I too love God of War.

@@divinecrusader4258 and Kung Fu Panda.

@@WinterKlyfox And that one Greek mythology story where the guy kills his dad and bangs his mom. I think it was edipis or smth

YES! SHE DOES SOUND LIKE A NIGHTHAVEN OPERATIVE!! HAHAHA!

@@RavenKnightYTthat’s why I said earlier who’s the Rainbow Six or Assassin’s Creed writer who snuck in the For Honor dev team to write this.

"And I would've gotten away with it too, if it weren't for you nosy sheep!"

To your first point, you're right. She was saying that the sphere didn't show her everything, so she didn't know if the Warden would live or die, and it didn't matter to her because she enjoyed the mysteries of not knowing....which begs a question: Why go to the lengths of finding the cheat code if you find fun in the game? Why learn the secrets of the future if you want to have fun with the mystery? That whole line flies in the face of her previous actions. Not only that, but she said clearly that the sphere did not reveal if she should burn the library down...but if she's afraid of fate being fickle and being changed, then that was a stupid thing to do as it puts her own future in jeapordy. You also say 'that just proves the sphere doesn't show everything.' I'm sorry, that makes no sense. If this sphere has been so effective it's prevented EVERY disaster and EVERY potential war to EVER come to Arabia, how come the one time it REALLY mattered, the thing didn't show what needed to be seen? Either it works or it doesn't. Why didn't the Sultana consult the sphere to make sure this new woman wouldn't pose a threat? Couldn't it have worked then? Why didn't one of the advisors use it? Why didn't ANYONE double check this thing!? I agree with you that it would make no sense for Ravier to seek an alliance with them, which is why I added that they could pretend to have an alliance before stabbing Arabia in the back when they were done dealing with Chimera. In fact, here's a question: if they're all about war, then why does Horkos even want a way to win the war with Chimera? Won't finding out the future so they can win the war only end it? Isn't that counter productive to the goal of endless war? But the real issue is that they sought the sphere for the advantage it would give them against Chimera, but in the process they created a new enemy. That defeats the advantage entirely. My other issue is how is Ravier a diplomat? If she's all about war, conflict, and violence, how would she even know how to barter for peace and alliances? Where did she learn diplomatic negotiation? That's not how Horkos operates. Your theory is a brilliant one and would forgive A LOT of the problems I have here with her story. But...we just don't know.

@@RavenKnightYTokay here's the full context of what she said: "The destruction of the library hadn’t been foreseen, but it was the only 'logical conclusion'. What she knew, she couldn’t risk anyone else learning. This knowledge was much too precious, much too dangerous to be entrusted to anyone else. Fate was fickle, and the fall of the lightest flower petal could change its course." She's not sayin that her actions would change fate, she's sayin that if others were to use the sphere, then it could very much change/ruin the path she seen in the sphere. So her destroying the sphere and burning the library would stop or at the very least halt anyone from attempting a way to remake the sphere or use anything in that library against her. Why they didn't consult the sphere is beyond me. I agree with you that the Sultana and her people were idiots. Her advisors were far to loyal to their Sultana whose probably never experienced war in her life time whose also probably been very sheltered and so, was easily fooled by the "Friendly" outsider she found fascinating. To just obey her command instead of just goin to consult the sphere themselves. "You have Failed this city" -some guy from green arrow. Horkos wants to win because they want Domination, they want the strong to win and be the ones in power. They want to become immortal through their legend. "Mighty Warriors of horkos, United under the cause of war dominated heathmore, but soon the chimera alliance apposed them. Through droughts, hurricanes and blizzards and bloody water the order found a gate way to victory and crushed chimera completely proving that they are indeed the truest heroes of this world and deserve to be its rulers" or somethin like that In heathmore history books. And the whole endless war will just come from the amount of people they piss off like Arabia, I would say China, but they don't seem to care that horkos has control over the remaining forces of the wulin in heathmore. (Side note: tiandi should have been the hero skin imagin the story! Tiandi tasked with doin the same thing but it comes from sunda, but instead they also find a way to free the wulin from the order of horkos. Man that sounds like an epic story and a way to expand apon the fine details of how things operate within the order. Missed opportunity.) Also why couldn't Ravier have Diplomatic skills? She loves inflicting misery, what better way than deceiving your opponent into a false sense of security to then stab them in the back as everything around them crumbles in a burning heap.

@@mal1362 That might be the full context, but the implication still leaves a hole. If fate can be changed 'by the falling of a flower petal,' then of course it stands to reason that anything she does OUTSIDE of the visions she has been given could also change fate. She says it's the logical conclusion, but logic and fate are not interchangable. Just becuase she makes what she sees as a logical conclusion does not mean it won't impact fate. It could still have consequences (which I'm sure it will). Your point about Horkos makes some sense though. After all, I stand entirely behind the point that Astrea does not have the same foresight or priorities as Apollyon. Astrea is all about domination and tyranny, not war itself, so sure. For Astrea it makes sense. (I agree, Tiandi was a much better idea) My problem with Ravier having diplomatic skills is only this: Where and when did she aquire them? She is known as Lady Misery to everyone in Heathmore. Who the hell is going to join diplomatic negotiations with her? Who is going to invite her into their home to negotiate anything? Heathmore is a world of endless war, and she joined the faction who believes in kill first and don't even bother with questions later. She is on the side that sees negotiation as a cowards tactic, so how on earth did she not only learn this art of negotiation, but also develop it well enough to decieve the Sultana, who likely is WELL versed in the game? You say that she would 'put her opponents into a false sense of security before stabbing them in the back.' I'd believe that, if she didn't already have a horrible reputation all across Heathmore. I have no problem with her being a worm tongue...but where did she aquire that skill when she's from a world and mindset that wouldn't allow for it?

This.

True but this is the only character development ravier has and it isnt enough to make her a good character

To quote Persona 5’s soundtrack: “They’ll never see it coming.”

@@RavenKnightYT ok fair enough

@@Blackstonelegion haha. Sorry was just having some fun

@@RavenKnightYT no thats completely cool with me, Also If I may make a Request, I would love to see how you would Build Holden Cross (Lawbringer) in For Honor Edit: I do Realize that it would involve mostly wearing the default armor with maybe the exception being the shoulders tho I'm also curious about what feats you would run

I mean they flirted with each other in the yuletide stream

@@theonlyMoancore i loved that so much, but its not official lore... sadly ;-;

The armorsets are not part of the official lore

They may not mention religion directly, but it’s all in context. In the campaign, the Vikings make several references to the All Father and to Valhalla. Clear connections to Norse Paganism. The samurai event we just had made countless allusions and references to yokai, kami, and aratama, all involved in Japanese Shintoism and folklore. The reason the Christian imagery is a big deal, is because the devs said as far back as season 2 that Christianity did not exist in For Honor and never would. Until now there has been next to no Christian symbolism or reference. But now we have a crap ton of it, all thrown onto a singular knight who attacked an Arabian kingdom which the devs said was “heavily inspired by the Islamic Golden Age.” I call that a bit sus.

@@RavenKnightYT yeah, I agree that it is a big sus, mostly because the invaders were the muslims, and not the Christians, and it takes opening a history book to see that. I hope they do this effort and not fall in the lazy "bad guy Christian" trope

@@RavenKnightYThm, i thought that some Knights were Christian and some were followers of Roman Paganism

Interesting idea, and the armor has the fire effect on it cuz she burned down the city yk?

@@MeisterSchwabbo yeh but how is it still smoldering though?

@@joeyvanhaperen7715 because every skin has some kind of special effect on them, it is a design choice nothing more, it is smoldering because ravier set Arabia on flames, it is just an effect to make the skin look better and more special, nothing deep behind it dude.

It’s online

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/ipeaod2Frr7cmnU.html

It would make sense if we assume they all think as individuals.

if anything gladiators would not be in chimera since they love fighting so much

That’s not the issue. The issue is: 1.) The devs said for years that there are no Christians in this game and the knights are not Christian, only now to throw in a bunch of Christian imagery on a villainous new character without any context as to the faith itself but only on her actions. 2.) They deliberately skipped Tiandi to do this, meaning they were banking on the “big bad crusaders” stereotype peddled by popular media. 3.) They paint a bad picture of Christians and Muslims by making the Christians look like oppressors and the Muslims like meek victims when neither are historically accurate. I never once said Christians can’t do bad things. I just think it’s interesting that we never get an inverse represented in the game either. But I’m sure this means their Islamic hero they reveal will be just as villainous? Or will she be the objective hero in this tale?

@@RavenKnightYT they did not make Knights christian 'cause game companies tend to stay away from directly mentioning any popular religios or a system of believes which is still active (even more if the system is not one predominant in the company's country). Also, I don't see why it must be historically accurate in a game of historical FANTASY. I'm not talking about dragons or magic artefacts and stuff, I'm talking about the realistic fiction of the game. Vikings never met samurais which did not have a war with european knights. I don't see a problem showing a crusader-like character doing bad things or a muslim one doing good ones, or viceversa. It's clear that we need a hero and villain to every new content, usally, they make the new heroes the good guy, ex: Medjay - and the bad one - Bolthorn...that doesn't mean that norse people should feel attacked 'cause their heritage is portrayed as bad (not even their heritage, just one man from many).

@@raul88.88 You are dodging the point, my friend. So let me try asking some simple questions: 1.) If history does not matter and all we need are good guys and bad guys, why didn’t the developers give us a Tiandi hero skin to do all the same things Ravier did? What was the reason? 2.) You’re right, Bolthorn is just one Viking from many, so Norse people don’t need to feel offended since there are countless other Norse Vikings in For Honor. But what about Christians? As I just said, Ravier is the only obvious one we’ve seen. So why is the only one a villain? Who else is there to compare her to? 3.) You say that this game isn’t historically accurate. That’s correct. But in your first comment, you said “why are we shocked Christian’s did bad things.” Clearly you are referring to HISTORICAL instances where Christian’s did bad things. So which is it? Does historical context matter or not? Do you see now why this frustrates some people?

@@RavenKnightYT 1) Again, it is not fiction, it is HISTORICAL FICTION. Therefore, you have some historical elements, yet not in the full real context. You had the crusaders fighting the muslims, so you have that minimum context transported into knights vs the new hero. You don't need to have a Baldwin, or a pope, or a Saladini, or any real battle. They just mirror the events, but can give any turns and any twists, and I don't see the problem with that (as long as they don't come out to call that official history) 3) I am refering to the real people in this comment section. Not talking about the game having bad/good representation of certain group of people, being them chinese, mayan, christian, persian etc, but of some persons going "why they compared my religious symbols with something bad, we are not bad"... they may not be, but that doesn't make it impossible from other people from their kin to be bad.

@@raul88.88A fair answer to the first question, I suppose. Motives don’t matter as long as the conflict is intact. I heavily disagree, but I’m not going to debate that further. No answer to the second. Okay. As for the third, no one is saying it’s impossible for Christian’s to be portrayed as bad. But when the first and ONLY Christian so far is portrays as bad, this is quite sus. Many of us wanted to see direct Christian representation and connection in game since the knights historically were Christian. The devs said “no they are not Christian.” So we accepted that. NOW we have our Christian iconography, and it’s made to be villainous. That is surely going to shock people who wanted to see our faith shown objectively and fairly.