Talk:Astarion/Romance

Latest edits

What was the need to pool all the descriptions into one heap back as it was before?? The article was meant to be structured. There's no need to write how many bites A. does to turn Tav into a spawn, but it's much more important to show how he really treats them. If wanted to make it 'more neutral', please just delete only **adjectives** one doesn't like Arikel (talk)

If anyone wants to make a mess of another's work, use <!- --> comments tags on what they do not like and discuss it here. Prove your point instead of one-click spoiling other's long hours of painstaking work 17:46, 17 July 2024 (CEST)

The wiki isn't intended to be your personal diary.

You are editing this to have a TON of information with language that is personal to you. A wiki is intended to be neutral. Player dialogue options are a choice. Your personal feelings are not relevant to the information that goes onto a wiki page.

How you feel as though your character is treated by the companion is PERSONAL to YOU. That is not what a wiki is for. That is what your therapist is for. LoreBard (talk) 22:11, 17 July 2024 (CEST)

That's all not about how I (or anyone else) feel(s) about what's happening within the game.

The point is that in-game decisions are made by the player. Saying that some of them are good or bad IS personal, indeed. BUT the ways one in-game character treat another in-game character AFTER the player's done their choice are defined by the gamecode and are the same no matter who is tapping the buttons, therefore, they are NOT personal and definitely worth describing.

As it goes, providing the player with maximum info about all possible outcomes, which in the same circumstances would be the same regardless of who is playing (and writing about) is the very point of creating an encyclopaedia. Small details of characters' behaviour are crucial to mention, too, because they help to describe thoroughly the image of a certain companion. Making it all structured and providing proofs like quotes, screenshots, etc. is a demand of wiki style editing.

On the contrary, clogging the text with unnecessary details that impact nothing in the gameplay and cannot change further player's decisions (like telling the precise amount of bites or inserting links to FRwiki article stub which was derived from this very wiki) makes the article messy, same as deleting the article structure only to make it "compact". Shakespeare's 'brevity is the soul of wit' cannot be applied to the detriment of readers.

A responsible author should refer to other long-read articles (not only those they contribute to) as an example if they doubt the necessity of extra detailing, especially if certain part of an article seems to be their one and only contribution to a giant and complex wiki, or create a personal Sandbox page.

Summarising, trying to evade any evaluative and conjecture statements is not the reason to delete 'TONS' of useful (fact-checked and verified by different sources) info and ruin the consistent article, returning it to the state of a stub it once had been

If you do not agree with any statement within the article, please do honours to correct the language and typos, pick better words to tell it down, but do not delete on a whim a whole passages of verified facts that persist in the game plot regardless of anyone's opinion on them. Arikel (talk) 06:15, 18 July 2024 (CEST)

Just came across this page.

You say in your comment that it is "verified facts that persist in the game plot regardless of opinion"

Can you show me the verified facts to match this

"Successful check will reveal that as Ascendant, he considers even his beloved one belonging to the lower order of creatures and shall ever treat them accordingly"

Are there any other dialogue options than this?

"He will also express his newfound feeling of all-permissiveness, especially if the player rejected his offer to become a spawn" I am also not clear on what "all-permissiveness" means in this context. Permissiveness meaning freedom of behaviour.

It is also clear from the language choices you make when describing the options what your preferred route is in the game. In your description of the epilogue you state "If the player sucks up to him". Do you not consider the player to be sucking up to Unascended Astarion too? Would more neutral language for the players choices not be more suitable here? Or are you saying any player who is on board with Ascended Astarion is "sucking up to him"

With regard to the epilogue text, you may want to clarify that the player has also been assiduously spinning the web of political power if that is what they choose in the pre-party bedroom scene.

And that Ascended Astarion expresses to the player that "We do turn every head in the room when we enter, and rightly so" and that "Together we are unstoppable, so heavens help the fool that comes against us"

You state that Ascended Astarion "will express ultimate arrogance and sense of superiority over all former companions, player character included."

Can you provide the dialogue option for this, specifically the last part of the sentence. Telchin (talk) 22:05, 18 July 2024 (CEST)