Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Publius Valerius]

I thought Falcon meant it should/would be the final word? Has something changed? By the way has some wrote CCP/YARR about our critique? If yes, what was the answer? That the conflicting parts are not canon? Or under view? Or no change at all?

Would be great to have a final answer to the final answer.   Just joking  , I think the Source book can be in many things be the final answer or "a" answer... See Ammatar Governor question. For some things I see a problem and I will leave it by it (which i already mention, and some more about the science).

__________
Off topic. Sorry If I intercept the topic for a sec. I have wrote some stuff, but I will make a break and/or leave; and no you cant have my stuff  (maybe in few years Im back  ). As for the wiki, you can add everything you like or see (I havent log any of my pages), as well as you people can finish those pages: Khanid Cyber Knights, GotKK, The Dragoon.

[Lyn Farel]

If real history books get it wrong and contradict each other ?

Happens all the time Lyn.  History is shaded by the preconceptions and biases of the authors, as well as access or lack of access to all pertinent information. I've said before that Luna is viewing the Source Amarr section as being written by an ivory tower gallente academic.

American history has quite a few examples of competing interpretations/views.

It was more of a question for clarification actually.

Most of History is written and done in the eye of its contemporaries, sometimes conflicting, and subject to various interpretations even nowadays. However, most of historical facts are quite factual these days. We have enough material to safely assume a good chunk of the truth, and everything that is objectively stated happened, except for the only part of History that is still shrouded in mystery even today, which is precolumbian history due to a sheer lack of sources.

What can change is historians's own interpretation subjective judgement based on historical established facts.  And that's precisely what is written here in Source. In most comprehensive historical reports you will often find several points of views and counter views revolving around several interpretation of a single historical fact, and all will be stated, even in summarized amateur reports like wikipedia where you can find most of the time a clear exposition of criticisms. In Source, this does not seem to be the case, unlike it was in the eve wiki at times.

Thus why it is a shame to see that source canon > eve wiki, which should be the contrary actually. I will often put more credit on a comprehensive article than on a showcase book with pretty pictures to sell the universe to aficionados.

Your IC view on the matter is the correct course of action of course, but from experience, it will most of the time be met by OOC refusal to acknowledge it for that is does not follow the true, unilateral Canon.

[Katrina Oniseki]

If real history books get it wrong and contradict each other ?

Yes, that is exactly to what I was referring to. They get it wrong and contradict too, so why can't a fictional history book?

All that being said, I don't think it's a problem. I'm sure somebody out there can make a mountain out of a molehill because I ignore certain PF or interpret it for my own ends. Oh well. It's just a game.

[Vieve]

The question is: what do you like about Source? The description of the State and the Federation seem to be differntiated and not clash with prior PF from what I hear and saw (though I'm no expert there). So, I can imagine that those parts are satisfying.

I read the Federation section twice, then stared it for a little while.   Mess though it is in places, I can fit everything I've done into it without too much trouble.

I'm not sure that's a good thing. 

[Elmund Egivand]

The question is: what do you like about Source? The description of the State and the Federation seem to be differntiated and not clash with prior PF from what I hear and saw (though I'm no expert there). So, I can imagine that those parts are satisfying.

Gallente and Caldari are the best parts of Source simply because they present both shades of their societies.

Amarr and Minmatar segments are, however, very weak. Amarr's a bit too one-sided, all about the power struggles, politicking and intrigue (and slavery. So much slavery) and nothing about their charitable sides and how the Amarr are just as likely to move into a system en-masse to drop much needed aid packages as they are to invade and enslave the populace.

Minmatar is even worse. There's too little about life in the Republic and too much about Slavery. Slaves, oh so many slaves. It's like the only defining feature of the Minmatar are their identity crisis and Slavery. Hardly anything about their culture. At least the Amarr has got sections dedicated to Amarrian culture.

[Gwen Ikiryo]

Since I'm sort of half-considering playing the game again for a while, I should ask, does the book say anything about Achura?

[Elmund Egivand]

Since I'm sort of half-considering playing the game again for a while, I should ask, does the book say anything about Achura?

Lumped together with everyone else under the Caldari section. They do not really go much into the details of the bloodlines unfortunately.

[Gwen Ikiryo]

Lumped together with everyone else under the Caldari section. They do not really go much into the details of the bloodlines unfortunately.

Lame!

[orange]

Gallente and Caldari are the best parts of Source simply because they present both shades of their societies.

Amarr and Minmatar segments are, however, very weak. Amarr's a bit too one-sided, all about the power struggles, politicking and intrigue (and slavery. So much slavery) and nothing about their charitable sides and how the Amarr are just as likely to move into a system en-masse to drop much needed aid packages as they are to invade and enslave the populace.

Minmatar is even worse. There's too little about life in the Republic and too much about Slavery. Slaves, oh so many slaves. It's like the only defining feature of the Minmatar are their identity crisis and Slavery. Hardly anything about their culture. At least the Amarr has got sections dedicated to Amarrian culture.

So, modern Nordic authors had trouble creating detailed shades for civilizations/cultures largely distinct from their own.  Not surprised at all.

[Louella Dougans]

I'd find the thing that shows that Amarr racial intolerance isn't an integral part of the culture, and that intermarriage between bloodlines is common enough, but... it's ingame stuff.

And CCP says that Source > anything you can encounter ingame.

so why even bother.

[Lyn Farel]

By definition Amarr can't be racially intolerant if they follow the Reclaiming principles. Supremacists, yeah, though.

[Horatius Caul]

The letters of Bishop Dalamaid have been the subject of volumes of intellectual discourse. The primary contention of the letters, that true saintly martyrdom is an impossibility for anyone even aware of the concept of sainthood, has gone through various levels of favor over the generations.

How does that fit with a literalist, unchanging interpretation of the Scriptures ?

I don't think that's a view that exists. The Scriptures have always been in flux, and they are constantly being reinterpreted. They are so voluminous that no-one can ever have encyclopedic knowledge of them, and thus no-one can obey them in their entirety. Every new Emperor, every new High Deacon, and every new scientific discovery will change the orthodox intepretation.

[Louella Dougans]

By definition Amarr can't be racially intolerant if they follow the Reclaiming principles. Supremacists, yeah, though.

when eve source says blah blah tainted souls of non-amarr, and that this is an important part of the religion, then explain why a True Amarr woman would marry and have children with an AMMATAR admiral. Not a Udorian, or Khanid, who were at least from Athra, but an actual Ammatar, descended from a planet of slaves.

but of course, that Ammatar admiral is an ingame npc, and thus, is non-canon.

:giant psyccp emoticon made of smaller psyccp emoticons:

[Lyn Farel]

Well I wasn't really arguing against your point... I just feel that the way they presented it in eve source, the Amarr do not seem to reconcile very well with the concept of Reclaiming on several things.

Unless they are actually trying to imply that the whole Amarr doctrine is actually an incoherent hypocrisy in itself. Which is possible.

[Nicoletta Mithra]

If real history books get it wrong and contradict each other ?

Yes, that is exactly to what I was referring to. They get it wrong and contradict too, so why can't a fictional history book?

All that being said, I don't think it's a problem. I'm sure somebody out there can make a mountain out of a molehill because I ignore certain PF or interpret it for my own ends. Oh well. It's just a game.

Well, then the problem I have is rather those people that cry "U r doin it rong!" than the book. Then again, those people that take EVE: Source to be the non plus ultra in deciding canonicity are backed up fiercly by CCP there. So again, not so much a problem with the book in itself (aside the usual failings of EVE lore) but with how CCP advertises it as the ultimate answer to everything (despite internal inconsitencies).

As to the Gallente/Caldari portrayal in EVE: Source. I really just skimmed over it (and as I said am no expert for the background there anyway), so I didn't notice any contradictions there, but I have no problem to adjust my prior misconceptions there.

As to the Amarr having at least something in regard to their culture being better off than the Matari: I'd rather have preffered to not get what they wrote on Amarr culture there.

The letters of Bishop Dalamaid have been the subject of volumes of intellectual discourse. The primary contention of the letters, that true saintly martyrdom is an impossibility for anyone even aware of the concept of sainthood, has gone through various levels of favor over the generations.

How does that fit with a literalist, unchanging interpretation of the Scriptures ?

I don't think that's a view that exists. The Scriptures have always been in flux, and they are constantly being reinterpreted. They are so voluminous that no-one can ever have encyclopedic knowledge of them, and thus no-one can obey them in their entirety. Every new Emperor, every new High Deacon, and every new scientific discovery will change the orthodox intepretation.

"Indeed, it appears the general feeling is that any attempt to do so [to rephrase scriptural truth in different words] would be not only useless but also rather unseemly - perhaps even sacrilegous." - EVE Source

So, according to this, the TC/Emperor might add or take away from the Scripture, there is no interpretation possible if you can't rephrase the truth in Scripture by other words than those Scripture uses. So, according to EVE Source Amarr would have to go by a) a literal interpretation or b) by the idea that any interpretation that is non-literal can't be expressed. Of course that conflicts with prior PF on the nature of the Amarr Scriptures, but EVE: Source is supposed to overrule previous PF...