Talk:Nell

"Prior to Ultima VII, Nell had an affair with Lord British while she also was engaged to Carrocio. Once it became clear that she got pregnant, she and Lord British decided to keep the matter silent and let Carrocio be the father. " This kinda bugs me a bit - I'll grand that there is some "confirmation" in game that Lord British had an affair with Nell and so on... however the whole British/Nell affair is very much a easter egg, and doesn't feel like it's meant to be taken seriously - so I've never been very keen on consider this a canon, because it seems a bit silly. I'd argue that the biography part should perhaps say that Nell seems to hesitate about the father, but that the British parternity part deserves more to be in a trivia section Sergorn 18:42, July 3, 2010 (UTC)

This is your opinion on the matter, all right. Mine is that since the situation is there we can't simply say downplay it. I see no reason to ignore that part of her story, just because it's a little harder to find out.--Tribun 20:43, July 3, 2010 (UTC)

I would argue that considering what is basically an easter egg to be an important aspect of her story is "overplaying" it though. I'd dare say that to me it'd almost be akin to considering the fake Lord British in Castle Britannia's jail in Ultima could really be the true Lord British since after all he claims to be, and he does look and sound more like the Lord British from previouses games :P It's pretty obvious the Nell scroll was put in the game as a funny in-joke if you managed to kill British, and not a serious plot point, which is why I have issues with this aspect being considered "canon" (nevermind the fact that even if you take it seriously, the fact that Lord British believes so doesn't neceserrilly means that he IS the father since Nell was also with Corrissio at the time) Sergorn 20:53, July 3, 2010 (UTC)

This is why wikis shouldn't concern themselves with "canon"... canon will always end up being a discussion about fan opinions. A wiki should decide on reliable sources, and just use them. Discussions about "canonicity" are always never-ending by definition, unless we could ask Richard Garriot about every possible topic.--Sega381 23:19, July 3, 2010 (UTC)

I see this easter egg on par with what Batlin says if you choose to cast Armageddon - he reveals his motives for being the evil bastard that he is. I consider that canon, so I don't see why this wouldn't be, for what that is worth. --Warder Dragon 03:10, July 4, 2010 (UTC)

I don't really this as the same as the Baltin words - basically because the Nell thing is very much an humoristic tongue-in-cheek kind of thing. That said, I'm not saying this shouldn't be referenced - but even if we consider LB's scroll as canon, it does not feel enough to me to consider his parenthood as an unquestionable fact. Sergorn 08:14, July 4, 2010 (UTC)

My two cents after having just gone over this: The affair is documented in the easter egg will and is hinted at by Nell's non-easter egg dialogue which shows indecision over the father's identity. It totally deserves mention. However, it's wrong to assume that British is the father because his will says he is. Lord British is not the one about to shove a human being out of his hoo-hah. Nell is, and as such, I think it best to take the position that Nell is probably the best informed about who the father of her child might be - given that, as a woman, she's in a much better position to determine the likelihood of paternity - based on when she last remembers bleeding and when she last remembers engaging in child-making activities. Thus, I'm all for the official Wiki position of the child's paternity as being "undetermined," with a slight lean toward Carrocio.--Blu3vib3 14:47, 8 February 2011 (PST)