Ydwin to return in the expansion?

[Gromnir]

 

 

And sure, animancy can create real monsters in the game itself, but I don't really see how that changes much in terms of its representational value. 

 

how could it not? real monsters. real souls. doesn't matter how many parallels there is to real world sciences and scientists when there is such fundamental and salient differences as we discussed already.  unfortunate, previous experience tells us the inability (feigned?) to recognize how real monsters and real souls changes the basic discussion is making progress impossible. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

[algroth]

 

 

 

And sure, animancy can create real monsters in the game itself, but I don't really see how that changes much in terms of its representational value. 

 

how could it not? real monsters. real souls. doesn't matter how many parallels there is to real world sciences and scientists when there is such fundamental and salient differences as we discussed already.  unfortunate, previous experience tells us the inability (feigned?) to recognize how real monsters and real souls changes the basic discussion is making progress impossible. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

I've given you the example of a real monster: the atom bomb. You'll argue that it's not a monster, it's a weapon, but it's a device designed with the deliberate intent of mass destruction and I see its use as monstrous (and it has been used before). It's real, and it's more frightening than any wicht or construct or Frankenstein's monster. But I do not use its existence to argue that the entirety of nuclear physics or technology is wrong, and so when I see animancers in the game itself using animancy positively and with the intentions of the betterment of kith, I do not assume animancy to be bad in and of itself either.

[JerekKruger]

rip souls, which ain't an abstract such as in the our world but is objective and even tangible, from living bodies or eternity to power creations benign and malefic is not similar to the moral conundrums o' stem cell research or the environmental impact o' coal.

 

The only reason I can see that the misuses of real world science are different to the misuses of animancy in Eora is because of the prevalence of a belief in souls in our world. If, like me, you don't believe that I (or any one else) has a soul then the abuses of science are just as evil as those of animancy. Of course, if you believe your essence will go on after your death then that all changes.

 

As a side note: as I understand it souls in Eora aren't really like those described in, say, Christianity. When a person dies in Eora their soul, eventually, returns to the wheel where it is very often broken apart and recombined with other souls before being born into a new person. In general the "person" ceases to exist after death, with awakenings and such being the exception rather than the norm. Basically whilst the soul is fundamental to living creatures, it is not their immortal essence.

[algroth]

 

rip souls, which ain't an abstract such as in the our world but is objective and even tangible, from living bodies or eternity to power creations benign and malefic is not similar to the moral conundrums o' stem cell research or the environmental impact o' coal.

 

The only reason I can see that the misuses of real world science are different to the misuses of animancy in Eora is because of the prevalence of a belief in souls in our world. If, like me, you don't believe that I (or any one else) has a soul then the abuses of science are just as evil as those of animancy. Of course, if you believe your essence will go on after your death then that all changes.

 

As a side note: as I understand it souls in Eora aren't really like those described in, say, Christianity. When a person dies in Eora their soul, eventually, returns to the wheel where it is very often broken apart and recombined with other souls before being born into a new person. In general the "person" ceases to exist after death, with awakenings and such being the exception rather than the norm. Basically whilst the soul is fundamental to living creatures, it is not their immortal essence.

 

You could say a soul is a real manifestation that harbour their individual person and sense of self - in that sense there is a parallel to the neurosciences and these do have a history of despicable procedures and experiments that either killed or radically altered the patients and subjects they worked with (not to mention the occasional malpraxis as well). Again, I don't really think these disciplines reduce themselves to this either.

Edited September 13, 2017 by algroth

[Gromnir]

 

 

 

 

And sure, animancy can create real monsters in the game itself, but I don't really see how that changes much in terms of its representational value. 

 

how could it not? real monsters. real souls. doesn't matter how many parallels there is to real world sciences and scientists when there is such fundamental and salient differences as we discussed already.  unfortunate, previous experience tells us the inability (feigned?) to recognize how real monsters and real souls changes the basic discussion is making progress impossible. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

I've given you the example of a real monster: the atom bomb. You'll argue that it's not a monster, it's a weapon, but it's a device designed with the deliberate intent of mass destruction and I see its use as monstrous (and it has been used before). It's real, and it's more frightening than any wicht or construct or Frankenstein's monster. But I do not use its existence to argue that the entirety of nuclear physics or technology is wrong, and so when I see animancers in the game itself using animancy positively and with the intentions of the betterment of kith, I do not assume animancy to be bad in and of itself either.

 

'course the a bomb is not a monster.  the a-bomb were the result o' rational and predictable design.  the weapon worked exact as planned.  in fact, your politics aside, the one use o' the weapon in history arguable saved many lives. "we shall probably have to kill at least 5 to 10 million Japanese. this might cost us between 1.7 and 4 million casualties including [between] 400,000 and 800,000 killed."-- based on estimates by nobel laureate, dr. shockley.  were no science run amok resulting in soulless babies or rampaging undead.  were no amok at all.  has been all kinda mass killings in history.  the scope o' human atrocities is not circumscribed by science.  genocides, slave cullings, atrocities (great and small) occurred long before tech more complex than anything save the plow.  the a-bomb itself is functional a large bomb, and resulted in fewer deaths than the firebombing o' tokyo btw.  were a tool and, more important, the science behind the tool cannot result in monsters and soulless children.... save in comics and video games.

 

some folks will no doubt rage at the suggestion the a-bomb saved lives, but fact is there were no amok.  the tool worked exact as intended and it didn't require souls to be powered... and no claims souls were destroyed in the blasts at nagasaki or hiroshima. now if the a-bomb were created by forcibly ripping the souls o' ten thousand orphans from their infant bodies and forcing 'em into some kinda alchemical device, then we would see parallels. mere creation o' the weapon, use or not, would be monstrous. 

 

a-bomb is actual a terrible example. sure, science and animancy both result in moral questions. just because science can achieve ______ doesn't mean science should be used to create _________.  same for animancy.  unfortunate, one can say the same 'bout many human endeavours.  law. journalism. politics, etc. the simple fact moral questions exist for both don't erase fundamental differences.

 

animancy is different.  the fundamental question o' the morality o' using human souls to power and the capacity to create genuine monsters makes different.  am suspecting you know such makes different but you don't see the differences as significant... which is baffling.  is perhaps understandable as you has convinced self o' the parallel o' animancy and science, so you is willing to ignore said differences, but such embracing o' three wise monkey routine is gonna yet again prove insurmountable.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps to jerek, souls in eora is not hypothetical.  is real.  soulless children is abomination.  one can see, objective, what absence o' a soul does to a being. trapped souls you encounter after taking leap o' faith into the pit should also disabuse one o' the notion eora's souls is marked different from real world imaginings.  even so, can't use real world for this.  in the real world, countless bloody wars were fought over religion and mere shared guesses concerning the disposition o' souls. eora gots objective souls, so how much more poignant?

 

is same mistake repeated.  see animancy same as science. see eora souls same as real world. 

 

ignoring the monster issue is also a mistake.  the common people o' the real world were frequent terrified o' the Potential for creation o' monsters by science.  the number o' people who suffered throughout history mere 'cause the people, educated and ignorant, believed science were capable o' creating monsters, is considerable.  in a world where the science does result in real monsters being unleashed in large numbers, the reaction to the advancement o' science would be more or less violent? be honest.

 

pps will once again observe how this animancy stuff belongs in another thread.  have been such threads in the past.  our apologies to mods for our contribution to helping derail this thread.  will continue in a different thread if people wanna start one... but keep in mind, this ain't a new debate.

Edited September 13, 2017 by Gromnir

[algroth]

 

 

 

 

 

And sure, animancy can create real monsters in the game itself, but I don't really see how that changes much in terms of its representational value. 

 

how could it not? real monsters. real souls. doesn't matter how many parallels there is to real world sciences and scientists when there is such fundamental and salient differences as we discussed already.  unfortunate, previous experience tells us the inability (feigned?) to recognize how real monsters and real souls changes the basic discussion is making progress impossible. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

I've given you the example of a real monster: the atom bomb. You'll argue that it's not a monster, it's a weapon, but it's a device designed with the deliberate intent of mass destruction and I see its use as monstrous (and it has been used before). It's real, and it's more frightening than any wicht or construct or Frankenstein's monster. But I do not use its existence to argue that the entirety of nuclear physics or technology is wrong, and so when I see animancers in the game itself using animancy positively and with the intentions of the betterment of kith, I do not assume animancy to be bad in and of itself either.

 

'course the a bomb is not a monster.  the a-bomb were the result o' rational and predictable design.  the weapon worked exact as planned.  in fact, your politics aside, the one use o' the weapon in history arguable saved many lives. "we shall probably have to kill at least 5 to 10 million Japanese. this might cost us between 1.7 and 4 million casualties including [between] 400,000 and 800,000 killed."-- based on estimates by nobel laureate, dr. shockley.  were no science run amok resulting in soulless babies or rampaging undead.  were no amok at all.  has been all kinda mass killings in history.  the scope o' human atrocities is not circumscribed by science.  genocides, slave cullings, atrocities (great and small) occurred long before tech more complex than anything save the plow.  the a-bomb itself is functional a large bomb, and resulted in fewer deaths than the firebombing o' tokyo btw.  were a tool and, more important, the science behind the tool cannot result in monsters and soulless children.... save in comics and video games.

 

some folks will no doubt rage at the suggestion the a-bomb saved lives, but fact is there were no amok.  the tool worked exact as intended and it didn't require souls to be powered... and no claims souls were destroyed in the blasts at nagasaki or hiroshima. now if the a-bomb were created by forcibly ripping the souls o' ten thousand orphans from their infant bodies and forcing 'em into some kinda alchemical device, then we would see parallels. mere creation o' the weapon, use or not, would be monstrous. 

 

a-bomb is actual a terrible example. sure, science and animancy both result in moral questions. just because science can achieve ______ doesn't mean science should be used to create _________.  same for animancy.  unfortunate, one can say the same 'bout many human endeavours.  law. journalism. politics, etc. the simple fact moral questions exist for both don't erase fundamental differences.

 

animancy is different.  the fundamental question o' the morality o' using human souls to power and the capacity to create genuine monsters makes different.  am suspecting you know such makes different but you don't see the differences as significant... which is baffling.  is perhaps understandable as you has convinced self o' the parallel o' animancy and science, so you is willing to ignore said differences, but such embracing o' three wise monkey routine is gonna yet again prove insurmountable.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

I'll leave the justification of Japan's bombing for another thread because as far as I've read I don't agree that it was necessary, and really it's neither here nor there; yet all the same, it is a real-world monster, it is a source of genuine fear and lends a madman with enough power the abilty to do truly monstrous deeds.

 

And again, the problem here is that you only see animancy as the ability to create monsters, when it isn't. The game makes it clear that it isn't, many counter-examples are provided in the game and have been provided in this thread. That you wish to only see animancy as far as this point makes me think it's you who's playing the Three Wise Monkeys game.

 

And again, this all ignores the fact that, in a game in which the birth of humanism, the transition into an age of Enlightenment and the clash between religion and science are all *central* themes to the story, the fact that animancy is the *only* science explored in detail throughout the game is thoroughly indicative that, as far as the game, the story and the development of these themes are all concerned, animancy is the game's stand-in for science. Whether it is responsible for creating monsters or else is really irrelevant, this is still the role it fulfills within the game.

Edited September 13, 2017 by algroth

[Gromnir]

 

 

 

And again, the problem here is that you only see animancy as the ability to create monsters, when it isn't. 

 

 

 

only responding as point o' personal privilege.  in case you were unaware, the above is what is referred to as strawman.  point to where we says such a thing.  specifically noted the capacity for animancy to create designs both "benign and malefic."  nobody in this thread, or any thread we seen, has denied animancy having positive benefits. duh.  but hey, we kinda predicted this sorta approach from the start.  didn't expect so quick a retreat to silly strawman instead.

 

and being the only stand-in for science doesn't change fact that animancy is fundamental different from science... which is exact the problem. am agreeing poe animancy is doing the metaphor shtick for real world science.  again, is no need convincing us to agree on a non-point. the actual argument is animancy as described in poe were a poor stand-in not that is were or weren't obsidians choice to be doing metaphorical heavy lifting.... though creating literal monsters is precise part o' the problem as we has now stated tediously many times.  imaginary frankenstein monster terrified, and terrifies to this day. real hordes o' rampaging monsters created through soul manipulation woulda' had what kinda Reasonable impact on those witnessing the dawn o' modern sciences? irrelevant? okie dokie.

 

'course am simple repeating self as are you... with the exception o' the ridiculous strawman nonsense.

 

done.  'nother thread or bust.  nobody is even mentioning ydwin oblique at this point.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[injurai]

I must say, am I the only one who didn't walk away from the game thinking it put animancers in a bad light?  Sure, it shows them doing bad stuff but it also was clear that they could do good stuff I thought, and that it was a double-edged sword like any tech.  I actually thought they were pushing the "animancy is good!" a bit too hard at some points, and that you were being corralled into being pro-animancer as the good option!  Was I playing a different game to the rest of you?  Did I mistake a cardboard box for my PC again?

 

 

 

I must say, am I the only one who didn't walk away from the game thinking it put animancers in a bad light?  Sure, it shows them doing bad stuff but it also was clear that they could do good stuff I thought, and that it was a double-edged sword like any tech.  I actually thought they were pushing the "animancy is good!" a bit too hard at some points, and that you were being corralled into being pro-animancer as the good option!  Was I playing a different game to the rest of you?  Did I mistake a cardboard box for my PC again?

 

Exactly this. In fact, personally I felt that the questionable acts by animancy were only included so as to make what is obviously the best and most sensible choice be tinged with a bit of grey. I thought it was a pretty clear-cut choice when the alternative was to stunt progress and vindicate the people's superstitions.

 

 

I'm right there with you two.

Edited September 13, 2017 by injurai

[algroth]

 

 

 

 

And again, the problem here is that you only see animancy as the ability to create monsters, when it isn't. 

 

 

 

only responding as point o' personal privilege.  in case you were unaware, the above is what is referred to as strawman.  point to where we says such a thing.  specifically noted the capacity for animancy to create designs both "benign and malefic."  nobody in this thread, or any thread we seen, has denied animancy having positive benefits. duh.  but hey, we kinda predicted this sorta approach from the start.  didn't expect so quick a retreat to silly strawman instead.

 

Not a strawman, just a misunderstanding. I assumed you were invariably linking animancy to soul transfer when you said "animancy is different.  the fundamental question o' the morality o' using human souls to power and the capacity to create genuine monsters makes different." That's not what you meant so fair enough, my mistake.

 

 

 

 

and being the only stand-in for science doesn't change fact that animancy is fundamental different from science... which is exact the problem. am agreeing poe animancy is doing the metaphor shtick for real world science.  again, is no need convincing us to agree on a non-point. the actual argument is animancy as described in poe were a poor stand-in not that is were or weren't obsidians choice to be doing metaphorical heavy lifting.... though creating literal monsters is precise part o' the problem as we has now stated tediously many times.  imaginary frankenstein monster terrified, and terrifies to this day. real hordes o' rampaging monsters created through soul manipulation woulda' had what kinda Reasonable impact on those witnessing the dawn o' modern sciences? irrelevant? okie dokie.

 

There's a two things at work here. Firstly, you say it's a poor stand-in, I actually agree there, and I have written about it in my review of the game here. Perhaps we disagree on *why* it is a poor representation: to me the 'atrocities' commited by animancers only exist to try and even the fields between what is a very reasonable and progressive stance and what is a very regressive, superstition-based one - I never said the latter was without reason, which is what you allude to with the monsters being real, but likewise superstition is what links the present-day animancers to the Legacy and the core of the argument of many Dozens members and others. To me the representation of science is poor because the 'grey' elements are only formal or superficial, as in, they only relate to the world of Eora and don't really affect or change the core ideals or philosophies when translated to the real world.

 

Secondly, when I said it was irrelevant I meant that it was irrelevant to defining whether or not animancy is the game's stand-in for science, or how close can animancy stand in for science. Of course it this has in-game implications, but I don't think this relationship is made frailer by the 'monsters' being real: it is a choice of representation of science's transgressions on morality. In reality, these same transgressions can be weapons of mass destruction, or people who have lost all sense of self. Either way these cases are monstrous, all are part of science's history, and in a world in which souls would be real, an equivalent to animancy would exist and it would likely have its own grim history that would nevertheless not cancel out the value of understanding this subject and being able to treat it. It would still be a science, provided again that souls were real, and not entirely unlike the rest.

Edited September 13, 2017 by algroth

[Karkarov]

wrong. wrong. wrong.

 

is from "Update #71: The Heavy Hitters: Rogues and Rangers."

 

poe rogues is a combat class.  is "shock troops." is heavy hitters. is embracing a vicious, brutal fighting style. etc. so, eder or ydwin? tell us again how ydwin makes more sense as a heavy hitter shock trooper. 

 

as for edwin nostalgia and belief ydwin will replace him based on micro-blurb character description, am thinking you shouldn't hold your breath.  the deadfire writers, who were poe writers, don't seem to be aiming for cartoony pastiche. not only do we see an intentional avoidance o' simplistic moral pigeonholing o' companions, but am suspecting the last thing the obsidian folks want is for a deadfire companion to be an obvious stand-in for a bg/bg2 joinable npc. so cliché edwin's evil is unlikely and an overt edwin clone is even more unlikely.

 

promancers need an elf female? not even gonna respond to such.

First thing, I am saying why people like her in my opinion.  Not why I like her character.  For me it all about the fact that finally, we have a potential party member who is actually an animancer and may have more motivation for supporting animancy than.... "Well in Valia we study all sciences because we are more intelligent than you."

 

As for Rogue, they say all that in this ancient update you dredged but that I am well aware of.  I also know Eder (or was it Adair?) was originally a Fighter, changed to Rogue, than back to Fighter.

 

Here is the cold hard truth though.  What is the one rogue you get in Eternity?  Devil of Caroc.  What is Devil of Caroc?  A murderer who goes from town to town slitting peoples throats and burning down their houses.  A classic murder stab stab rogue who happens to be a robot sort of.

 

You can't say "rogues are this and that" and then release the only rogue companion in game with a background that is totally different from a "front line shock trooper" and expect people to hold to the definition you originally claimed.  It doesn't help that their bonus skills are in .... mechanics, and half their skills involve turning invisible, or breaking engagement.

 

So you can claim they are whatever you want, but when you make them mechanically similar to a traditional D&D rogue, people will treat them as traditional rogues.

 

Also I bet you a lot of min maxers will argue that Rangers are about as heavy hitter as a limp string pasta is.

 

Edwin wise, I don't like him, never did.  He is a bloody stain on the cobbles in my BG saves.  Doesn't change the fact that many people interpreted her blurb this way.

[Messier-31]

I also know Eder (or was it Adair?) was originally a Fighter, changed to Rogue, than back to Fighter.

 

For the record, the story goes like this:

1. He was called Edair during the Kickstarter campaing, he was your run-of-the-mill generic fighter; he also had longer hair, yo;
2. Later they changed his name to Edér to reflect the language of the Dyrwood - apparent attention to detail;
3. Approx at the same time they changed his class to rogue, with some strange explanation of how he was supposed to be a atypical rogue from the start (not in classic stealthy hooded thief dagger wielding sneak attack way);
4. He was changed back to fighter late in the development, because reasons (probably for players wanting to have a fighter companion early in-game).

[Lord_Mord]

 

And again, this all ignores the fact that, in a game in which the birth of humanism, the transition into an age of Enlightenment and the clash between religion and science are all *central* themes to the story, the fact that animancy is the *only* science explored in detail throughout the game is thoroughly indicative that, as far as the game, the story and the development of these themes are all concerned, animancy is the game's stand-in for science. Whether it is responsible for creating monsters or else is really irrelevant, this is still the role it fulfills within the game.

 

So the invention of guns is no science? Historians are no scientists? In a world with magic, studying magic would count as science too, I guess. Galvinos constructs are not only a work of animancy but a mechanical work. We even encounter a geologist in the game.

 

But I admit: Nothing as cool and potentially useful as reviving the dead. An army of enslaved souls. How cool is that? That is real progress. If only the world could see it rationally. What we need is a cute girl with sexy glasses to help them being rational.

 

Positivist idiots.

[Karkarov]

So the invention of guns is no science? Historians are no scientists? In a world with magic, studying magic would count as science too, I guess. Galvinos constructs are not only a work of animancy but a mechanical work. We even encounter a geologist in the game.

You are sort of overlooking some critical truth's.

 

You know, like how all magic, be it that of a cipher, or that of a wizard, is derived from the power of a persons soul.  So while you could say "studying magic is a science", the source of magic is that persons soul, and Animancy is the study of soul manipulation.  It isn't just about raising the dead, or creating horror golems.

 

Just saying.

[Lord_Mord]

 

You know, like how all magic, be it that of a cipher, or that of a wizard, is derived from the power of a persons soul.  So while you could say "studying magic is a science", the source of magic is that persons soul,

 

You mean, it's more like mental martial arts or something? And animancy more of an underlying theory?

 

Probably true, but that does not mean, it is the only form of science. In Pillars we have a society on the edge of a renaissance. That involves more than just studying souls. Reducing it to animancy is reducing the indicatior of progress to one field. It's like measuring real world progress in terms of processor speed or weapon technology. That does in no way reflect the overall progress we made. That we are advenced in one field should not mean that we should put all our trust in it. It does not even mean, that it is a good idea to further develop in that direction. Maybe we just should not fiddle around with souls.

 

Not that I really think animancy is bad per se. I just dont see the point in "rehabilitating" it. The person playing the game has its own brain.

[algroth]

I have said before that animancy is not the only science present in Eora, what I have said is that it is the only science explored in detail. To the best of my memory neither the invention of guns nor geology are discussed to anywhere as near a degree of detail or relevance as animancy. But you're right about history, I should have perhaps limited it to hard sciences specifically, but I thought that was sort of implied in the discussion anyways.

 

And again, though, animancy is not just about the "enslavement of souls" or any such thing, and plenty of examples of how the discipline extends beyond that have been given through these last few pages and in the game itself. I don't think animancy acts as a barometer for society's progress but in the game it is all the same fulfilling a representational role as that of the fledging sciences of the Renaissance (which were also in more than one occasion looked at as something that we should not fiddle around with).

[Lord_Mord]

 

animancy is not just about the "enslavement of souls"

 

As far as I remember enslaving souls was the only thing animancers in the game ever did, that really worked. There was an unsuccessful soul-psychoanalyst and lots of attemptes to "heal" Waidwens Legacy by, guess what, fiddling around with souls. Wasn't one of the doctors trying to use animal souls? Sounds healthy.

 

Even the Engwithians just managed to channel souls from here to there.

[rjshae]

 

 

And again, this all ignores the fact that, in a game in which the birth of humanism, the transition into an age of Enlightenment and the clash between religion and science are all *central* themes to the story, the fact that animancy is the *only* science explored in detail throughout the game is thoroughly indicative that, as far as the game, the story and the development of these themes are all concerned, animancy is the game's stand-in for science. Whether it is responsible for creating monsters or else is really irrelevant, this is still the role it fulfills within the game.

 

So the invention of guns is no science? Historians are no scientists? In a world with magic, studying magic would count as science too, I guess. Galvinos constructs are not only a work of animancy but a mechanical work. We even encounter a geologist in the game.

 

But I admit: Nothing as cool and potentially useful as reviving the dead. An army of enslaved souls. How cool is that? That is real progress. If only the world could see it rationally. What we need is a cute girl with sexy glasses to help them being rational.

 

Positivist idiots.

 

It did take a while for "science" to develop into Science as we understand it today. For a long time it was called naturalism instead, as untestable supernatural explanations gradually came to be excluded. Likewise, for most of the past, history was not scientific. It took centuries for history to develop rigorous methods, and in some respects it's still as much an art as a science. So no, just "studying" magic is not science. It also needs rigorous hypothesis testing and independent verification before it becomes a proper science.

[algroth]

 

 

animancy is not just about the "enslavement of souls"

 

As far as I remember enslaving souls was the only thing animancers in the game ever did, that really worked. There was an unsuccessful soul-psychoanalyst and lots of attemptes to "heal" Waidwens Legacy by, guess what, fiddling around with souls. Wasn't one of the doctors trying to use animal souls? Sounds healthy.

 

 

Actually it did sound healthy and seem like a solution for a while - remember that, as shown with Sagani's side-quest, souls formerly human can be reincarnated as animals, and as is mentioned in the game it's only when puberty struck that things started to become awkward. Depending on how much of one's personality one would believe to be determined from birth or by being raised, the 'cure' could have seemed plausible. For a while it had seemed to work and the theory could have perfectly been there for this all to work as well.

 

Caldara de Berranzi, the very first animancer we meet, tells us of several other cases where animancy has worked including her parents, who were twin souls and correctly diagnosed and brought together by an animancer. Other examples of the likes can be found in the game, whilst it is also crucial to understand that just because there is no solution for a specific ailment, one shouldn't consider all research on the topic up to that point useless. Aloth's awakening wasn't resolved but with enough research an animancer could in the future find a way to treat similar cases.

Edited September 14, 2017 by algroth

[rjshae]

One way that animancers could contribute positively is by finding a way to heal "fractured" souls. Perhaps binding a soul into a vessel will prove to be a way to do that. Wealthy patrons discovered to possess fractured souls may decide upon this treatment at their death so that they may be reincarnated whole. Or it could all be snake oil sold by a duplicitous animancer looking to line his or her pockets.

[CottonWolf]

 

 

animancy is not just about the "enslavement of souls"

 

As far as I remember enslaving souls was the only thing animancers in the game ever did, that really worked. There was an unsuccessful soul-psychoanalyst and lots of attemptes to "heal" Waidwens Legacy by, guess what, fiddling around with souls. Wasn't one of the doctors trying to use animal souls? Sounds healthy.

 

Even the Engwithians just managed to channel souls from here to there.

 

The Engwithians managed to get good enough at animancy to create gods from nothing, whole cloth transformation of souls. They clearly knew considerably more about it than the people of "modern day" Eora. I agree with you that whether or not that's a good thing is open to interpretation. The issue with animancers in Pillars is that they came in two stripes; good but incompetent, or highly morally-questionable and competent. You never see an animancer who's trying to do something ethical succeed. Persumably those people must exist, but they're never given any screen time.

 

Even Pallegina, your most pro-animancy companion, seems to only like animancy because of the potential for profit. She doesn't have any kind of vision of a better world for people through animancy.

[ShadySands]

Wasn't that the whole (or half of the) point of the Leaden Key though? To make sure the people that came after the Engwithians never attained their proficiency with animancy (or found out the truth of the gods)?

 

It's been a while since I played but maybe the "best" animancers were either sabotaged or disappeared to keep animancy in the domain of the crooked, cracked, and incapable 

[smjjames]

 

 

 

animancy is not just about the "enslavement of souls"

 

As far as I remember enslaving souls was the only thing animancers in the game ever did, that really worked. There was an unsuccessful soul-psychoanalyst and lots of attemptes to "heal" Waidwens Legacy by, guess what, fiddling around with souls. Wasn't one of the doctors trying to use animal souls? Sounds healthy.

 

Even the Engwithians just managed to channel souls from here to there.

 

The Engwithians managed to get good enough at animancy to create gods from nothing, whole cloth transformation of souls. They clearly knew considerably more about it than the people of "modern day" Eora. I agree with you that whether or not that's a good thing is open to interpretation. The issue with animancers in Pillars is that they came in two stripes; good but incompetent, or highly morally-questionable and competent. You never see an animancer who's trying to do something ethical succeed. Persumably those people must exist, but they're never given any screen time.

 

Even Pallegina, your most pro-animancy companion, seems to only like animancy because of the potential for profit. She doesn't have any kind of vision of a better world for people through animancy.

 

 

We don't even know yet how they did that with the manufactured gods. Though obviously the Engwithians are far more advanced in some parts of animancy than others, compared to modern PoE animancy.

 

In defense of Pallegina, she's not a scientist and is essentially a lobbyist for politicians, so, obviously she sees it through a political lens.

[Karkarov]

Well guys lets stop and think of the implications.  Reincarnation is real.  You die, but you WILL be reborn, and your memory of past lives CAN be retrieved.

What if an Animancer studied and found a way to say, key a soul so that when it died it would return as the same person?  We know it can be done, Thaos is doing it.  You just gave every living person effectively near eternal life. 

Or even just transfer memory from one person to another... wait Llengrath does that doesn't she?  Boom, effectively you transferred an entire life of knowledge to a new person, who can get their own knowledge, and the next gets two lifetimes, etc etc.

Either of these methods mean you don't have 50-60 years to study and enhance your magic, firearms, building techniques, agriculture.... you have hundreds.  Imagine how quickly all the arts and sciences would expand even if only 100 people could get this treatment.  These are two things we know Animancy CAN do, because they exist in game. 

 

Animancers just need to figure out how, and share this knowledge with people who don't think keeping the populace stupid, or living in a swap are good life choices.

Also Animancy effects your "powers" remember?  What if we studied Animancy from the perspective modern scientists study genetics?  I can discover the "magic gene", and with a little soul tuning I can turn anyone into a potential wizard.  The possibilities are pretty insane, and they far outshine the potential of any other science in Eora, hence why so many want to study it.

[daven]

I think the weakest part of the game is all the soul reincarnation malarkey.

[Lord_Mord]

 

You never see an animancer who's trying to do something ethical succeed. Persumably those people must exist, but they're never given any screen time.

 

Maybe that is because it's not possible. Maybe all animancy can achieve is transferring souls? Ever thought about that? But what now that we have put all effort into studying it and found out, that it's all it can do? All the effort for nothing? Come on, let's at least transfer some souls.

 

 

 

The Engwithians managed to get good enough at animancy to create gods from nothing,

 

Not from nothing. They created them by using lots of souls from the wheel. Nice guys those Engwithians.

 

 

 

What if an Animancer studied and found a way to say, key a soul so that when it died it would return as the same person?  We know it can be done, Thaos is doing it.

 

Thaos has not all cups in the cupboard. Neither has Llengrath. Maybe it's not healthy to do that? Same with genetics. It's one thing trying to eliminate genetic errors and a totally different thing trying to reengineer the genetic code to prevent the body from dying (Besides: We are to many humans already). Believing in science does not mean you have to do everything that seems possible.