: ....or two pence I suppose seeing as I'm English.
: Anyhow, I see no problem with accepting Creation's
: addition to the story. OK, so there is no evidence to
: support it but then there is no evidence to contradict
: it either. Provided it seems convincing, why not run
: with it? OK, I could put forward the idea that Maeldun
: always wore pink into battle and had a magic rabbit
: for a companion, but let's face it that's just so
: plain silly and unbelievable (though I for one have
: got quite an image going through my mind - hordes of
: thrall being cut down by the rabbit's magic carrot
: attack) that it doesn't warrant any consideration at
: all. Creation's Leix theory makes sense and sounds
: believable. OK, so it's not the gospel according to
: Bungie but let's face it why don't we just accept it
: and move on? We will probably never hear the gospel
: according to Bungie (or Take Two, who, if they do
: bother to do MythIII, will probably set it sometime in
: the future when Alric, by necessity, has gone mad and
: turned to the dark) so I reckon whoever comes up with
: the first, most plausible and generally approved
: theory/story, it should be allowed to stand. Instead
: of the Asylum becoming redundant, on the contrary, it
: would become the centre for advancing the Myth story.
The problem here is that theories get overturned. There have been very popular theories in the past (for instance, on the nature of the Myrkridia) that became much less popular in the light of new evidence, or simply under a new style of reexamination. Facts, on the other hand--like flavor and narration texts--are true a priori and will never be contradicted (provided the game company checks its stories right). Again, I have no problem with anyone's believing a particular theory, or proposing further theories which assume that theory as true (provided this assumption is explicitly made), or building scenarios around this theory. It's calling this theory a Fact which bothers me.
: Another, somewhat related point. We seemed to have
: accepted GURPS without question, but why? OK, the idea
: was licensed to Steve Jackson Games by Bungie, but the
: story was not written by a Bungie employee (to my
: knowledge) but by an independent author. How then does
: this differ from Creation? Accepted that Bungie would
: have read thorough what was written for GURPS and
: approved it, but I'm guessing they would have been
: happy to have endorsed Creation had they been asked.
: Let's face it, they have moved onto other things - if
: us amateurs are happy to continue writing Myth
: history, why should they bother to carry on writing it
: and contradicting any theories we put forward?
GURPS was edited, illustrated, and playtested by Bungie employees (in an official capacity), sold by Bungie itself, and the information it contains was approved by Bungie on their website. Bungie has never endorsed the story of *any* 3rd-party scenario--except Chimera, which was half 3rd-party and half Bungie-made. And I fully accept the info in Chimera as fact, because of this endorsement. But I don't think we should ever assume that Bungie would endorse a given scenario unless they actually do so. Bungie cares very deeply about the storylines of their games, and I don't think they'd appreciate us confusing what they've written with what we have.
: Just a few of my (slightly drunk) thoughts. SiliconDream,
: Drunken Ghol, I pass the baton back to you....
**fumbles it and accidentally impales his eyeball**
--SiliconAAARGH!
