want dialog option for Iovara: "Are you retarded?" = main story doesn't make sense.

[mc_kracken]

sooo, she's tortured in the most horrible ways for being a heretic (doesn't wanna say uncle in this case) and ultimately killed for being a heretic, so we can conclude she is a fanatic of sorts. (it's your body, if you get off on pain...see early christian's)

 

So far so good, BUT then she decides to stay in hell for all ETERNITY just to prove an utterly pointless point to something (god's) that doesn't even exist? Except the gods do exist NOW because they were created by the engwithans? She does even address them as gods.

 

Iovara is the whole narrative anchor for the main character. The game hinges on her reveal, 'discovery' and connection to the past and the player. (that's what make the main story so weak sauce, since it's a lame Shymalan twist out of nowhere)

Edited April 13, 2016 by mc_kracken

[house2fly]

It really stretches my credulity that a religious fanatic would do something that seems crazy to me.

[mc_kracken]

but she is the whole narrative anchor for the main character. Scratch anchor, she is the reveal or twist of the game. The whole game hinges on her ALONE. (thats what make the main story so weak sauce i guess)

Edited April 13, 2016 by mc_kracken

[JerekKruger]

I can understand the sentiment actually, and I know a lot of atheists who at least claim they would hold a similar stance were it revealed upon death that a God akin to the Abrahamic one existed.

[Teioh_White]

I can understand many foolish things as well. Doesn't really change the nature of her decision though.

 

But that whole discussion is pretty lacking in general, so I don't hold it against her.

[house2fly]

but she is the whole narrative anchor for the main character. Scratch anchor, she is the reveal or twist of the game. The whole game hinges on her ALONE. (thats what make the main story so weak sauce i guess)

I don't really get why you think her being a fanatic makes the writing weak. But since you think "the whole game hinges on her" which it doesn't, I'd guess you don't either.

[mc_kracken]

The game hinges on her reveal, 'discovery' and connection to the past and the player. (that's what make the main story so weak sauce, since it's a lame Shymalan twist out of nowhere - and one that doesn't even make sense)

[Guest]

Every major character in the game has gone to some extreme for their belief. But somehow she's out of place?

 

The importance of being able to recognize themes, I guess.

[Tigranes]

Both Thaos and Iovara are pretty ridiculous if your concern about stories is that people behave in ways that we expect real life people to. 

 

Of course, that renders a whole lot of great literary works nonsensical as well. I tend to see any fictional character as an embodiment of a theme, an argument, a question. I don't need to worry about what Iovara did for fun for a thousand years or why she hasn't gone utterly insane. 

 

But sure, the whole "thousands of years" schtick is always silly. Who stays worked up about anything for that long?

[house2fly]

The game hinges on her reveal, 'discovery' and connection to the past and the player. (that's what make the main story so weak sauce, since it's a lame Shymalan twist out of nowhere - and one that doesn't even make sense)

It does make sense and it's not out of nowhere, but even if it was I don't see how that would relate to Iovara being a fanatic.  If it was out of nowhere and didn't make sense BUT she wasn't a fanatic, that would be good?

[Elerond]

Thaos and Iovara are absolutes to questions (like are artificial gods gods and is existence/knowledge about gods needed?) that game ask from the player.

 

They hold extreme positions on these questions and try to force player to come some conclusion about those questions. They are thematical devices that are also used as plot devices to forward plot in some points, Thaos is as agonist that creates motivation for player and Iovara as sound board that works to define what kind character PC is.

 

Their absoluteness is explained by describing them to be begins that have drowned to their own ideology and faith and they are blind to any other options. They are religious fanatics that are solely motivated by their religion and faith, for them anything else in world isn't more important.

[Guest]

I think it's probably unfair and inaccurate to categorize either of them as being religious fanatics. Both of them know that the gods aren't real. They are diametrically opposed in the question of whether or not that means it is necessary to invent them. If there's a question of faith, it's their faith in mankind (or kith-kind, as it were).

[Elerond]

I think it's probably unfair and inaccurate to categorize either of them as being religious fanatics. Both of them know that the gods aren't real. They are diametrically opposed in the question of whether or not that means it is necessary to invent them. If there's a question of faith, it's their faith in mankind (or kith-kind, as it were).

 

I was thinking it from perspective that Iovara is willing to lead countries to war and death to prove that that those gods are just man made and not real gods. And Thaos is willing to sacrifice and kill millions of people to ensure that nobody questions the nature of gods. So they are fulled by religion and their belief how world should be and they are willing to go and do extremes to make sure that their world view wins.

[Guest]

 

I think it's probably unfair and inaccurate to categorize either of them as being religious fanatics. Both of them know that the gods aren't real. They are diametrically opposed in the question of whether or not that means it is necessary to invent them. If there's a question of faith, it's their faith in mankind (or kith-kind, as it were).

 

I was thinking it from perspective that Iovara is willing to lead countries to war and death to prove that that those gods are just man made and not real gods. And Thaos is willing to sacrifice and kill millions of people to ensure that nobody questions the nature of gods. So they are fulled by religion and their belief how world should be and they are willing to go and do extremes to make sure that their world view wins.

 

Interesting perspective. I think I saw things a little differently.

 

Iovara wasn't leading countries to war and death to prove a point. She was leading people who didn't want to be controlled and lied to against the people who were trying to control and lie to them. 

 

Thaos was willing to sacrifice and kill millions not because he didn't want people to question the nature of the gods, just because he didn't like that. He truly believes that people are incapable of being anything more than animals without the threat/promise of some higher power. 

 

Thaos really believes he is acting in the greater good to save people. So does Iovara. The brilliance of the game is that it asks you which of them do you agree with. 

Edited April 14, 2016 by Achilles

[Parasol_Syndicate]

Does Iovara really want to save people, though? Or does she want them to live their lives for themselves?

If a major war was undertaken under the name of Larry, haberdasher of new Heomar, wouldn't that be alright, as long as Larry existed and actually wanted said war? 

 

The dialogue isn't expansive enough (or my memory is too poor) to know if Iovara wants to discover the true gods that presumably exist, or merely secular rule across the kingdoms. I imagine she'd support animancy, which will probably save SOME people- at the expense of others. 

[Teioh_White]

That's a good point; off the top my head, I don't know if we're told exactly what she preaches beyond 'those gods over there aren't like, real creator gods. They're just man-made things that have power like we think real gods would.' Dunno if we have insight on what she stood for beyond that, or where she wanted the world to go. I mean, I'm not sure we even know she didn't want people following the gods, so long as they knew the weren't 'god' gods.

[house2fly]

In dialogue with Thaos the Watcher can talk about "teaching people there were no gods" and Iovara asks your party "what if we can be sure of nothing?" It doesn't come right out and say it but the implication is that she believes there are no gods (or as she says, that if there ever were they're gone)

[falchen]

I was missing a dialogue option like "So what?". Like I genuinelly don't get what the knowledge that the gods were created rather than just popping into existence at random would change for the world as a whole.

 

Why would that lead to chaos, how does that reveal mean "we can't be sure of nothing", that people's lifes are meaningless or anything else that Thaos and Iovara go on about?

 

Alternatively, why would knowing this mean people will behave like animals with nothing to guide them? The gods are still there just as powerfull as they were yesterday. If anything it would have been blowing up Eothas which would tell people that the gods can be fought and killed.

[house2fly]

People associate gods with the divine, or at least... what's the word... primevalness? Like, even in mythology where the gods are less divine they're often still inextricably linked with creation myths- think of the Titanomachy of the Greek gods, or Atum arising from the chaos of Nun in the Egyptian myths. Learning that the gods were just made by some guys would take away that assumption of primevalness, and the assumption of divinity and therefore an inherent right to rule that comes with it.

 

As for what Iovara and Thaos talk about, that's tied up with one of the main ideas that comes up frequently in the game and is linked to real world ideas (this is often referred to as a "theme"). The Engwithans found out that there were no gods and they despaired, because they believed that people need order and structure and the knowledge that there is authority watching over them, and that good deeds will be rewarded and evil punished. Iovara found out there were no gods and reacted differently, because she believes that the important thing is to know the truth, even if the truth is hard. This dilemma between a comforting lie and a hard truth is one of the themes- Aloth's final decision is whether to continue Thaos's work of suppressing knowledge of the gods or to dismantle the Leaden Key cult entirely; Grieving Mother paid the price for her web of lies and wants you to make her lie to herself so she can feel better; Durance is shattered by the knowledge of how Magran betrayed him but says it's better to know the truth than to labour in ignorance.

 

Of course, it isn't always that easy, because we don't always even know what the truth is. Eder will never really find out what caused his brother to fight for Raedceras; Kana will never know what the real Tanvii Ora Toha said; when you look at Harmke's soul the question of whether he killed the Devil Of Caroc's family isn't quite that cut and dried. What happens when the truth someone learns is that they may never learn the truth? When something they considered a foundation of their life is taken away? When people find out the things they worship as gods are just giant animats and we're just clusters of cells on a lump of rock hurtling towards oblivion, how will they react? What if people in the real world knew that there is no God and no afterlife, and that the apparent structure of government and society is just a bunch of people acting out roles who don't really know what they're doing, in a huge edifice that is slowly falling apart? To put it another way, what if we can be assured of nothing? This is another theme.

 

Thaos believes it would lead to chaos because, as he mentions in the game, he saw a lot of chaos in the time before the gods. The Engwithans even essentially committed mass suicide when they found out they could be assured of nothing. He believes that without an authority incentivising people to behave, they will misbehave. And of course, he believes that without that authority telling people their lives have meaning, their lives will be meaningless.

 

It can be hard for an atheist to understand why it would matter that the powerful ethereal being people worship isn't a god. It might help to think of it as being like finding out you were adopted, people react in different ways when they find out something like this even though nothing has materially changed in their lives.

[falchen]

Yea, it might be because I am looking at it from a nonreligious point.

 

Like you say: "What if people in the real world knew that there is no God and no afterlife, and that the apparent structure of government and society is just a bunch of people acting out roles who don't really know what they're doing, in a huge edifice that is slowly falling apart?" - my response to this is that duh, that's exactly how it is, so what?

 

In the case of Pillars though: "The Engwithans found out that there were no gods and they despaired, because they believed that people need order and structure and the knowledge that there is authority watching over them, and that good deeds will be rewarded and evil punished."

 

Asuming that the gods of PoE are currently doing this, they'll keep on doing it regardless. Just because people learn that they were created doesn't change the fact that they still have real godlike power over the world and the mortals, they can and will reward or punish their worshipers just like they have until now. Arguing whether they are real or not seems weird when they can smite you with lighting for disobeying regardless.

[Tigranes]

Everyone in the Pillars world is a believer in the gods and their creation myths. It's like someone standing up in a room in ancient Egypt and crying out that Osiris isn't real, or that Osiris was actually created by some old Assyrian dudes. 

[Guest]

I was missing a dialogue option like "So what?". Like I genuinelly don't get what the knowledge that the gods were created rather than just popping into existence at random would change for the world as a whole.

 

Why would that lead to chaos, how does that reveal mean "we can't be sure of nothing", that people's lifes are meaningless or anything else that Thaos and Iovara go on about?

 

Alternatively, why would knowing this mean people will behave like animals with nothing to guide them? The gods are still there just as powerfull as they were yesterday. If anything it would have been blowing up Eothas which would tell people that the gods can be fought and killed.

It sounds as though you get the structure of the argument without understanding the significance. Unfortunately, I'm not sure that's something that can be explained; you either get it or you don't.

 

People fly planes into buildings and murder healthcare providers because they believe their stories are true. How receptive do you think they would be to evidence that those stories were made up by other humans? If the precepts of my ideology were handed down by an all-powerful being that created the universe, I might feel justified for following them. If I were to find out that the "all-powerful being" is actually a "very-powerful piece of technology which was designed by an advanced, but fallible, people who lived a thousand years ago" am I still justified for accepting them? Does something significant to the authority, doesn't it?

 

EDIT: Let me try again from a more concrete perspective. Eder killed people, watched friends die, was estranged from his community, and ultimately lost his brother...over a disagreement about toaster ovens. Replace one piece of technology with another and the whole logic kinda falls apart. 

Edited April 21, 2016 by Achilles

[Teioh_White]

I guess the one difference here is, there actually are beings that do everything they say they say gods do.They just don't have the correct creation myth.

 

Like if we had proof that heaven and hell and all that jazz was mostly true, just that Atlantis made God or something,he's not a natural occurring thing. Dunno how people react to knowing there god is basically real as advertised except for its creation. Might get more converts.

[Batbro]

I guess the one difference here is, there actually are beings that do everything they say they say gods do.They just don't have the correct creation myth.

 

Like if we had proof that heaven and hell and all that jazz was mostly true, just that Atlantis made God or something,he's not a natural occurring thing. Dunno how people react to knowing there god is basically real as advertised except for its creation. Might get more converts.

You're comparing Earth with Eora without accounting for a pivotal difference between the two: the gods are known entities in Eora, where they are not on Earth.  Information that reveals the hidden nature of a known entity is vastly different from information that confirms the existence of an unknown entity, and the implications and ramifications of both are not comparable.

[Teioh_White]

Yeah...I know? It was in response to how people in Earth do things based on religion, and possible reactions to man-made proof. So, like you said, a straight up comp doesn't work. Which was the point of the post.