Only that unlike Thaos, her motivations are proven to be altruistic and her beliefs to be true.
Thaos' motives can certainly be construed as altruistic. He wants to end religious warfare, for one. He wants to remove dangerous technology like animancy from people. How many animancers do we meet in the game who aren't crazy nut jobs? Our own world might be a lot safer if we were prevented from discovering nuclear fission.
Iovara's a likeable person, but she's determined to undermine the authority of the gods, regardless of whether they have a positive impact on people's lives. She values being right over the welfare of others. I'm not sure she's altruistic at all.
Also to house2fly, to the best of my awareness I was never given an option to tell her I didn't think she was right, or to argue against her exposition. This is even more worrying when, at least during my first playthrough, my character literally asked out loud "could this be true, that the gods are a lie?" right after the interaction.
This is definitely the thing that was wrong with Iovara with me. Even if I do have an option to agree with her, I don't feel like like I'm really saying that if I don't have an option to say "you're full of baloney, you fool!" for contrast.
Thaos' 'altruism' in this case is similar to a dictator claiming he is oppressing the people so that they won't argue about who ought to be leader instead. The result to his 'plan' still has him imbued with some kind of eternal life and *lots* of power, as well as making his goddess the very object of people's worship. Yes, you could argue that Iovara would gain reknown and probably be a figure of power if she managed to succeed in her campaign, but to claim as much, as well as claiming Thaos is actually altruistic, is to start applying some really twisted mental gymnastics into the equation. As for whether Iovara values truth over the wellfare of others... I don't recall any evidence that points to that in the game itself. To just say it is because she's rebelling against the gods and thus putting people's lives at risk is really not enough, when the gods themselves are shown to be deluding people about their real origins and their actual original function. We may as well assume any liberator figure throughout the history of fiction has never acted selflessly or for the good of the people he was liberating.
And I also agree with the latter. The option to agree should always be there, but we ought to be able to disagree too, and not just in a "this lie is necessary" way (which is sort of what happens if you *do* decide to ally with Woedica or whatever). You ought to be given the chance to genuinely argue back and disbelieve, if that is what your character would do. In my case, for example, I did play a paladin through my first playthrough. He would have been pretty zealous and would not have accepted Iovara's words so easily and without a genuine argument back at her. Instead, he does, because that's apparently the only option.
Edited by algroth, 15 November 2017 - 02:51 PM.