|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Corypheus article.|
Page name Edit
I think there's reasonable evidence to conclude the ancient evil is Corypheus, but if anyone disagrees with this, it can be marked for deletion. The filename of the screenshot is named "corypheus", which means "conductor". The image used for the achievement "Conductor" depicts him. The article's name can be changed if it turns out he isn't named "Corypheus". --D. (talk · contr) 23:02, July 8, 2011 (UTC)
Corypheus looks ostensibly human, could he be one of the magisters that invaded the black city, releasing its taint? I'm aware that the chantry says that the magisters who invaded the golden city became the first darkspawn, it is most likely a fabrication, but i think there is a hint of truth in it, I believe they were too curious for their own good, and that curiosity unleashed the taint, but then again, this is not the place for theories. I guess we'll have to wait for the DLC before taking any conclusions.--Loub (talk) 23:56, July 8, 2011 (UTC)
Edit war on "allegedly" Edit
The page has been locked due to a word that kept being removed/added. Until this issue is resolved, the article will remained locked due to edit warring. I have not played the DLC yet, and I haven't really read much about it, so I can't give much of an opinion now. --D. (talk · contr) 15:57, July 28, 2011 (UTC)
Well it's not really a big issue, I was just trying to keep it neutral because Corypheus seems to hint that the "golden city" was never actually golden so I put "allegedly" to state that they either tainted the golden city or it was always black and the other guy was making it sound like it definitely was golden--Gboy4 (talk) 12:16, July 29, 2011 (UTC)
- I'm wondering if the sentence should be rewritten then to make this more clear that the city might not have ever been "golden", e.g., "[...] conclude that he truly was one of the magisters who entered the so-called Golden City and returned as one of the first darkspawn". --D. (talk · contr) 03:18, July 30, 2011 (UTC)
Character Image Edit
Since the topic is locked, I have to throw the question out here: Is it possible for someone with editing powers to chance the character image of Corypheus? Because, frankly, it's not very good and yes, this is promoting myself, but I just uploaded a - hopefully - better version. Just asking.
- The picture should be a better close-up (see Anders or Fenris for examples). --D. (talk · contr) 21:13, July 29, 2011 (UTC)
- This, for example? http://dragonage.wikia.com/wiki/File:Corypheus_Closeup.jpg
- --Siorai (talk) 21:41, July 29, 2011 (UTC)
Drop loot Edit
What exactly are the items he drops when defeated? My first playthough he yielded my class specific Robes of the Silent One, but also Warden's Scout Tunic and Chestplate of the Fortress. I first assumed this is suppose to happen but subsequent playthoughs yielded only the class specific armor plus the amulet (if Ander's in party). So bug? or is there a certain percentage where you can get all 3 chestpieces? --Occam's Razor 21:47, July 29, 2011 (UTC)
Dragon Age Just Got a Whole Lot Weirder (Spoilers) Edit
With the Conclusion of the Legacy DLC, the World of Thedas just got a whole lot weirder. No doubts Dragon Age 3 will be rough (hopefully in the Good Way). Here are some reasons why.
1. The Golden City was always Black according to Corypheus. Was there a Maker in the first place?
2. Corypheus is oddly very Human-like, and his design is similar to that of the Architect's.
3. Corypheus escaped his Prison via Possession, a trait only Archdemons were believed to have. Not only that, Flemeth had a similar form of bodily possession; does this mean its a Spell rather than a Godly power?
4. As stated above, Corypheus escaped his Prison. What will He do now, seeing how Thedas has changed so drastically. Will He wander into the Deep Roads and stumble across the Darkspawn? Seeing how Corypheus was one of Dumat's greatest followers, no doubt the Darkspawn will find Him as a Leader of sorts? If so, shit.
5. Corypheus could return as a Major Antagonist in Dragon Age 3; see above.
6. Given his vast knowledge of Magic and zealotry, Corypheus maybe able to plan some kind of resurrection for his dead God despite Dumat's Soul being gone.
--Dragonzzilla 00:33, August 1, 2011 (UTC)
1.Even before Legacy I thought that the Maker was a myth, Legacy just reinforces that.
2..Either the Architect is a Magister who forgot he is a Magister or(my theory) the Architect was an experiment by the other Magisters who invaded the black city. They were(probably) researching the taint after they got tainted.
3.I think that its probably a spell they learned from Dumat. Flemeth could possibly be an old god(forgotten one) or Fen'Harel
6.Actually I think he will want revenge on Dumat, according to Corypheus Dumat promised them the powers of the gods and they got corrupted Dumat deceived Corypheus and the other Magisters.
--Someone 17:06, August 2, 2011 (UTC)
But if he hates Dumat why is it the first thing he does is show reverence for him? He assumes Hawke is a disciple of Dumat and rather then destroy him as someone who hates Dumat would, asks to see the first acolyte. He calls Dumat to give him strength during the fight--Ironreaper (talk) 17:45, August 2, 2011 (UTC)
Forgot about that during the fight, I guess he wants to find out what happened then. --Someone 19:40, August 2, 2011 (UTC)
Is it possible that "the old gods" are not actually old gods, but the souls of the magisters who got tainted? They would have simply migrated to a dragon form, because they would have thought it would make them gods. Maybe that is why the darkspawn dig for them? Because the magisters have always sought them out?
The only indiscrepancy I can think of, is that Larius/Janeka didn't die when he/she was possessed. There may be another explanation for that, however, or it may be retconned later.
No doubt in my mind that Corypheus will play an integral role in the future - he seems to possess the same powers as the archdemons: particularly, the ability to call out to Darkspawn and possess the bodies of those baring the taint. The main difference is, however, he seems to have an effect on Wardens as well instead of just normal Darkspawn, so in a sense he might be more dangerous than the Archdemons. This being said, it must be left to wonder how many of the original Magisters are left?
As for the city, it's possible that what they invaded was not the Golden City, but rather something else. Perhaps the entire thing was a plot from Dumat to begin with? Maybe he sent the ancient magisters somewhere else for some unknown goal? Of course, I'm just guessing with little to no evidence. After all, for him to send them there, it sounds as though he may have had some goal in mind. Perhaps the Darkspawn are not a curse of the Maker, but a curse of Dumat himself?
I'm not sure that one of the trivial points is very acurate yet it does make a lot of sense. I'm referring to the one that states that Corypheus could possibly have the Archdemon talent to project his soul to the nearest taint bearer so to speak, for example, Larius/That other crazy Grey Warden hag's strange behavior after his apparent death at the hands of Hawke. My reason for debating this is if that were the case, why did he not "possess" Anders, or Carver/Bethany post conscription of course? (Super Warden)
- Larius and Janeka both have higher standing among the Wardens than either Carver or Bethany, while Anders is already possessed. --Koveras Alvane (talk) 21:14, January 22, 2012 (UTC)
- As interesting as it is, since it is speculation, the trivia has been removed. --D. (talk · contr) 21:49, January 22, 2012 (UTC)
Now I haven't played Legacy yet with Hawke's sibling as a Warden, but I know Corypheus calls out and gets Anders to try and kill you. Does he do the same with Carver or Bethany, or is there some reason why he doesn't? Eggy2504 (talk) 11:09, April 28, 2012 (UTC)
- From what I know, his presence doesn't affect Bethany or Carver. As for the reason, it is possible that the Taint is not as strong in them yet as in Anders, since they undergo the Joining some time after him. --Koveras Alvane (talk) 22:01, April 28, 2012 (UTC)
- New guidelines were passed a few months ago stating that etymology does not belong on any pages. It was my idea in the first place, so it feels appropriate for me to implement it. I'm not anti-trivia, I'm pro-guidelines. If you have further things you want to call me out on personally (politely and respectfully), feel free to contact me on my talk page. Kelcat (talk) 21:40, December 2, 2013 (UTC)
- Here's a link to the trivia guidelines if you'd like to familiarize yourself with them. DA:TRIVIA Kelcat (talk) 21:42, December 2, 2013 (UTC)
- I have also removed lots of inappropriate trivia in the past. Your comment is certainly not productive as it lacks any reason. This "zeal" you're talking about, I call it "contribution". 11:38, December 3, 2013 (UTC)
- I apologize for my outburst, Kelcat. To my defense, I have not been made aware of the update trivia guidelines (a site-wide notice would have been helpful), and your edit comment did not reference them in any way. I am usually pro-guidelines myself but from your edit alone, it wasn't apparent that you were following a guideline rather than a unilateral view on the content of trivia sections. I also admit that my perception of your edit was probably negatively tinted by our disagreement over at Justice (quest). --Koveras Alvane (talk) 18:41, December 3, 2013 (UTC)
- I do appreciate that, thank you. There was a forum post I made at the time proposing the change, though I can't seem to find the link right now. From what I've seen, sitewide notices aren't usually given when guidelines have been updated, but I haven't been contributing long enough to know for sure. I try to put comments when I make updates, though sometimes I forget when I'm doing a bunch at once. I'll make sure to add something along the lines of "per XX guidelines" in the future when I'm making updates regarding guidelines. Kelcat (talk) 19:14, December 3, 2013 (UTC)
"You are no man" Edit
I've just played through Legacy during the Act 1 for the first time, and I found something curious. You know how he says "You look human. Are you not citizens of the Empire? Slaves then, to the dwarves? Why come you here?" when he awakens. But on my playthrough, he says "You are no man. Do you belong to the Empire? Or be you of dwarven blood?". I think that before (before it was patched, when I played last year, that is), it was the first line regardless of the Warden present. However, now that I checked it, he says the first one (you look human) when Janeka is in the party, and the "no human" when Larius is the one. I've checked the video and he says the first one when Larius is there in it. Has anyone else had this happen to them? I think it is worth noting that Corypheus senses the taint in Larius but is confused about it, as he misdiagnoses it for being a half-dwarf. Henio0 (talk) 06:43, May 25, 2014 (UTC)
Interesting theory. Are you certain he isn't referring to Larius' physical appearance though? All sort of hunched over and ghoul like which Corypheus could have meant when he said dwarven blood? - 07:15, May 25, 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, it's just weird. With Janeka, he seems to be speaking to the whole party, but with Larius, he speaks to him directly. I would speculate that perhaps he associates ghouls with dwarves because the first ghouls he met must have been dwarven after darkspawn outbreak. But anyway, the only sure thing here worth mentioning on the page is I think that Corypheus does differenciate between a "healthy" Warden and a ghoul Warden. Henio0 (talk) 09:30, May 26, 2014 (UTC)
If it's clear that Corypheus is speaking to Larius directly in the case of the latter dialogue option then I think it certainly merits a trivia note or at least an observation. You don't have a video link for comparing the two do you? - 09:41, May 26, 2014 (UTC)
Let's keep in mind that Corypheus' involvement in Inquisition is a major spoiler. I think it's more than enough to say that he appears in Inquisition in the infobox, but beyond that, everything else--including the fact that he's the main antagonist--should go under the Inquisition involvement section under a spoiler tag. There's a reason the devs spent months keeping the Elder One's identity a secret in their promotional material. Spoilers are inevitable on a wiki, but there's no reason to hit people in the face with it without a warning.
I'm also reducing the quotes as per DA:QUOTE there should be a max of 4 quotes per game for a non-companion. That's more than enough to convey his personality and motivations in the games. --♫ Kelcat Talk 01:23, December 9, 2014 (UTC)
- How about turning Elder One into a "soft redirect"? A short page saying that the Elder One is the main antagonist of Inquisition, and an involvement section with a spoiler template that explains that he is revealed to be Corypheus in "In Your Heart Shall Burn". --Koveras Alvane (talk) 08:08, January 5, 2015 (UTC)
Why is the main photo always being changed back to the one from DA2? Shouldn't we use a photo from the most recent game? DRAEVAN13 19:11, March 10, 2015 (UTC)
No. There are several rules about the infobox pictures. For example, use a photo from the game the character is most heavily featured in, unless there are other factors, such as spoilers in this case. henioo (da talk page) 19:16, March 10, 2015 (UTC)
Extraneous Red Lyrium Dragon Note Edit
I would have to look up the exact scene, but I am 99% sure the game says outright that killing the Red Lyrium Dragon would disrupt Corypheus' immortality. So why do we have a separate link to a twitter feed because some moron on the BSN can't pay attention to in game dialogue? It seems rather extraneous and I think we can remove it safely. -HD3 (Talk) 08:57, April 26, 2015 (UTC)
- I'd definitely keep it. Killing the dragon will NOT take his immortality away entirely and this is the point of the link. The in-game dialogue is a bit vague and they had to clarify it further. I'd reword the note a bit though. Asherinka (talk) 08:16, April 29, 2015 (UTC)
- Really? Whats vague about "killing his dragon will temporarily disrupt his immortality". Sounds rather straight forward to me.
As far as I remember the word "temporary" is not used in the game, making it unclear if he looses his immortality permanently. I don't have access to the game atm, but I can't recall Morrigan ever using it, and I always choose her as the vessel. Can you give the exact quote please? Asherinka (talk) 08:40, April 29, 2015 (UTC)
- "Kill the dragon, and his ability to leap into other bodies is disrupted. He can be slain." Whether they say temporarily or not, that is a pretty clean cut statement. Also from the same scene (morrigan drank from the well, just after well of sorrows) "If there are no bodies for him to jump to..." "You assume there is a limit to his power. There is not ." It was the death of the dragon that rendered corypheus vulnerable, not a deficency of nearby tainted bodies, otherwise he would have just jumped like he did in DA2.
But either way, this should be rather obvious without the note, since the note only states that "the red lyrium dragon was not the source of his ability" which should be obvious, since he demonstrated that ability prior to creating the dragon. I can't see much value in the bsn forum thread it eventually links to either, since its just one just one git ranting incoherently about coypheus and an archdemon must demonstrate exactly identical behaviour in every way or else its a plot hole (a fault assumption if ever there were one). And that because the red lyrium dragon is erroneously referred to as an archdemon by a few characters before they know what it truly is, it must be an archdemon (even though they refer it 99% of the time as corypheus' dragon). None of which is informative or even accurate, so I still think it should be removed. -HD3 (Talk) 09:27, April 29, 2015 (UTC)
I'm afraid I've never read the thread you are mentioning, but for me the value of the link is in this single word, temporary, as it is crucial in some theories about the way the taint works. I'd shorten the note but I think the link itself should be kept and the fact that he doesn't lose his ability permanently should be stressed out. Asherinka (talk) 09:33, April 29, 2015 (UTC)
- By the way, can we simply copy-paste Darrah's statement with a reference and without providing any further clarifications or comments? Asherinka (talk) 09:52, April 29, 2015 (UTC)
- But the note as its written doesn't even include the word temporary!
- Its the BSN thread linked through the twitter link in the note. But either way, I still we think should delete the note. We can incorporate its point pretty easily into the body section and just leave a reference.
- I'm fine with it as long as the significant information is preserved. I do think that many notes and trivia items on the wiki in general should be included in the main text instead. Asherinka (talk) 10:17, April 29, 2015 (UTC)
What did he said about qunari in the last fight?
About dwarves, he said: "you think to best me? a runted dirt-worshiper?" I don't remember what did he said about qunari, but was something about "your kin was a mistake!"
Could be the qunari a "artificial" race?
- Even if he said it, there's no reason to believe he's correct or even telling the truth. He could be just trying to intimidate, like the Nightmare (demon). The mind of Corypheus is not one I would draw conclusions from. ;) DaBarkspawn (talk) 20:54, July 8, 2015 (UTC)
"The Inquisitor then uses the Anchor to hurl Corypheus into the Fade."; I think a key point is missing here. He should be "dead" because if you check the cutscene Inquisitor opened the rift inside him. -- 18.104.22.168 (talk) 15:41, August 4, 2015 (UTC)
Quote Deletion Edit
I frankly do not understand what part of DA:QUOTE dictates that the two quotes deleted in the last edit. Personally, I think the two quotes deleted give the flavor of Corypheus' character, but I'm much more worried that just adding "per DA:Quote" is a valid basis for deletionism. DaBarkspawn (talk) 14:50, August 10, 2015 (UTC)
- Per the guidelines there should only be a maximum of 4 quotes for any non-companion characters. --♫ Kelcat Talk 18:33, August 10, 2015 (UTC)
- You're right. It's under DA:CHARACTER#Quotes. There is a note about that under DA:QUOTE which is why I tend to use that as a shortcut link myself. It says "Only character pages should have standard quotes or exchanges, which should only be featured within a "Quotes" section. See DA:CHARACTER for more information". I can try rewording it to make it stand out more. --♫ Kelcat Talk 19:23, August 10, 2015 (UTC)
Sethius' wife Edit
- The Claws of Dumat says: "Master once laughed and joked. He could be stern, but he was not a cruel man. The weakening of the temples brought fear into his heart, and that fear has changed him. The cuts upon his arms are deeper and longer where he used his blood magic more often. He speaks to his wife little. He listens only to the voices in his dreams." Master speaks little to his wife, not my wife like the slave says before. --Evamitchelle (talk) 14:07, October 26, 2016 (UTC)
Writing Villains Edit
The given link didn't work and I did a bunch of poking around (like Google caches and archive.org) and URL hacking before I found the one I used. PLEASE NOTE: The URL is https://api.dragonage.com/en_US/news/writing-villains and apparently EA is not maintaining that site and their certificates have expired. This means that most browsers will put up warning pages asking for a confirmation exception before letting you get to the page. Not optimal, but better than a broken link. DaBarkspawn (talk) 02:32, April 24, 2018 (UTC)