sci-fi without creating a multiverse or total limbo.

If you did that, the cell phone wouldn't allow you to pick up the call so the self native to that time can pick it up.

Nosgoth follows consistant history, and few have free will.

A good exaple is Janos in SR2.
Raziel visits his reteat in the future, but he isn't there, cause his hearts been ripped out.
So he travels to the past, and blazes a trail across the retreat's security system.
This trail is followed by his younger self, who rips out Janos' heart.
If Raz hadn't done this, Janos would still be around in the future, but since he wasn't.
So he travels to the past, and blazes a trail across the retreat's security system.
This trail is followed by his younger self, who rips out Janos' heart.
If Raz hadn't done this, Janos would still be around in the future, but since he wasn't.
So he travels to the past, and blazes a trail across the retreat's security system.
This trail is followed by his younger self, who rips out Janos' heart.
If Raz hadn't done this, Janos would still be around in the future, but since he wasn't... to infinitum, consistant history is funny like that.

There's always relative timelines.

I'm going to flip-flop for the moment on the reaver effect, because I'm still not following their statement about time being immutable. Its just not possible to logically have time immutable and still have kain change history with william. If they said that time was immutable unless the reaver meets its self, then I'd be there. Or that when the two reavers interact, whether that's kain and william or raziel and raziel.

Then there's the whole question of free will. In an immutable timeline, there is no free will. Of course, all of the characters question this throughout the game. So, that's a little bit of fun.

Kain at least thinks that time is mutable or he wouldn't be telling Raziel that he has free will and talking about coins.

I believe, that logically, that time is mutable, but its really hard to change it, and it involves the reaver meeting its self. However, the interview said that it's immutable, so that's where I get confused.




Once again, either time is immutable and no one has free will and they are just following the path they have to or time is mutable and they can change it with the reaver and they have free will. My problem is that evidence suggests that they have free will and time is mutable and I don't see any way to explain William the Just.

I'm sure this has been discussed to death on the forums somewhere else, but I'm too lazy to search.

WraithStar
8th Nov 2005, 17:54
About the Reaver: Let's say, for the sake of argument, that Raziel himself was purified as well, which would mean that the new Soul Reaver is also pure. If this is the case, then I think that in the process of defeating the Elder God, the Reaver will become corrupted again. Then it passes on to WTJ as before.

About the whole "time is immutable" thing: It's my personal opinion that the people who said that in the Q&A were just trying to be cute and mention their favorite movie. The statement so obviously has nothing to do with the games, especially BO1, that I can't see any other reason why they would say such a thing. Considering that they weren't even the main writers of the Soul Reaver/Defiance story arc, I just disregard that particular statement and I take the rest of their Q&A with a grain of salt. Unless something was actually stated in a game, it's subject to change (and even in-game things can be "re-explained" as well :rolleyes: )

soothsayer
8th Nov 2005, 18:54
Consistant history is in place because almost no one has free will.
Raziel is the exception, but he is on a set path because everyone aroung him is under fate's influence.
History must remain consistent, any change causes the past present and future to be rewritten entirely.
This only happens through a paradox.

To explain what a paradox is, I'll use TempySmurf's phone thing as an example.
Now if I traveled back in time and stopped myself from recieving a phone call, everything that happened to me afterward would be different, thus What I change in the past would be differnt, thus everything that happened to me afterward would be different... and so on and so forth.

Raziel wasn't imbued by any of the forges when he enchanted the reaver, and I don't see why the spirit forge would be any different. Also it would ba a paradox if he was purified twice.

WraithStar
8th Nov 2005, 19:06
The reason that people think Raziel might have been purified by the spirit forge is that it looks like the imbuement passes through Raziel's body to get to the wraith blade. Even if Raziel gets purified twice, that's not a paradox. The wraith blade is over a thousand years older than Raziel at that point, so there is plenty of time for the blade to become corrupted and in need of purification again.

Riovanes
8th Nov 2005, 21:01
Consistant history is in place because almost no one has free will.
Raziel is the exception, but he is on a set path because everyone aroung him is under fate's influence.
History must remain consistent, any change causes the past present and future to be rewritten entirely.
This only happens through a paradox.

To explain what a paradox is, I'll use TempySmurf's phone thing as an example.
Now if I traveled back in time and stopped myself from recieving a phone call, everything that happened to me afterward would be different, thus What I change in the past would be differnt, thus everything that happened to me afterward would be different... and so on and so forth.

Raziel wasn't imbued by any of the forges when he enchanted the reaver, and I don't see why the spirit forge would be any different. Also it would ba a paradox if he was purified twice.


A paradox is a self-refuting situation - a literal and logical impossibility. I really think you're insisting on an incorrect definition that is clouding the rest of your theoretical postulations.

Paradox: From the OED (Oxford English Dictionary):


A. n. I. Simple uses.

{dag}1. a. A statement or tenet contrary to received opinion or belief, esp. one that is difficult to believe. Obs.
Sometimes used with unfavourable connotation, as being discordant with what is held to be established truth, and hence absurd or fantastic; sometimes with favourable connotation, as a correction of a common error.
1533 T. MORE Second Parte Confutacion Tyndals Answere IV. p. cii,574 To proue vs thys wonderfull straunge paradox, thys opynyon inopinable. 1540 J. PALSGRAVE tr. Fullonius Acolastus Prol. sig. Biiv, We shall not wytsafe any Paradoxes in noo place i. we shall not wytsafe (to speake or make mention of..) any thynges, that be aboue or beyonde the common oppynyon of men. 1581 J. MARBECKE Bk. of Notes 791 Paradox is a straunge sentence, contrarie to the opinion of the most part. Or thus: It is a straunge sentence, not easely to be conceiued of the common sort. 1603 SHAKESPEARE Haml. III. i. 116 This was sometimes a Paradox, But now the time giues it scope. 1656 T. HOBBES Quest. Liberty, Necess. & Chance (1841) 304 The Bishop speaks often of paradoxes with such scorn or detestation, that a simple reader would take a paradox either for felony or some other heinous crime,..whereas perhaps a judicious reader knows..that a paradox, is an opinion not yet generally received. 1697 tr. F. Burgersdijck Monitio Logica II. xv. 65 A Paradox is said to be a Probleme true against the common Opinion..such as that, viz., the Earth moves; which, tho' it be true, yet may it be so against the common Opinion, and therefore a Paradox. 1824 T. DE QUINCEY Dialogues Three Templars in London Mag. Apr. 344/1 A paradox, you know, is simply that which contradicts the popular opinion{em}which in too many cases is the false opinion. 1890 Illustr. London News 26 Apr. 535/3 A paradox is a proposition really or apparently contradictory to a commonly received idea... It is, as its name indicates, a conceit contrary to opinion, but not..contrary to reason. A position contrary to reason is a paralogism.

b. Rhetoric. A figure of speech consisting of a conclusion or apodosis contrary to what the audience has been led to expect. Obs. rare.
1678 E. PHILLIPS New World of Words (ed. 4), Paradox..In Rhetorick, it is something which is cast in by the by, contrary to the opinion or expectation of the Auditor, and is otherwise called Hypomone.

2. a. An apparently absurd or self-contradictory statement or proposition, or a strongly counter-intuitive one, which investigation, analysis, or explanation may nevertheless prove to be well-founded or true.
twin paradox: see TWIN n. C. e.
1569 T. WATSON in R. Crowley Sophistrie T. Watson i. 187 Your straunge Paradox of Christes eating of his owne fleshe. 1606 J. HAYWARD Rep. Disc. Supreme Power 3 Three or foure at the table, who esteemed that which I had said, not for a paradoxe, but for an Adoxe, or flat absurditie. 1607 J. NORDEN Surveyors Dialogue IV. 195, I can tell you a pretie paradoxe..Boggy and spungy ground,..though in it owne nature it be too moist, yet if it be overflowed with water often, it will settle and become firme. 1692 R. BENTLEY Boyle Lect. II. 36 'Tis no less a Truth than a Paradox, That there are no greater Fools, than Atheistical Wits; and none so credulous as Infidels. a1716 R. SOUTH Serm. (1744) XI. 127 If you will admit the paradox, it makes a man do more than he can do. a1806 S. HORSLEY Serm. (1811) 369 Of the two parts..of a paradox, both are often true, and yet, when proved to be true, may continue paradoxical. 1809-10 S. T. COLERIDGE Friend (1865) 54 The legal paradox, that a libel may be the more a libel for being true. 1885 J. R. SEELEY Introd. Polit. Sci. (1896) i. 3 In my opinion, to lecture on political science is to lecture on history. Here is the Paradox{em}I use the word in its original sense of a proposition which is really true, though it sounds false. 1902 Daily Chron. 30 Oct. 3/1 Perhaps the only immortal paradoxes are the divine paradoxes called Beatitudes; for each generation sees their truth, but as no one ever acts upon them, their paradox comes with perpetual freshness to every age. 1956 E. FROMM Art of Loving ii. 21 In love the paradox occurs that two beings become one and yet remain two. 1990 Ess. in Crit. XL. 283 The paradox that spontaneity of expression demanded premeditated art was well understood.

b. A proposition or statement that is (taken to be) actually self-contradictory, absurd, or intrinsically unreasonable.
Some scholars (cf. quot. 1639) have denied statements to be paradoxes when they can be proved after all to be true, or have called them ‘apparent paradoxes’ (cf. quots. 1794, 1876), when they are paradoxes in sense 2a.
1570 J. FOXE Actes & Monuments (rev. ed.) II. 1299/1 This monstrous paradoxe of transubstantiation was neuer induced or receaued publickly in the Churche, before the tyme of ye Lateran Councell. 1598 SHAKESPEARE L.L.L. IV. iii. 252 Berow... No face is fayre that is not full so blacke. King. O paradox, Blacke is the badge of Hell. 1628 G. WITHER Britain's Remembrancer III. 39 Vulgar men, doe such expressions hold To be but idle Paradoxes. 1639 T. FULLER Hist. Holy Warre III. iv. 115 It is therefore no Paradox to say, That in some case the strength of a kingdome doth consist in the weaknesse of it. 1645 MILTON Tetrachordon 48 The most grosse and massy paradox that ever did violence to reason and religion. 1777 J. PRIESTLEY Doctr. Philos. Necessity ix. 110 This will be no paradox, but a most important and necessary truth. 1794 G. ADAMS Lect. Nat. & Exper. Philos. II. xvii. 336 The apparent paradox of the pur-blind, or those who can scarcely see a small object at arm's length, yet discovering those that are very remote. 1822 LD. JEFFREY in Life (1852) II. 211 The dulness is increased in proportion to the density, and the book becomes ten times more tedious by its compression. This is not a paradox now, but a simple truth. 1876 L. STEPHEN Hist. Eng. Thought 18th Cent. II. 375 The apparent paradox that while no man sets a higher value upon truthfulness..than Johnson, no man could care less for the foundations of speculative truth. 1923 G. M. TREVELYAN Manin & Venetian Revolution ii. 29 It is no paradox to say that ‘Municipalism’, in the sense of the Italian's feeling of pride in his town or city, was the great instrument of Italian unification. 1981 Dict. National Biogr. 1961-70 107/2 He was curiously unconscious of many of the glaring paradoxes and contradictions contained in his own beliefs.

c. Logic. More fully logical paradox. An argument, based on (apparently) acceptable premisses and using (apparently) valid reasoning, which leads to a conclusion that is against sense, logically unacceptable, or self-contradictory; the conclusion of such an argument. Freq. with a descriptive or eponymous name.
Grelling's, prediction, Russell's paradox: see the first element. paradox of the liar: see LIAR n. d.
1903 B. RUSSELL Princ. Math. xliii. 358 This paradox, which, as I shall show, is strictly correlative to the Achilles, may be called for convenience the Tristram Shandy. 1921 W. E. JOHNSON Logic I. iii. 45 The paradox of implication assumes many forms, some of which are not easily recognised as involving mere varieties of the same fundamental principle. 1955 A. N. PRIOR Formal Logic III. i. 224 As with Lewis's paradoxes, these appear less startling when the definitions of the terms used are considered. 1992 Sci. Fiction Age Nov. 24/3 One example of a logical paradox..is Zeno's Paradox, in which it is demonstrated logically that you can never get from one place to another.

3. a. Paradoxical character; paradoxicality.
1589 G. PUTTENHAM Arte Eng. Poesie I. xxix. 46 It may be true in manner of Paradoxe. 1651 T. HOBBES Leviathan IV. xliv. 348 In both these interpretations, there is so much of paradox, that I trust not to them. 1788 GIBBON Decline & Fall (1845) IV. xliv. 186 They imbibed..the love of paradox..and a minute attachment to words and verbal distinctions. a1852 D. WEBSTER Wks. (1877) II. 91 A distinguished lover of liberty of our time, said, with apparent paradox, that the quantity of liberty in any country is exactly equal to the quantity of restraint. 1869 J. MARTINEAU Ess. Philos. & Theol. 2nd Ser. 88 A perpetual source of fallacy and paradox. 1902 Daily Chron. 30 Oct. 3/1 Each generation sees their [sc. the Beatitudes'] truth, but as no one ever acts upon them, their paradox comes with perpetual freshness to every age. 1992 New Republic 13-20 July 41/2 The mood of his painting is edgy, keyed-up; there is an air of crisis and paradox.

b. Literary Criticism. The expression of meaning using language that is paradoxical.
1939 C. BROOKS & R. P. WARREN Understanding Poetry VI. 637 Paradox, a statement which seems on the surface contradictory, but which involves an element of truth. Because of the element of contrast between the form of the statement and its true implications, paradox is closely related to irony. 1947 C. BROOKS Well Wrought Urn 230 Paradox, as a device for contrasting the conventional views of a situation, or the limited and special view of it such as those taken in practical and scientific discourse, with a more inclusive view. 1992 Stud. Eng. Lit.: Eng. Number (Tokyo) 113 His poems are at odds with the modernist belief that the essential qualities of poetry are irony, ambiguity and paradox.

4. A composition in prose or verse expounding a paradox. Now rare.
1594 J. SYLVESTER tr. O. de La Noue (title) The profit of imprisonment. A paradox [Fr. Paradoxe, que les aduersitez sont plus necessaires que les prosperitez]. 1607 T. DEKKER & G. WILKINS (title) Iests to make you merie: with the conjuring up of **** Watt... And a paradox in praise of serjeants. 1640 W. HAMOND (title) A paradox. Prooving, that the inhabitants of..Madagascar,..are the happiest people in the world. 1699 W. DOVE (title) The sceptical muse: or, A paradox on humane understanding, a poem. 1865 F. W. O. WARD (title) Pessimus: a poem in prose, and a paradox, by Young England. 1895 Dict. National Biogr. XLIII. 370/1 The epigrams..are surmounted by clever Latin mottoes, and are followed by three satires and a paradox upon war. 1901 W. D. FORSYTH (title) A paradox in line, by J. J. Jezreel, ‘how to know a stranger’ or, Israel's sojourning in Egypt and their deliverance from bondage.

5. A person or thing whose life or behaviour is characterized by paradox; a paradoxical phenomenon or occurrence, spec. one that exhibits some contradiction or conflict with preconceived notions of what is reasonable or possible.
hydrostatic, Olbers' paradox: see the first element.
a1625 J. FLETCHER Womans Prize IV. ii, in F. Beaumont & J. Fletcher Comedies & Trag. (1647) sig. Pppppv/2, Not let his wife come neere him in his sicknes..Is she refus'd? and two old Paradoxes, Peeces of five and fifty, without faith Clapt in upon him? a1687 W. PETTY Polit. Arithm. (1690) 92 The wonderful Paradox that Englishmen..pay Customs as Foreigners for all they spend in Ireland. 1706 E. WARD Wooden World Diss. (1708) 45 He's a down-right Paradox. 1834 Pearl & Lit. Gaz. 15 Feb. 112/3 Man presents himself as the same mysterious paradox now that he ever has. 1865 D. MASSON Rec. Brit. Philos. 393 He has had to assume an inexplicability, an inconceivability, a paradox, as nevertheless a fact. 1939 Fortune Nov. 38/2 It would be too extravagant to say that the Denver Opportunity School dissolves the apparent paradox of simultaneous unemployment and skilled-labor shortages. 1992 Apollo June 397/1 Pompeii is a paradox. Buried by the eruption of Mount Vesuvius in AD 79, it is a kind of time-capsule that preserves the houses, furnishings, bric-a-br*c, graffiti and even..the people of a 2,000-year-old civilization.

{dag}6. Zool. The platypus, Ornithorhynchus anatinus. Obs. rare.
1815 in J. O'Hara Hist. New S. Wales (1817) 452 The water-mole, or paradox, also abounds in all the rivers and ponds.

II. Compounds.

7. paradox-monger, -mongering.
1642 T. FULLER Holy State II. iv. 62 A *Paradox-monger, loving to hold strange yea dangerous Opinions. 1879 Spectator 23 Aug. 1069 Which made the same brilliant paradoxmonger [sc. Prof. Clifford] enjoy saying, ‘There is one thing in the world more wicked than the desire to command, and that is the will to obey’. 1995 Daily Tel. (Nexis) 8 June 16 If you suggest..that Islam is, on the face of it, the most rational of the monotheistic religions, you will usually be regarded as a dreamer and paradox-monger. 1979 C. JAMES in Observer 17 June 33/4 It might sound like *paradox-mongering to say so, but there is something innocent about the supposition that happiness can be found by gratifying the body's wishes. 1990 New Republic (Nexis) 8 Oct. 42 He has little patience with the medical ignorance and shallow paradox-mongering that has greeted Foucault's glorification of the role of preinstitutionalized psychotics in medieval urban life.

{dag}B. adj. Paradoxical. Obs.
1624 J. SMITH Gen. Hist. Virginia VI. 220 Let no man then condemne this paradox opinion. 1655 H. L'ESTRANGE Reign King Charles 61 Though paradox it may seem, and out of the rode of common beleef. 1660 tr. I. Barrow Euclide's Elements III. 61 Many paradox and wonderfull consectaries.

Can we please all get on the same page about that particular term now, and stop arguing pointless semantics that have been induced by a befouled interpretation of the game?

Mess not with MA candidates in Writing/Literature - for we are nerds of a higher caliber, and will eat your souls.

Much like hypnocat.

http://img459.imageshack.us/img459/5448/hypnocat6bg.gif

Obey Hypnocat!!!

TempySmurf
8th Nov 2005, 21:54
Consistant history is in place because almost no one has free will.
Raziel is the exception, but he is on a set path because everyone aroung him is under fate's influence.
History must remain consistent, any change causes the past present and future to be rewritten entirely.
This only happens through a paradox.

To explain what a paradox is, I'll use TempySmurf's phone thing as an example.
Now if I traveled back in time and stopped myself from recieving a phone call, everything that happened to me afterward would be different, thus What I change in the past would be differnt, thus everything that happened to me afterward would be different... and so on and so forth.

Raziel wasn't imbued by any of the forges when he enchanted the reaver, and I don't see why the spirit forge would be any different. Also it would ba a paradox if he was purified twice.

Right, that's a grandfather paradox. There's four typical ways to work with this.

There's either parallel universes and when you change something in the past you're actually just changing something in a parallel universe that was always changed by you and the original universe you're from goes about its merry way without you meddling with it.

Then there's a relative timeline in which there is no absolute timeline and the universe has no mechanism to unmake whatever it is you did.

Then there's the laws of nature and time or whatever that simply will prevent you from changing time at all. No matter what you do, something will always prevent you from changing anything. Which really just prevents a paradox in the first place.

Finally there's destruction, in which we have at the worst case, the end of the universe, but could also destroy whatever causes the paradox or whatever is around to be affected by it.


Nosgoth can't be ruled by the laws of the third option, as this is impossible according to what has happened. I don't really buy the parallel universe idea, as this would cheapen the whole story. Destruction is plausable, if it only affects some things, and would explain the whole deal about time weeding out the problems. I kind of like this idea. As it could suggest that time is trying to destroy the paradoxes or those that caused them, Kain and Raziel. While Kain is trying to figure out a way to cheat his destruction by undoing the paradoxes or fixing that which caused it in the first place, or whatever his game is. Kinda reminds me of Final Destination. Finally, there's the relative timeline, in which time can be changed and time can't do anything about it and the only way to alter time is with the two reavers. I'd buy either one of the last two theories.

rabban
9th Nov 2005, 00:13
5. A person or thing whose life or behaviour is characterized by paradox; a paradoxical phenomenon or occurrence, spec. one that exhibits some contradiction or conflict with preconceived notions of what is reasonable or possible.

well there you go that's a paradox as far as lokd is concerned right?

sarafan_lord
9th Nov 2005, 01:30
And I was actually hoping someone would say that the Reaver will not be corrupted. This will cause the younger Kain, who eventually retreives it from Avernus, to be cured and sacrifice himself at the end of BO1. Although his cure may enlighten him about the Hylden and BO2 will take place.

I'm actually wandering if the returned Reaver will be the same, with respect to being corrupted or purified, as the one Janos was guarding. I think Janos was guarding a Reaver that was pure, otherwise he was not such a good guardian. I'm not sure how it became corrupted, but it must have happened before young Kain takes it from Avernus, otherwise he would have been purified as well. It must also happen before the older Kain takes it from the Sarafan stronghold in Defiance. So, either the Reaver became impure while under Janos' (bad) guardianship, or Moebius and the Sarafan brethren (Raziel, Melchiah, Zephon, ect.) caused it to be corrupt. Truthfully I do not think it is either of the two. Perhaps the Reaver was made corrupt. (misread prophecy)

soothsayer
9th Nov 2005, 04:37
Then there's the laws of nature and time or whatever that simply will prevent you from changing time at all. No matter what you do, something will always prevent you from changing anything. Which really just prevents a paradox in the first place.

Yes, this is how it normally works in Nosgoth, but the timesteam on rare occasions has to permit the possibility of a paradox by bringing incarnations of Raziel to the same place. It only does this out of need though, mostly to kill Kain, since there is no other possible way to kill him that I know of. Since Kain can't die by any other known means, the timestream has to kill him with the reaver, but Kain has been smart enough to always have an incarnation around to insure the possibility of his survival. Having absorbed the reaver, Kain can no longer be killed by it's younger incarnations, this can only mean that the timestream has figured out some alternate means to removing him from Nosgoth. Kain has to die at some point, otherwise he'd keep be forced back into the past, causing many versions of himself to exist in the same era, which can't be vary healthy for continuity.

As per Raziel's alleged purification, it really doesn't make any difference.

And Riovanes, we are speaking of paradoxi of the temporal verity, not the literary verity.

FearGhoul
9th Nov 2005, 06:14
Why would the Blood Reaver that Janos gaurded be corrupted? The corruption of the Reaver is the corruption that Raziel inherited from Kain when he was raised, then it's finally removed in Defiance. I think it passing through him is the same as when any of the Elements pass through him, it allows him to control it at will, so he wouldn't need the fonts. That's what I figure anyway, that he figured out a way around the fonts. To me it seems Raziel's still got that corruption at the end of Defiance.

Vampmaster
9th Nov 2005, 11:24
In my opinion, a temporal paradox is the same thing as a literal paradox. When a paradox (contradiction of past events with future ones) occurs in Nosgoth, history doesn't allow it. It arranges some additional factor that resolves the contradiction. Like Kain said it's like putting a stone in a rushing river. The paradox blocks the course of history, forcing it to find a new path. For paradoxes to be allowed in Nosgoth it would be like as if the water could just pass through the stone. It's also like how history allowed Raziels imprisonment in the blade to be postponed but not prevented. Kain tried to prevent it, but preventing it was (or would have been) a paradox so history required that he entered the blade at a later date. Same with the blade being broken in Kains fight with William. It would have been a paradox if not for Raziel arriving to fix it. I beleive it's the same "pull of history" (and not the destiny written by squiddy) that causes all of these paradoxes to be resolved. Therefore the pull of history will inevitably force Kain to give up the Reaver. Because of their free will Kain and Raziel can resist this pull of history up to a point, but they can't resist if forever because that would be a true paradox.

Riovanes
9th Nov 2005, 14:48
And Riovanes, we are speaking of paradoxi of the temporal verity, not the literary verity.

They're the same thing. Kindly read the entire definition, and not just the parts that you like. A word cannot be randomly redefined to suit a given author's purposes, whether they're writing a novel or a game script - it is what it is, regardless of how it's handled.

Once again (no defensiveness here, for those who're watching), you're talking to someone who's inches away from getting his PhD in Literature and Writing - the study of language is my specialty, and I've been dealing with it on a professional level for the last six years or so. I may not know everything - and I am certainly far from perfect - but I can tell you without the first grain of doubt that your contention that a temporal paradox is different from a literary paradox is unfounded and completely unsupportable. Things don't work the way you want them to simply because you desire it to be so.

A paradox is a contradiction - a literal, temporal, physical, spiritual, etc., ad nauseam impossibility. It is a condition or set of conditions that cannot exist given the laws of nature and the properties of matter, language, or whatever other field/concept you're working in. You need to get off this idea that a paradox in the LoK series is somehow different than the accepted defintion in the OED. The writers used "paradox" in the exact context that would be necessary for it to fall under the OED definition, and the series proves, through its use of a persistent, contiguous (though sometimes difficult to believe) timeline, that the authors of the script did indeed have a pretty good grasp on what should/should not be able to happen in a given setting. LoK's "time stream" concept follows the same rules as our own, with a few of the details rearranged for artistic purposes. The result is the occasional plot hole or loss of suspension of disbelief - but the overall effect isn't ruined.


5. A person or thing whose life or behaviour is characterized by paradox; a paradoxical phenomenon or occurrence, spec. one that exhibits some contradiction or conflict with preconceived notions of what is reasonable or possible.
hydrostatic, Olbers' paradox: see the first element.
a1625 J. FLETCHER Womans Prize IV. ii, in F. Beaumont & J. Fletcher Comedies & Trag. (1647) sig. Pppppv/2, Not let his wife come neere him in his sicknes..Is she refus'd? and two old Paradoxes, Peeces of five and fifty, without faith Clapt in upon him? a1687 W. PETTY Polit. Arithm. (1690) 92 The wonderful Paradox that Englishmen..pay Customs as Foreigners for all they spend in Ireland. 1706 E. WARD Wooden World Diss. (1708) 45 He's a down-right Paradox. 1834 Pearl & Lit. Gaz. 15 Feb. 112/3 Man presents himself as the same mysterious paradox now that he ever has. 1865 D. MASSON Rec. Brit. Philos. 393 He has had to assume an inexplicability, an inconceivability, a paradox, as nevertheless a fact. 1939 Fortune Nov. 38/2 It would be too extravagant to say that the Denver Opportunity School dissolves the apparent paradox of simultaneous unemployment and skilled-labor shortages. 1992 Apollo June 397/1 Pompeii is a paradox. Buried by the eruption of Mount Vesuvius in AD 79, it is a kind of time-capsule that preserves the houses, furnishings, bric-a-br*c, graffiti and even..the people of a 2,000-year-old civilization.


c. Logic. More fully logical paradox. An argument, based on (apparently) acceptable premisses and using (apparently) valid reasoning, which leads to a conclusion that is against sense, logically unacceptable, or self-contradictory; the conclusion of such an argument. Freq. with a descriptive or eponymous name.
Grelling's, prediction, Russell's paradox: see the first element. paradox of the liar: see LIAR n. d.
1903 B. RUSSELL Princ. Math. xliii. 358 This paradox, which, as I shall show, is strictly correlative to the Achilles, may be called for convenience the Tristram Shandy. 1921 W. E. JOHNSON Logic I. iii. 45 The paradox of implication assumes many forms, some of which are not easily recognised as involving mere varieties of the same fundamental principle. 1955 A. N. PRIOR Formal Logic III. i. 224 As with Lewis's paradoxes, these appear less startling when the definitions of the terms used are considered. 1992 Sci. Fiction Age Nov. 24/3 One example of a logical paradox..is Zeno's Paradox, in which it is demonstrated logically that you can never get from one place to another.

At any rate - next time someone provides you information, make sure you peruse all of it before making a statement refuting said information. You'll save yourself a rather nasty case of hoof-in-mouth disease that way.

sarafan_lord
9th Nov 2005, 18:46
Originally posted by Zulgbrtzchllha
The corruption of the Reaver is the corruption that Raziel inherited from Kain when he was raised, then it's finally removed in Defiance.

We might be talking about different things, but, if the Reaver is not corrupted earlier, shouldn't Kain be able to realize his destiny and save the pillars in BO1. (The purified Reaver in Defiance does not simply allow Kain to see the Elder, it cures him to realize his destiny)

FearGhoul
10th Nov 2005, 07:01
We might be talking about different things, but, if the Reaver is not corrupted earlier, shouldn't Kain be able to realize his destiny and save the pillars in BO1. (The purified Reaver in Defiance does not simply allow Kain to see the Elder, it cures him to realize his destiny)

I'm not really sure what you're saying here. At the end of Defiance, there's the Raziel we've been playing for three games, and a super old Raziel on his arm. The super old Raziel is the one that gets purified, and then it seems to enter Kain, while the Raziel we know goes into the Reaver, still with the corruption. So I don't see why young Kain would be purified by getting the Reaver at Avernus.

TempySmurf
10th Nov 2005, 10:56
I'm not really sure what you're saying here. At the end of Defiance, there's the Raziel we've been playing for three games, and a super old Raziel on his arm. The super old Raziel is the one that gets purified, and then it seems to enter Kain, while the Raziel we know goes into the Reaver, still with the corruption. So I don't see why young Kain would be purified by getting the Reaver at Avernus.

Maybe someone can explain this whole corrupted raziel thing to me completely, cause I'm not sure where this idea came from and haven't really thought about it. However, I was under the impression, that Raziel was basically in some sense or another (and I use the idea loosely) half of himself until he joined the reaver. Another thing is why wouldn't he be uncorrupted, if that were the case, by proxy, by holding and/or entering the reaver. Just wondering.

If there were two raziels in the blade, wouldn't that be a paradox in and of its self. I'm down with multiple versions of self with time travel, under certain time travel rules.

A few more ramblings about time. Not necessarily answerable, but is the "timestream" a concious entity, or is it just the laws of physics/universe/etc for Nosgoth. "History abhors a paradox". Does this imply conciousness on some level or are we just talking figuratively. Is there any other evidence to imply either?

Vampmaster
10th Nov 2005, 13:03
The theory was that Raziel inherited his corruption when he was made a vampire by Kain. Raziels soul was never spilt in two to make the Soul Reaver. When Raziel entered the Reaver, there were two Soul Reavers; The newly created one and the wraith blade. The wraith blade is the future form of the Soul Reaver that Raziel had just become. So the reason there are two Raziels is that they are from different points in his life. Like the timeline from his perspective has been folded up.



Raz is born ---------------- Raz gets he wraith blade
-------------->------------+

+--------<------------+

+-------->---------------------->


I don't know if that diagram makes any sense or not but the top line is Raziel and the bottom line is the Reaver and the middle time is during time travel. The lines going forward are when there are two versions of Raz at the same time. If it's folded up even further it can get to the way it is in Defiance but it always ends with it being absorbed by Kain. And it's Kains soul that was split into pieces, not Raziels.

TempySmurf
10th Nov 2005, 15:26
The theory was that Raziel inherited his corruption when he was made a vampire by Kain. Raziels soul was never spilt in two to make the Soul Reaver. When Raziel entered the Reaver, there were two Soul Reavers; The newly created one and the wraith blade. The wraith blade is the future form of the Soul Reaver that Raziel had just become. So the reason there are two Raziels is that they are from different points in his life. Like the timeline from his perspective has been folded up.



Raz is born ---------------- Raz gets he wraith blade
-------------->------------+

+--------<------------+

+-------->---------------------->


I don't know if that diagram makes any sense or not but the top line is Raziel and the bottom line is the Reaver and the middle time is during time travel. The lines going forward are when there are two versions of Raz at the same time. If it's folded up even further it can get to the way it is in Defiance but it always ends with it being absorbed by Kain. And it's Kains soul that was split into pieces, not Raziels.



Alright, just to note, I always forget lots of little details for LOK, so I might have known it yesterday, but forget it today. Anyway, my thoughts have always been something like this.

Raziel's created as a vampire by Kain who is tainted by nuprator and so he's slightly crazy himself having part of kain's soul, then he's thrown into the abyss. He comes out as a wraith who devoures souls. He goes to fight Kain and Kain hits him with the Soul Reaver, which breaks. He goes to the spectral realm with the soul reaver attached to him. Which is basically just his "future" self.

He goes back in time and finds the broken soul reaver from WTJ. There's different ways to look at this. I'm just putting this together from memory, so I might be missing details. Either Raziel's soul was still trapped in the broken soul reaver and his touch automagically fused it back together, or there was no longer a soul in the reaver and the future raziel's soul went back into the soul reaver, making it whole again. I'm partial to the later, because if we have a soul still trapped in the blade then we have two instances of future Raziel spectral soul reaver. Making three Raziels. Which brings me to another point. Was Raziel's future self freed when Kain broke WTJ's soul reaver? Either it was trapped in the reaver and life... soul... uh... lifeless, or he was freed. He might have been still trapped in the broken soul reaver if there's no other Raziel there to latch on to. But it does raise a question as to what happens to the soulless sword until Raziel touched it again.

Finally the reaver turns on Raziel and tries to consume all of him. At this point, I'm assuming that the future Raziel is in the soul reaver or at least wrapped around it. However, Kain pulls the sword out at just the right moment, and pulls both souls out of the soul reaver making it the Blood Reaver. Raziel goes back to the spectral realm with his future soul attached to him.

In defiance, Kain takes the Blood Reaver and basically mods it. While Raziel runs around with both his souls absorbing all the pillar guardian's souls until he reaches ariel. She purifies the blade. Since the blade is raziel and raziel and raziel are one. I'm not really sure where the whole corruption part comes into play. He's just been purified. In fact, in his next scene, he has an epiphany, as if enlightened and finally realises his true purpose. Raziel takes Moebius' body and kain attacks him, in which all of raziel is absorbed into the Blood Reaver, which becomes the super soul reaver of enlightenment. Kain is purified, and realises wtf is going on.

Then we go back to BO1, I'm a little rusty here, but from what I can recall, Kain finds the soul reaver in avernus. He goes back in time and kills WTJ with his soul reaver and breaks WTJ's soul reaver into pieces. Kain goes back the the future and uh.. fights himself? But we'll forget that part. We then come to BO2 where Kain has the soul reaver and loses it to the sarafan lord. The sarafan lord has it for a while until kain kills him and takes it back. Which should lead us back to the beginning to Soul Reaver 1.


That's the short version, I know there's a graph or something around here that shows the entire timeline.

Some things I'd like to bring up in regards to the reaver and raziel.

First is WTJ, and his whole Soul Reaver possibility. We don't know how the soul reaver got to where it was in BO1. That leaves Moebius the chance to take that soul reaver from there and perhaps other places, even from the sarafan lord. Give it to WTJ, who breaks it. Raziel makes it whole, and it goes through its cycle. However, it still has to end up back at the beginning where Kain finds in the first place. Presumably Kain places it there or somewhere else and Moebius places it there for kain to find it or any other possible scenerio.

Next, is the soul reaver empty when Raziel touches it in SR2? And if so, is Raziel freed when Kain kills WTJ?

As far as the taint goes for raziel, I'm partial to think that he was purified because he is himself and that's that. But that comes back to kain finding the soul reaver in the first place and why it wasn't super enlightening. This could be answered by having another loop within the corrupted loop and the enlightened reaver is no where in Kain's story until now. Or Kain has more adventures and the reaver goes back to the first kain in a devolved state. Which might explain the corruption of raziel. Perhaps it corrupted the reaver slowly or something happens in the "future".

WraithStar
10th Nov 2005, 16:00
I'm going to try to explain it from my point of view. Things that are merely theories I'll put in grey. Things I remember from the games I'll leave in black.

Around the time of the Ancient/Hylden war, Vorador forges the Blood Reaver. He then turns the sword over to Janos and the other Ancients, who place magical enchantments upon it. This weapon is intended for the Ancients' champion and it feeds on the blood of its enemies. Janos serves as guardian of the blade until he can find the champion and hand the Blood Reaver over.

The Sarafan kill Janos and steal the Blood Reaver. Wraith Raziel kills them with the Blood Reaver and then the Reaver turns on him. The Blood Reaver would have absorbed Raziel's ectoplasm (or whatever you call the blue stuff that he bleeds in Defiance) since Raziel has no blood. After the ectoplasm ran out, the Blood Reaver would have begun to devour Raziel's soul since, as a wraith, that's the source of his energy. This would have resulted in young Raziel becoming trapped in the Reaver, transforming it into the Soul Reaver. Meanwhile, the wraith blade would have been released from Raziel's arm and gone off to parts unknown. Instead of the Blood Reaver devouring Raziel, Kain manages to pull the Reaver out at the exact right moment to save Raziel.

Elder Kain now has the Blood Reaver. He time-travels to the BO1 era and the Blood Reaver absorbs Raziel in this time period instead. It is possible that Raziel was purified along with the wraith blade, but if that is the case, then something must happen to the Soul Reaver to corrupt it before it leaves Elder Kain's hands. In any case, Elder Kain must time travel back to the SR1 era and kill the Elder God (doing so in an earlier time period would result in too much of a change to history). If the Soul Reaver *was* pure, then it becomes corrupted again in the process of destroying EG. Elder Kain returns to the Sarafan era and leaves the Soul Reaver where it would have fallen if it had been allowed to absorb Raziel there.

The Soul Reaver ends up in WTJ's hands, just like before, and breaks when WTJ fights young Kain. The broken Soul Reaver is placed at William's memorial. It must still contain Raziel's soul since if it did not, then how would the soul come back when the blade is repaired? The wraith blade's continued existence proves that there is still a soul in the Reaver despite the changes to the timeline. So, the wraith blade repairs the broken Soul Reaver.

The repaired Soul Reaver is transported to Avernus where young Kain finds it. He goes back in time, fights WTJ, and then returns to the BO1 era. The events of the game unfold. Eventually Kain falls in combat to the Sarafan Lord, who takes possession of the Soul Reaver until Kain defeats him at the end of BO2. Then Kain regains the Soul Reaver.

Kain builds up his empire until we get to the events of SR1. The Soul Reaver is shattered when Kain strikes Raziel with it because it cannot consume a younger version of its own soul. To do so would be to write itself out of existence by causing a fatal paradox. Instead, the future version of Raziel's soul is released from the Reaver and becomes the wraith blade, symbiotically attached to Raziel's arm.

Raziel defeats his brethren and then time travels in pursuit of Elder Kain. Along the way, he finds the broken Soul Reaver and the wraith blade repairs it. Elder Kain saves Raziel from entering the Reaver until the BO1 era. In the meantime, Raziel purifies the wraith blade (and possibly himself, but that is open to interpretation). When Raziel enters the Blood Reaver, the wraith blade enters Elder Kain and cures him of the corruption he received from Nupraptor. This allows Kain to see the Elder God (and also cures the scar from when he was assassinated as a human in BO1). Also, since Raziel consumed the souls of the other five of Kain's sons, presumably when Kain absorbs the wraith blade, Kain's entire soul is restored to him.

sarafan_lord
10th Nov 2005, 16:12
I got the impression, from the dark chronicles, that Kain was corrupted throughout his life and the Soul Reaver at the end of Defiance has the ability of healing him.

RAZIEL:
The Soul Reaver, pure of all corruption... this is what it is for. This is what
I am for.

RAZIEL:
The two become one... both Soul Reavers... together... and the Scion of Balance is healed... And I am not your enemy... not your destroyer... I am, as before, your right hand... your sword.

If the Soul Reaver is originally corrupted by Raziel in SR1, then should it not be pure before that point. And, if it is, should it not be able to cure the younger BO1 Kain, who then should be able to realize his destiny as the Scion of Balance. (Coincidentally there is a possibility for that at the end of BO1, but it is a coincidence)

TempySmurf
10th Nov 2005, 16:23
I'm going to try to explain it from my point of view. Things that are merely theories I'll put in grey. Things I remember from the games I'll leave in black.

Around the time of the Ancient/Hylden war, Vorador forges the Blood Reaver. He then turns the sword over to Janos and the other Ancients, who place magical enchantments upon it. This weapon is intended for the Ancients' champion and it feeds on the blood of its enemies. Janos serves as guardian of the blade until he can find the champion and hand the Blood Reaver over.

The Sarafan kill Janos and steal the Blood Reaver. Wraith Raziel kills them with the Blood Reaver and then the Reaver turns on him. The Blood Reaver would have absorbed Raziel's ectoplasm (or whatever you call the blue stuff that he bleeds in Defiance) since Raziel has no blood. After the ectoplasm ran out, the Blood Reaver would have begun to devour Raziel's soul since, as a wraith, that's the source of his energy. This would have resulted in young Raziel becoming trapped in the Reaver, transforming it into the Soul Reaver. Meanwhile, the wraith blade would have been released from Raziel's arm and gone off to parts unknown. Instead of the Blood Reaver devouring Raziel, Kain manages to pull the Reaver out at the exact right moment to save Raziel.

Elder Kain now has the Blood Reaver. He time-travels to the BO1 era and the Blood Reaver absorbs Raziel in this time period instead. It is possible that Raziel was purified along with the wraith blade, but if that is the case, then something must happen to the Soul Reaver to corrupt it before it leaves Elder Kain's hands. In any case, Elder Kain must time travel back to the SR1 era and kill the Elder God (doing so in an earlier time period would result in too much of a change to history). If the Soul Reaver *was* pure, then it becomes corrupted again in the process of destroying EG. Elder Kain returns to the Sarafan era and leaves the Soul Reaver where it would have fallen if it had been allowed to absorb Raziel there.

The Soul Reaver ends up in WTJ's hands, just like before, and breaks when WTJ fights young Kain. The broken Soul Reaver is placed at William's memorial. It must still contain Raziel's soul since if it did not, then how would the soul come back when the blade is repaired? The wraith blade's continued existence proves that there is still a soul in the Reaver despite the changes to the timeline. So, the wraith blade repairs the broken Soul Reaver.

The repaired Soul Reaver is transported to Avernus where young Kain finds it. He goes back in time, fights WTJ, and then returns to the BO1 era. The events of the game unfold. Eventually Kain falls in combat to the Sarafan Lord, who takes possession of the Soul Reaver until Kain defeats him at the end of BO2. Then Kain regains the Soul Reaver.

Kain builds up his empire until we get to the events of SR1. The Soul Reaver is shattered when Kain strikes Raziel with it because it cannot consume a younger version of its own soul. To do so would be to write itself out of existence by causing a fatal paradox. Instead, the future version of Raziel's soul is released from the Reaver and becomes the wraith blade, symbiotically attached to Raziel's arm.

Raziel defeats his brethren and then time travels in pursuit of Elder Kain. Along the way, he finds the broken Soul Reaver and the wraith blade repairs it. Elder Kain saves Raziel from entering the Reaver until the BO1 era. In the meantime, Raziel purifies the wraith blade (and possibly himself, but that is open to interpretation). When Raziel enters the Blood Reaver, the wraith blade enters Elder Kain and cures him of the corruption he received from Nupraptor. This allows Kain to see the Elder God (and also cures the scar from when he was assassinated as a human in BO1). Also, since Raziel consumed the souls of the other five of Kain's sons, presumably when Kain absorbs the wraith blade, Kain's entire soul is restored to him.


Okay, I'll just take this one point, cause that's the one I'm most interested in. Right beofre Raziel restores the broken WTJ blade, he has himself and his future self attached to his arm. This is his future self, i assume, because when Kain breaks the soul reaver by hitting raziel, he now has the blade (his future soul) attached to his arm. When Raziel touches the blade it restores its self in a fashion, being attached to him. I assume one of two things, either his future self is wrapped around the Wraith Blade (blood reaver, whichever its called) or his future self was absorbed back into the blade. For it to be any other way, there would be three instances of Raziel. A future raziel inside, a future raziel on his arm, and him. That's why I tend to believe it was just the blade and raziel's future soul wrapped around it. When the blade tries to consume Raziel at the end of SR2 and kain pulls it out, its no longer the Soul Reaver, it's just the Wraith Blade (blood reaver). So that would mean that Raziel would have two instances of himself if there was still a version of raziel in the blade while it was broken. Although the dialogue does suggest as much, I just don't see how that would make much sense. Unless, the blade on his arm is not his future self, but just an imprint of the blade imposed by his future self from the blade. Which almost sounds kind of silly.

WraithStar
10th Nov 2005, 16:29
I got the impression, from the dark chronicles, that Kain was corrupted throughout his life and the Soul Reaver at the end of Defiance has the ability of healing him.

RAZIEL:
The Soul Reaver, pure of all corruption... this is what it is for. This is what
I am for.

RAZIEL:
The two become one... both Soul Reavers... together... and the Scion of Balance is healed... And I am not your enemy... not your destroyer... I am, as before, your right hand... your sword.

If the Soul Reaver is originally corrupted by Raziel in SR1, then should it not be pure before that point. And, if it is, should it not be able to cure the younger BO1 Kain, who then should be able to realize his destiny as the Scion of Balance. (Coincidentally there is a possibility for that at the end of BO1, but it is a coincidence)

I'm not sure what you mean exactly. I'll try to give a concise answer, and then a more detailed one. Kain was indeed corrupt his entire life. The wraith blade was purified at the Spirit Forge and then it was absorbed into Kain, healing him of corruption and allowing him to see EG.

Kain was corrupted from birth. Nupraptor's madness affected the entire circle, which included newborn Kain. As for the Soul Reaver, the sword itself is just a physical object. Pure/corrupt refers to Raziel's soul within the blade. Raziel is definitely corrupt up until the end of Defiance since he received a part of Kain's soul and thus inherited Kain's corruption. The question here is whether or not wraith Raziel was purified at the Spirit Forge. If he was, that would make the Soul Reaver pure from its creation. If the Soul Reaver remains pure, that would mean that the wraith blade would already be pure by the time Raziel gets to the Spirit Forge. Therefore, if the Soul Reaver is pure, then something must happen to it to corrupt it again. If the Soul Reaver is not pure at the end of Defiance, then there's no problem. In either case, the wraith blade *is* pure, and that is what heals Kain of his corruption.



Okay, I'll just take this one point, cause that's the one I'm most interested in. Right beofre Raziel restores the broken WTJ blade, he has himself and his future self attached to his arm. This is his future self, i assume, because when Kain breaks the soul reaver by hitting raziel, he now has the blade (his future soul) attached to his arm. When Raziel touches the blade it restores its self in a fashion, being attached to him. I assume one of two things, either his future self is wrapped around the Wraith Blade (blood reaver, whichever its called) or his future self was absorbed back into the blade. For it to be any other way, there would be three instances of Raziel. A future raziel inside, a future raziel on his arm, and him. That's why I tend to believe it was just the blade and raziel's future soul wrapped around it. When the blade tries to consume Raziel at the end of SR2 and kain pulls it out, its no longer the Soul Reaver, it's just the Wraith Blade (blood reaver). So that would mean that Raziel would have two instances of himself if there was still a version of raziel in the blade while it was broken. Although the dialogue does suggest as much, I just don't see how that would make much sense. Unless, the blade on his arm is not his future self, but just an imprint of the blade imposed by his future self from the blade. Which almost sounds kind of silly.

I think I see what it is you are having trouble with. The Blood Reaver is the sword that Janos tries to give to Raziel. It is *not* the Soul Reaver because it doesn't have Raziel's soul inside of it. The Soul Reaver is the Blood Reaver *after* it has absorbed Raziel's soul. The wraith blade is the oldest version of Raziel's soul and it is attached to his arm. In the game, there are two versions of Raziel going everywhere at once--the character and his future soul wrapped around his arm. This is probably what gives Raziel free will since it effectively makes him a walking paradox. When Raziel finds the shattered Soul Reaver in WTJ's tomb, there are three different versions of Raziel's soul in the room from three different time periods. Raziel himself is the youngest. The soul in the Soul Reaver is older than Raziel, and the wraith blade is the oldest of all. According to the LoK rules, people/objects/souls are allowed to meet versions of themselves from different time periods as long as they don't try to destroy a younger version of themselves.

Vampmaster
10th Nov 2005, 17:59
TempySmurf, I already know the stuff you put in your reply. I just simplified it a bit to explain how there can be two Soul Reavers (or two Raziel souls) at the same time. It's like if you go back in time and wait long enough without travelling forward again and assuming you didn't try to prevent it, eventually to would see the earlier version of yourself go back in time because time would have caught up to the point when that happened. But until then, there would appear to be two of you, even though you would remember anything that happens to the earlier version of you. Both of you would be one person, but two points in your life would have overlapped.

Raziel's life is more of a coil than a loop, with different parts of his life overlapping many times. But the coil does have a beginning and an end.


If the Soul Reaver is originally corrupted by Raziel in SR1, then should it not be pure before that point. And, if it is, should it not be able to cure the younger BO1 Kain, who then should be able to realize his destiny as the Scion of Balance. (Coincidentally there is a possibility for that at the end of BO1, but it is a coincidence)

Raziel corrupted the Reaver the moment he entered it in Defiance because he inherited the corruption from Kain.

sarafan_lord
10th Nov 2005, 21:31
The Soul Reaver ends up in WTJ's hands, just like before, and breaks when WTJ fights young Kain. The broken Soul Reaver is placed at William's memorial. It must still contain Raziel's soul since if it did not, then how would the soul come back when the blade is repaired? The wraith blade's continued existence proves that there is still a soul in the Reaver despite the changes to the timeline. So, the wraith blade repairs the broken Soul Reaver.


Kain builds up his empire until we get to the events of SR1. The Soul Reaver is shattered when Kain strikes Raziel with it because it cannot consume a younger version of its own soul. To do so would be to write itself out of existence by causing a fatal paradox. Instead, the future version of Raziel's soul is released from the Reaver and becomes the wraith blade, symbiotically attached to Raziel's arm.


This is probably what gives Raziel free will since it effectively makes him a walking paradox. When Raziel finds the shattered Soul Reaver in WTJ's tomb, there are three different versions of Raziel's soul in the room from three different time periods. Raziel himself is the youngest. The soul in the Soul Reaver is older than Raziel, and the wraith blade is the oldest of all. According to the LoK rules, people/objects/souls are allowed to meet versions of themselves from different time periods as long as they don't try to destroy a younger version of themselves.

Most of what's said actually makes a lot of sense and clarifies the picture quite a bit, although I'm a little confused with all of the time overlaps. But, that is not the issue. Why would the original Blood Reaver (the one that Janos guards), a soul-less object want to , want to have a soul in a first place ? I guess it may be explained by the Blood Reaver's desire to regain its future soul? (I'm not that exiceted about this idea though)

Also, I like the 'walking paradox' quote. Wanted to use it myself, but you beat me to it.

soothsayer
11th Nov 2005, 04:12
I have an idea that solves the whole Raziel getting sucked into the blood reaver problem. Keep in mind this is my theory, so it might be wrong, but thats highly unlikely. :D

The blood reaver is simply a sword enchanted with indestructibility, blood removal and vampire energy to make it a key.
The Force drawing Raziel into the blood reaver was the wraith blade.
Because if Raziel wasn't drawn into the reaver, the wraith blade would no longer exist, so it did so purely out of survival instinct.
So the blood reaver had little to do with it, the soul reaver is born of a cycle created by Raz, which has no beginning and no end.

This is the only way that can explain how that distortion field occurred at the end of SR2.
Because the magical effects of the blood reaver could not create a paradox.
It was the conflict between Raz and his older self, the wraith blade, that did.

Also, it is impossible for the multiple versions of an entity to exist in consistent history, and there really is no need for it since everything can easily be explained by one entity traveling back and forth in time giving the appearance of multiple versions.

Vampmaster
11th Nov 2005, 11:41
I have an idea that solves the whole Raziel getting sucked into the blood reaver problem. Keep in mind this is my theory, so it might be wrong, but thats highly unlikely. :D

The blood reaver is simply a sword enchanted with indestructibility, blood removal and vampire energy to make it a key.
The Force drawing Raziel into the blood reaver was the wraith blade.
Because if Raziel wasn't drawn into the reaver, the wraith blade would no longer exist, so it did so purely out of survival instinct.
So the blood reaver had little to do with it, the soul reaver is born of a cycle created by Raz, which has no beginning and no end.

This is the only way that can explain how that distortion field occurred at the end of SR2.
Because the magical effects of the blood reaver could not create a paradox.
It was the conflict between Raz and his older self, the wraith blade, that did.

Also, it is impossible for the multiple versions of an entity to exist in consistent history, and there really is no need for it since everything can easily be explained by one entity traveling back and forth in time giving the appearance of multiple versions.

The Blood Reaver was designed to devour Raziel. Raz asked Vorador if this was so and he said he didn't know what sorcery Janos and the others put on the sword and that Raz should ask Janos. Then it turns out that Janos misread all the signs and didn't know that Raz was both the Vampire champion (redeemer) and the hylden champion (destroyer). I think the script elaborated on the Janos's misunderstanding. So I would guess Janos and the guardians had intended it to devour the hylden champion, not realising Raziel was both. I mean it wasn't just a blood drinking sword, it was an indestructable key to the pillars and later a means of purifying the souls it consumed.

TempySmurf
11th Nov 2005, 12:09
I think I see what it is you are having trouble with. The Blood Reaver is the sword that Janos tries to give to Raziel. It is *not* the Soul Reaver because it doesn't have Raziel's soul inside of it. The Soul Reaver is the Blood Reaver *after* it has absorbed Raziel's soul. The wraith blade is the oldest version of Raziel's soul and it is attached to his arm. In the game, there are two versions of Raziel going everywhere at once--the character and his future soul wrapped around his arm. This is probably what gives Raziel free will since it effectively makes him a walking paradox. When Raziel finds the shattered Soul Reaver in WTJ's tomb, there are three different versions of Raziel's soul in the room from three different time periods. Raziel himself is the youngest. The soul in the Soul Reaver is older than Raziel, and the wraith blade is the oldest of all. According to the LoK rules, people/objects/souls are allowed to meet versions of themselves from different time periods as long as they don't try to destroy a younger version of themselves.

That's not really trouble, I just forget which blade is called what in what instance. However, I'm still not sure I buy the whole three souls at the same time. It's possible, I'm just wondering where the third soul would come from. I can't recall any evidence of a third split. Not that they couldn't open this up in another game, but then they could also have Raziel freed and come back again. Anyone?



The Blood Reaver was designed to devour Raziel. Raz asked Vorador if this was so and he said he didn't know what sorcery Janos and the others put on the sword and that Raz should ask Janos. Then it turns out that Janos misread all the signs and didn't know that Raz was both the Vampire champion (redeemer) and the hylden champion (destroyer). I think the script elaborated on the Janos's misunderstanding. So I would guess Janos and the guardians had intended it to devour the hylden champion, not realising Raziel was both. I mean it wasn't just a blood drinking sword, it was an indestructable key to the pillars and later a means of purifying the souls it consumed.

Nice.

WraithStar
11th Nov 2005, 16:46
That's not really trouble, I just forget which blade is called what in what instance. However, I'm still not sure I buy the whole three souls at the same time. It's possible, I'm just wondering where the third soul would come from. I can't recall any evidence of a third split. Not that they couldn't open this up in another game, but then they could also have Raziel freed and come back again. Anyone?


Raziel's soul does not split at all. His soul follows one continuous path that involves time travel, so his soul meets earlier versions of itself at certain points in the game.

Vampmaster
11th Nov 2005, 17:57
That's not really trouble, I just forget which blade is called what in what instance. However, I'm still not sure I buy the whole three souls at the same time. It's possible, I'm just wondering where the third soul would come from. I can't recall any evidence of a third split. Not that they couldn't open this up in another game, but then they could also have Raziel freed and come back again. Anyone?

Raziel's soul was never split in two. I already said it was only Kains soul that was when he made his "sons". The only reason there are ever more than one of Raziels soul is because different points in his life are overlapping. Each version of Raziel will eventually be in the position the other is. They become each other as time passes. Raziel in in the past when he enters the Soul Reaver, young Kain gets it in BO1 (it hasn't been revealed how BO1 Kain gets it from Defiance Kain) and then eventually breaks it in SR1. Then his fomer self picks him up and carries him back into the past.
Raziel doesn't take the wraith blade into the Reaver with him because that's the future version of himself which gets released and disperses into Kain in order to purify Kains soul.

TempySmurf
11th Nov 2005, 18:13
Raziel's soul was never split in two. I already said it was only Kains soul that was when he made his "sons". The only reason there are ever more than one of Raziels soul is because different points in his life are overlapping. Each version of Raziel will eventually be in the position the other is. They become each other as time passes. Raziel in in the past when he enters the Soul Reaver, young Kain gets it in BO1 (it hasn't been revealed how BO1 Kain gets it from Defiance Kain) and then eventually breaks it in SR1. Then his fomer self picks him up and carries him back into the past.
Raziel doesn't take the wraith blade into the Reaver with him because that's the future version of himself which gets released and disperses into Kain in order to purify Kains soul.

Sorry, wrong word, I didn't mean it like he was split in half, just that there are different "versions" of himself at one time. I'm just wondering where the third version came from.

soothsayer
11th Nov 2005, 18:50
The Blood Reaver was designed to devour Raziel. Raz asked Vorador if this was so and he said he didn't know what sorcery Janos and the others put on the sword and that Raz should ask Janos. Then it turns out that Janos misread all the signs and didn't know that Raz was both the Vampire champion (redeemer) and the hylden champion (destroyer). I think the script elaborated on the Janos's misunderstanding. So I would guess Janos and the guardians had intended it to devour the hylden champion, not realising Raziel was both. I mean it wasn't just a blood drinking sword, it was an indestructable key to the pillars and later a means of purifying the souls it consumed.

There is no such statement in the game that credits that the blood reaver was designed to imprison Raziel, or the hylden savior, just for Raziel to wield it. Besides, Raziel isn't Vampire or hylden, so how could Janos devise a way to trap a specific entity that he knows nothing about physiologically. Also, you should note that the blood reaver is completely harmless to Raziel while the wraith blade was incapacitated by Moe's staff, it made Raziel a juggernaut. But as soon as the wraith blade came back it released itself from Raziel and forced the blood reaver into him. Also, when Kain impaled Raziel on the reaver, it did not imprison him until Raziel merged the purified wraith blade with Kain.

FearGhoul
11th Nov 2005, 23:06
Sorry, wrong word, I didn't mean it like he was split in half, just that there are different "versions" of himself at one time. I'm just wondering where the third version came from.

I assume you're talking about the times when Raziel is at William's Memorial? So at that point, there are three Raziels. The ghoul one we play as, which eventually becomes trapped in the physical Reaver on the memorial, which eventually becomes the wraith blade on ghoul Raziel's arm. So there are three of him there at that time.

sarafan_lord
12th Nov 2005, 20:56
The Force drawing Raziel into the blood reaver was the wraith blade.
Because if Raziel wasn't drawn into the reaver, the wraith blade would no longer exist, so it did so purely out of survival instinct.

So, at the end of SR2, since Kain saves Raziel from being consumed by the wraith blade of the blood reaver, in order to save itself, the wraith blade jumps ships. But, if the wraith blade is the 'soul' of the blood reaver, does it not become the Soul Reaver? Also, how does it serve as a 'key'?

rabban
12th Nov 2005, 23:08
SL, what about the line.

Raziel V.O.: (a horrible epiphany)
With all other foes exhausted, the conjoined blades turned themselves on me.

it was not as if the blood reaver did not effect him either...as it sucked the material stuff out of him so too did the wraith blade his soul.

sarafan_lord
13th Nov 2005, 03:13
I'm just having a problem of differentiating a Soul Reaver from the Blood Reaver. Is Raziel/wraith blade (I'm assuming that Raziel and the wraith blade are different manifestation of the same entity; the soul of the blood reaver)the fundemental difference between the two? (If that is correct, then would not Raziel's 'creation' in SR1 be a paradoxical event, since he was already in the blade?) So what caused the blood reaver to have a soul, become the Soul Reaver in the first place?

soothsayer
13th Nov 2005, 03:36
2nd and third timeline.
Vorador made a sword. Janos enchanted it, this is now the blood reaver. The wraith blade draws Raziel into the blood reaver, the blood reaver becomes the soul reaver. Raziel breaks the soul reaver and removes the wraith blade. The wraith blade forces Raziel into bloodreaver to create the soul reaver.

in the forth timeline the purified wraith blade merges with Kain before it draws Raziel into the blood reaver.

thinking about this linearly wil only confuse you.
Watch 12 monkeys and bill and ted to get a understanding of consistant history.

rabban
13th Nov 2005, 03:58
I'm just having a problem of differentiating a Soul Reaver from the Blood Reaver. Is Raziel/wraith blade (I'm assuming that Raziel and the wraith blade are different manifestation of the same entity; the soul of the blood reaver)the fundemental difference between the two?

here is the general consensus...

the blood reaver is crafted by vorador before he was a vampire...afterwards the ancient vampires put their mojo on it so that it would be able to drink blood and be a near indestructable weapon. at this point the reaver is the tool to maintain the binding from the point of view of most vampires.

we can only assume the mojo the vampires did to the reaver does not envolve raziel's soul...but rather vampiric spells that connect it to the pillars.

wraith blade=the sword attached to raziel...EG coined the title wraith blade and ...what may add even more confusion is EG calls raziel not only his angel of death...but his soul reaver as well.

Elder God:
From this moment and ever afterward, you and this blade are inextricably bound. Soul Reaver and reaver of souls, your destinies are intertwined.

By destroying the sword, you have liberated it from its corporeal prison, and restored it to its true form - a wraith blade, its energy unbound. No longer a physical blade, it can only manifest itself in the material realm when your strength is fully restored. Once manifest, it will sustain you.

once raziel (the wraith blade) was sucked into the reaver his form was made in the reaver's image. the swords being merged together in a awsome weapon (the soul reaver) able to suck blood and souls from enemies. the title blood reaver originates from fans and i think it was adopted by CD. it was originally labeled the physical blade or simply the reaver by janos.

Smoke_Z
13th Nov 2005, 15:39
What's with Raziel and getting weapons fused to him?

Janos was able to handle the physical Reaver without any problems, and Dumah carried it for quite a distance. I assume that WTJ could also set down the Reaver, and it certainly didn't bond to Kain.

Having the wraith blade constantly out while trying to do block puzzles was disconcerting enough. Imagine having to live with the physical blade attached to your arm. Either that wasn't supposed to happen, or Raziel was supposed to go directly off to fight the Hylden and die in the process.

(I know my question doesn't exactly fit in-topic, but I think the answers will.)

TempySmurf
13th Nov 2005, 17:07
There is no such statement in the game that credits that the blood reaver was designed to imprison Raziel, or the hylden savior, just for Raziel to wield it. Besides, Raziel isn't Vampire or hylden, so how could Janos devise a way to trap a specific entity that he knows nothing about physiologically. Also, you should note that the blood reaver is completely harmless to Raziel while the wraith blade was incapacitated by Moe's staff, it made Raziel a juggernaut. But as soon as the wraith blade came back it released itself from Raziel and forced the blood reaver into him. Also, when Kain impaled Raziel on the reaver, it did not imprison him until Raziel merged the purified wraith blade with Kain.

It would appear that Janos did something to the blade which had the side effect of consuming raziel's soul.

I'm rusty here, but didn't mob's staff have an effect on the wraith blade, that effected Raziel when it was attached to him. Once it was no longer attached, it did not effect Raziel, just the blade. Which would imply that Raziel's wraith blade soul was still vampiric or had some vampiric quality to it just like the heart of darkness was vampiric in nature, but Kain himself wasn't. If Raziel wasn't effected by the staff, why was his future self? Does this also imply that Kain himself was never a vampire?

sarafan_lord
13th Nov 2005, 18:50
The wraith blade draws Raziel into the blood reaver, the blood reaver becomes the soul reaver. Raziel breaks the soul reaver and removes the wraith blade. The wraith blade forces Raziel into bloodreaver to create the soul reaver.



wraith blade=the sword attached to raziel...EG coined the title wraith blade and ...what may add even more confusion is EG calls raziel not only his angel of death...but his soul reaver as well.

So which one is it?

WraithStar
13th Nov 2005, 19:46
Blood Reaver=the physical sword Janos guarded, it has vampiric enchantments

Soul Reaver=the physical sword after it has absorbed Raziel's soul

Wraith Blade=the energy blade that attached itself to Raziel after the Soul Reaver shattered

The Blood Reaver tries to absorb Raziel's blood and ends up absorbing his soul instead to become the Soul Reaver. The Soul Reaver eventually shatters in SR1, releasing the wraith blade, which bonds to Raziel.

Raziel himself is a wraith. Then his soul gets absorbed into the Reaver, transforming it into the Soul Reaver. Raziel spends thousands of years inside of the Soul Reaver until it is shattered, releasing his soul in the form of the wraith blade. Raziel's soul then spends several hundred years as the wraith blade attached to his younger self's arm. Finally, the wraith blade is dispersed into Kain and Raziel's soul merges with Kain's.


It would appear that Janos did something to the blade which had the side effect of consuming raziel's soul.

I'm rusty here, but didn't mob's staff have an effect on the wraith blade, that effected Raziel when it was attached to him. Once it was no longer attached, it did not effect Raziel, just the blade. Which would imply that Raziel's wraith blade soul was still vampiric or had some vampiric quality to it just like the heart of darkness was vampiric in nature, but Kain himself wasn't. If Raziel wasn't effected by the staff, why was his future self? Does this also imply that Kain himself was never a vampire?

It's my theory that Moebius' staff only affects blood-based vampires who received the dark gift from the Ancients. Kain was a necromantic vampire who was raised by Mortanius' powers, so he is different from the normal vampires. That's why the staff didn't affect him once he no longer had an Ancient's heart. As for Raziel, I think that the staff didn't affect Raziel since he had nothing at all to do with being a normal vampire. The wraith blade, however, had spent over a thousand years within a vampiric blade, immersed in vampiric spells and energy, so that's probably why it was vulnerable to Moebius' staff.

rabban
13th Nov 2005, 20:45
So which one is it?

i don't see your conusion SL?

soothsayer
13th Nov 2005, 23:58
It would appear that Janos did something to the blade which had the side effect of consuming raziel's soul.

The Blood Reaver tries to absorb Raziel's blood and ends up absorbing his soul instead to become the Soul Reaver.

nope.

The Reaver was never forged to be a soul-stealing weapon...

It was the wraith blade's powers that was responsible for drawing Raziel in, but the blades can only trap Raziel when they work together.


Janos was able to handle the physical Reaver without any problems, and Dumah carried it for quite a distance. I assume that WTJ could also set down the Reaver, and it certainly didn't bond to Kain.

They were weilding the soul reaver and the blood reaver, it is only the wraith blade that requires a host.


Having the wraith blade constantly out while trying to do block puzzles was disconcerting enough.

Why, it's an ethereal weapon, it should be able to pass through solid objects, thats why it couldn't harm EG.


Either that wasn't supposed to happen, or Raziel was supposed to go directly off to fight the Hylden and die in the process.

explain.


i don't see your conusion SL?

Me neither.

Smoke_Z
14th Nov 2005, 03:11
Why, it's an ethereal weapon, it should be able to pass through solid objects, thats why it couldn't harm EG.



explain.





I dunno, it's going through things, and that creeps me out.

In SR2, if you drop the controller, Raziel almost immediately goes into his boredom cycle. I suppose that Raziel can strike himself with the wraith blade without causing himself discomfort. * However, imagine that Raziel goes to crack his kneck while holding the Reaver. I imagine that there'd be a rather impressive clang.

I actually had the disc in the machine, and the last possible save game on my card. Raziel doesn't have a boredom cycle for when he's armed, as far as I can tell. (That includes the wraith blade and being in the spectral realm.) I've been staring at him for the entire time I've been typing this post. Poor Raziel, just standing there not scratching while his dandruff just keeps getting more annoying.

* Tangent: Going with the whole "it's etherial" thing. New age flake explanations on why I'm willing to roll with it even though it bugs me.

I'm also bugged when Raziel is doing his lines and gesturing while in the spectral realm.

Edit: By the way, this little experiment has shown me that I've brought the wrong kettle of fish to the party. It's Raziel's hand that won't let go of the Reaver, not the Reaver somehow holding on to him. Now I'm really confused.

sarafan_lord
14th Nov 2005, 03:57
My mistake. I though you were giving different definitions for the wraith blade. I just don't see why the Blood Reaver has the wraith blade inside it. (i'm assuming that it is the soul of the Blood Reaver; how did it get it?)

If the purpose of the wraith blade to draw Raziel inside the Blood Reaver creating the Soul Reaver, then is it safe to say that either the Blood Reaver or Raziel (wraith Raziel) were created in order for a paradox to occur? (The presence of both in SR1 era makes the paradox a possiblility.)

If the Soul Reaver was destroyed in SR1 that means that Raziel is already inside. Is Raziel a part of the wraith blade that was liberated, or are Raziel and the wraith blade one and the same? (I'm not sure if either case makes a difference right now, but I just want to be correct in the future)

soothsayer
14th Nov 2005, 04:16
If the Soul Reaver was destroyed in SR1 that means that Raziel is already inside. Is Raziel a part of the wraith blade that was liberated, or are Raziel and the wraith blade one and the same? (I'm not sure if either case makes a difference right now, but I just want to be correct in the future)

The wraith blade is essentialy raziel, though he has been reformed into that shape, and the magics of the blood reaver are infused into it's essence, which is why Moes staff can affect it, and not regular Raziel.


if the purpose of the wraith blade to draw Raziel inside the Blood Reaver creating the Soul Reaver, then is it safe to say that either the Blood Reaver or Raziel (wraith Raziel) were created in order for a paradox to occur? (The presence of both in SR1 era makes the paradox a possiblility.)

I think the whole thing is a scheme of fate. Raziel is simply too dangerous to wander around as he is. So fate concocted a plan to make it so that no matter what, Raziel would have to become the soul reaver. Raziel would then break the soul reaver, and the wraith blade would turn raziel into the soul reaver, which he will eventually break. it's all done to limit the capacity of beings to alter the timesteam.

rabban
14th Nov 2005, 13:59
i don't see your confusion either sarafan lord :D


(i'm assuming that it is the soul of the Blood Reaver; how did it get it?)

play lokd again :p


If the Soul Reaver was destroyed in SR1 that means that Raziel is already inside.

Raziel:
...This is why the blade was destroyed when Kain tried to strike me down - the Reaver could not devour its own soul. The paradox shattered the blade.

remember raziel refers to the wraithblade and blood reaver as twins i don't think the blood reaver is in anyway a entity...but it could be lol.

Vampmaster
14th Nov 2005, 15:23
Maybe it's like when Raziel compares himself to the Archons and Squiddys other pets. Didn't he mention something about needing to break his bonds to the EG while he still retained his own will? Well perhaps after all his time in the blade, he did lose his free will and became concerened only with feeding himself. I suppose that's what's been said all along, which would mean that the Spirit Forge had restored the free will of the wraith blade.

soothsayer
14th Nov 2005, 21:11
Didn't he mention something about needing to break his bonds to the EG while he still retained his own will? Well perhaps after all his time in the blade, he did lose his free will and became concerened only with feeding himself. I suppose that's what's been said all along, which would mean that the Spirit Forge had restored the free will of the wraith blade.

Naw, the spirit forge did not give the wraith blade any new free will.
I mean it behaved the way it did before, just more damaging, then it was absorbed into Kain.
The wraith blade had they same free will as Raziel and the soul reaver, since it can defy fate.
You can either have free will or you don't, theres no inbetween.

Though this conection to the elder god may have changed in the wraith blade when it was purified. I mean instead of eating Kains soul, it allowed Kain's soul to eat it. Maybe it even causes Kain to feed off the elder god's strength. who knows?

rabban
14th Nov 2005, 21:55
as far as i can tell Vampmaster the wraith blade was imprisoned in the blood reaver yet it/raziel's ability to have free will was still in some way there because the event involving wtj did not involve raziel as a freed spirit yet caused a alteration in the timestream...but yes raziel by that time is pretty much a dumb archon IMO.

sarafan_lord
15th Nov 2005, 22:01
play lokd again :p


I think it the Blood Reaver gets the wraith blade at the end of Defiance, when Raziel sacrifices himself to enlighted Kain. But, why would the Blood Reaver consume it's soul, as it does not know that the wraithblade or Raziel is its soul. (why does the Blood Reaver want to become the Soul Reaver in the original timeline? I think the original timeline goes something like this: Vorador makes the Blood Reaver; Janos puts enchantment on it; somehow it becomes the Soul Reaver, without the existance of Raziel (note, I think that the events of Defiance do not occur in the original timeline))

rabban
16th Nov 2005, 04:03
I think it the Blood Reaver gets the wraith blade at the end of Defiance, when Raziel sacrifices himself to enlighted Kain. But, why would the Blood Reaver consume it's soul,

you got it backwards...raziel went into the physical blade but the wraith blade went into kain.


why does the Blood Reaver want to become the Soul Reaver in the original timeline

it was made too...again the blood reaver imo is not a entity at all.
the blood reaver is a vessel but i assume you refer to the time when the physical blade was restored...at that time it was a soul reaver that had a soul in it. in sr2 it probably did that because it was hungry..."with all other foes exhausted" the joined reavers turned on raziel.

soothsayer
16th Nov 2005, 05:07
It's all in the wraith blade.

In the forth timeline, the wraith blade is drawn into Kain who is holding the reaver, and causes Raziel to be drawn in.

In the 3rd and 2nd timeline, the wraith blade weilds the blood reaver of it's oun acord as soon as it got a good enough distance from Moe's staff, and causes Raziel to be drawn in.

In the first, whos to say, but this wraith blade drawing in wraith humanoid cycle would likely still be in effect.

sarafan_lord
17th Nov 2005, 15:38
you got it backwards...raziel went into the physical blade but the wraith blade went into kain.

Thanks for clarifying.



In the first, whos to say, but this wraith blade drawing in wraith humanoid cycle would likely still be in effect.

But, this is the original timeline that I was referring to.

WraithStar
17th Nov 2005, 15:43
As near as I can figure, we've never seen the original timeline (if it even exists). Even in BO1, before Kain killed WTJ or changed time in any way, the Soul Reaver existed. That means that Raziel had already traveled back in time and gotten devoured by the Blood Reaver. I think that something happened to cause the timeline to change (it's not possible to know what). This change caused Raziel and the Soul Reaver to be both edited into history at once, so they both came into existence in the same timeline. I don't think there was a timeline which had wraith Raziel in it but not the Soul Reaver.