Inconsistency with griffons?

For writers working on documentation, story prose, announcements, and all kinds of Wesnoth text.

Moderators: Forum Moderators, Developers

User avatar
chaoticwanderer
Posts: 109
Joined: August 25th, 2008, 9:41 pm

Inconsistency with griffons?

Post by chaoticwanderer » July 3rd, 2010, 10:41 pm

I recently started playing the sceptre of fire; the campaign itself is fun, but there appears to be a problem with the character of Krawg, the griffon. He appears to be a fully sapient creature and is treated like one; didn't Dave himself say that griffons were supposed to be more comparable to animals like dolphins or apes when it came their intelligence, as opposed to humans (or Wesnoth's other races)?

If griffons are sentient creatures, it can raise a few problems in Wesnoth canon, e.g. Konrad killing griffons to steal their eggs. How is this going to be adressed?
The RNG helps those who help themselves.

User avatar
A-Red
Art Contributor
Posts: 495
Joined: May 6th, 2009, 1:21 am

Re: Inconsistency with griffons?

Post by A-Red » July 4th, 2010, 6:02 am

chaoticwanderer wrote: If griffons are sentient creatures, it can raise a few problems in Wesnoth canon, e.g. Konrad killing griffons to steal their eggs. How is this going to be adressed?
It's worth noting that Konrad kills a lot of other sentient beings too. But overall, I think you're right--Krawg is inconsistent.

User avatar
Araja
Posts: 718
Joined: May 28th, 2009, 9:56 am
Location: Bath, England

Re: Inconsistency with griffons?

Post by Araja » July 4th, 2010, 7:00 am

chaoticwanderer wrote:He appears to be a fully sapient creature
Does he develop things? :P

User avatar
Midnight_Carnival
Posts: 836
Joined: September 6th, 2008, 11:08 am
Location: On the beach at sunset, gathering coral

Re: Inconsistency with griffons?

Post by Midnight_Carnival » July 4th, 2010, 10:56 am

Last time I checked, the campign had all these big warnings attached telling people that it was not part of the whole official Wesnoth thing, but just for fun, or something to that effect.

Other than that, we are dealing with fantasy here. Talking foxes, horses, lions and other creatures are quite common. I don't remember anything in the campign which explicitly stated that Krawg's ability to talk was common to other Gryphons, it may be that he was exceptional in some way. Adding one of the Dwarves commenting "A talking Gryphon!" or "By the mountains, what was in that ale, methought I heard that Gryphon speak!" would entirely remove the aledged inconsistency.

I found the campaign fun to play, but the Grypon highly annoying. As for Konrad killing things, hey, give the guy a break, he had a tough childhood!
...apparenly we can't go with it or something.

User avatar
Icarusvogel
Posts: 177
Joined: March 16th, 2010, 1:55 pm

Re: Inconsistency with griffons?

Post by Icarusvogel » July 4th, 2010, 12:14 pm

A-Red wrote:
chaoticwanderer wrote: If griffons are sentient creatures, it can raise a few problems in Wesnoth canon, e.g. Konrad killing griffons to steal their eggs. How is this going to be adressed?
It's worth noting that Konrad kills a lot of other sentient beings too. But overall, I think you're right--Krawg is inconsistent.
Also, there is actually no difference in the ethical faults in killing gryphons to get their eggs, even if they were no "sentient beings".
You are a Necromancer - Intelligent and powerful, yet reclusive and misunderstood, you dabble in dark arts that everyone else can only dream of.

User avatar
Araja
Posts: 718
Joined: May 28th, 2009, 9:56 am
Location: Bath, England

Re: Inconsistency with griffons?

Post by Araja » July 4th, 2010, 2:14 pm

I'm not so sure about that. As far as I know, killing a sentient creature is considered worse ethically.
If you have to kill a random deer or a random human, which one do you pick?

While I'm close to the topic, how come I don't remember this Gryphon? Is he in one of the branch-off maps?

User avatar
boru
Posts: 788
Joined: November 19th, 2009, 11:02 pm

Re: Inconsistency with griffons?

Post by boru » July 4th, 2010, 4:04 pm

Krawg wrote:"Kwill yooo spakkk wit uuus?!?"
I think there ought to be at least one ground rule on talking animals: if an animal must talk, his words ought to be comprehensible. If the author has a sudden need to make the knight's horse talk, let him at least speak in plain english, not tap out important plot details in morse code with his hoofs. I hope we can at least agree to that.

As for killing gryphons, Konrad killed lots of sentient creatures in 20 someodd scenarios so I don't see the inconsistency there.
“It is written in my life-blood, such as that is, thick or thin; and I can no other.” - J.R.R. Tolkien

My campaign: Swamplings - Four centuries before the founding of Wesnoth, the first wolf rider emerges from a tribe of lowly swamp goblins.

User avatar
Icarusvogel
Posts: 177
Joined: March 16th, 2010, 1:55 pm

Re: Inconsistency with griffons?

Post by Icarusvogel » July 4th, 2010, 7:07 pm

Araja wrote:I'm not so sure about that. As far as I know, killing a sentient creature is considered worse ethically.
If you have to kill a random deer or a random human, which one do you pick?

While I'm close to the topic, how come I don't remember this Gryphon? Is he in one of the branch-off maps?
1) Honestly, I wouldn't care.
2) No, he isn't. If I remember right, he comes in in that map where you have to get that runesmith out of his hut. Remember, the one who didn't like griffins. :P
You are a Necromancer - Intelligent and powerful, yet reclusive and misunderstood, you dabble in dark arts that everyone else can only dream of.

User avatar
Dixie
Posts: 1756
Joined: February 10th, 2010, 1:06 am
Location: $x1,$y1

Re: Inconsistency with griffons?

Post by Dixie » July 4th, 2010, 10:11 pm

boru wrote:
Krawg wrote:"Kwill yooo spakkk wit uuus?!?"
I think there ought to be at least one ground rule on talking animals: if an animal must talk, his words ought to be comprehensible. If the author has a sudden need to make the knight's horse talk, let him at least speak in plain english, not tap out important plot details in morse code with his hoofs. I hope we can at least agree to that.

As for killing gryphons, Konrad killed lots of sentient creatures in 20 someodd scenarios so I don't see the inconsistency there.
Well, the difference would probably be that in (most?) scenarios, Konrad kills "bad guys", people opposed to him, or aggressing him in the first place. Not just random neutral guys because he needs their babies. If gryphons were really sentient, he could probably have made a deal with them so they fight with him in exchange for... something, instead of just slaughtering everyone last one of them and stealing their eggs...

Note that there is also a speaking gryphon in The Sojournings of Grog (although it is not mainline, so it may matter less)

ANyway, I agree that the simplest way out is probably to have just some comment about the unusual nature of the talking gryphon... and/or have them attack on first sight, so Konrad is not the aggressor, I guess.
Jazz is not dead, it just smells funny - Frank Zappa
Current projects: Internet meme Era, The Settlers of Wesnoth

Darkmage
Translator
Posts: 263
Joined: April 13th, 2009, 8:38 pm

Re: Inconsistency with griffons?

Post by Darkmage » July 4th, 2010, 10:32 pm

Hum, i think this is a bump, but hope it helps.

What about Konrad not being that always-good-doing character? I mean, we are looking for a way to "tweak" the story and force it to make Konrad's actions not evil, thus making him not "attack" the gryphs but beign that "self-defense"; I propose to le it be, and let that be an evil action Konrad makes, as it's beign said, he killed a bunch of sentient beigns, such as orcs, humans, nagas, trolls and drakes. And he's still one hero and good-doing-man, but wait he kills a gryph and he's a murderer not fitting the story, ok, the gryphs were neutral while the orcs, humans, etc were enemies, but, for example, at the "Test of the clans" they kill humans that state the are neither against rebels, nor the crown, so they are neutral then, but he's still a hero. (Delfador's argument is a falacy, the if you are not my friend you are my enemy, is quite debatable.)

Still in this game everybody kills everybody, and always killind because the others are the enemy.



Edit: Also the coment about a speaking gryphon is a quick way to solve it.

User avatar
boru
Posts: 788
Joined: November 19th, 2009, 11:02 pm

Re: Inconsistency with griffons?

Post by boru » July 5th, 2010, 3:03 am

Dixie wrote:ANyway, I agree that the simplest way out is probably to have just some comment about the unusual nature of the talking gryphon... and/or have them attack on first sight, so Konrad is not the aggressor, I guess.
When I last played this, the gryphons attacked my guys when we went for the nest.

Maybe the magical presence of the Runecrafter magically effects the gryphons in a magical way.
“It is written in my life-blood, such as that is, thick or thin; and I can no other.” - J.R.R. Tolkien

My campaign: Swamplings - Four centuries before the founding of Wesnoth, the first wolf rider emerges from a tribe of lowly swamp goblins.

User avatar
Zarel
Posts: 700
Joined: July 15th, 2009, 8:24 am
Location: Minnesota, USA
Contact:

Re: Inconsistency with griffons?

Post by Zarel » July 5th, 2010, 3:36 am

Midnight_Carnival wrote:Last time I checked, the campign had all these big warnings attached telling people that it was not part of the whole official Wesnoth thing, but just for fun, or something to that effect.
Erm, SoF (the one with Krawg) is a mainline campaign and canon. Are you thinking of IftU or something?
boru wrote:I think there ought to be at least one ground rule on talking animals: if an animal must talk, his words ought to be comprehensible. If the author has a sudden need to make the knight's horse talk, let him at least speak in plain english, not tap out important plot details in morse code with his hoofs. I hope we can at least agree to that.
This, this, a thousand times this.
Proud creator of the :whistle: smiley | I prefer the CC-0 license.

User avatar
boru
Posts: 788
Joined: November 19th, 2009, 11:02 pm

Re: Inconsistency with griffons?

Post by boru » July 5th, 2010, 3:49 am

hoofs = hooves
“It is written in my life-blood, such as that is, thick or thin; and I can no other.” - J.R.R. Tolkien

My campaign: Swamplings - Four centuries before the founding of Wesnoth, the first wolf rider emerges from a tribe of lowly swamp goblins.

User avatar
TheBladeRoden
Posts: 168
Joined: July 16th, 2007, 8:01 am

Re: Inconsistency with griffons?

Post by TheBladeRoden » July 5th, 2010, 6:24 am

The thing I dislike about that scenaro is that I took the noble humanitarian route and my only reward was not being able to recruit griffons :(
Founding Father of Columbia

User avatar
chaoticwanderer
Posts: 109
Joined: August 25th, 2008, 9:41 pm

Re: Inconsistency with griffons?

Post by chaoticwanderer » July 5th, 2010, 2:29 pm

Araja wrote:
chaoticwanderer wrote:He appears to be a fully sapient creature
Does he develop things? :P

I lol'd at that. :lol2:
The RNG helps those who help themselves.

Post Reply