It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
Pillars of Eternity Series*SPOILERS* Ending discussion(39 posts)(39 posts)
(39 posts)
Pages:
1
2
3
This is my favourite topic
Posted April 21, 2015
avatar
ghosterl: Good question, the Adra Dragon could have been a great repository of knowledge, but on the other hand it was stuck in the Endless Paths for its entire lifetime. Assuming using or consuming souls for power does not give you the knowledge contained within then the dragon didn't know any more than she told you, only bits and pieces at best.
Although in the conversation with the dragon, she/he explain that is almost the perfect cipher, its able to transfer his soul to other creatures and in this way know everything that had been happening in the world /The dragon loves gossips). Probably tis even better than Thaos ability (except by the fact its don't has a god's support).
Posted April 26, 2015
avatar
darkness58ec: I did not like, however, the stories' sudden and casual settlement on the gods don't exist. Its not explained how the Engwithans knew for certain that there are no gods or why our characters should believe this. It was accepted uncritically as if Iovara was some mouth of truth. More than that, it seems plain to me that the writer was an atheist and either believes the atheistic position is undoubtedly true, or simply wished to write a story that disregards divinity. This struck me as coming at the expense of the story and saying something about our positions as human beings.

...

Your thoughts?
You're seriously wrong here. The author is far from atheist. He is subjective idealist, i.e. Buddhist. Compared to objective idealism, i.e. Christianity, subjective idealism claims that there are no abstract ideas independent of our experience but only ideas of subjects, i.e. people or their souls, exist, which is the base of reality. Objective idealism claims that God or the gods create the world around us and people and their ideas are just derivatives of the objective independent ideal idea, i.e. God. Subjective idealism claims that our own collective perception and ideas create the world around us and given enough knowledge and understanding any person or his soul can become or create a god himself based on subjective idea of that person, which is exactly what is shown in this game. The atheism by definition denies not only existence of gods but also existence of souls or similar supernatural explanations of consciousness. Therefore, the game contradicts atheistic life position off the bat.
Posted April 26, 2015
avatar
Maerd: You're seriously wrong here. The author is far from atheist. He is subjective idealist, i.e. Buddhist. Compared to objective idealism, i.e. Christianity, subjective idealism claims that there are no abstract ideas independent of our experience but only ideas of subjects, i.e. people or their souls, exist, which is the base of reality. Objective idealism claims that God or the gods create the world around us and people and their ideas are just derivatives of the objective independent ideal idea, i.e. God. Subjective idealism claims that our own collective perception and ideas create the world around us and given enough knowledge and understanding any person or his soul can become or create a god himself based on subjective idea of that person, which is exactly what is shown in this game. The atheism by definition denies not only existence of gods but also existence of souls or similar supernatural explanations of consciousness. Therefore, the game contradicts atheistic life position off the bat.
We are just using different definitions. I don't think that atheism, by definition, denies the existence of souls or the supernatural. Just god(s). From the Greek, "not - god". I also don't think there is any central belief structure for atheists, unlike some religions, that could claim authority over defining the atheist's beliefs.

I am unfamiliar with eastern religious ideals. (As an aside, are you saying he is Buddhist or that Buddhism is an example of something in line with subjective idealism? Also, out of curiosity, do you know the author personally?) The idea that you describe is approximately similar to existentialism. Though, to my ear, it doesn't sound "far from atheist" as you proposed. For instance, the idea that "our own collective perception and ideas create the world around us and given enough knowledge and understanding any person or his soul can become or create a god himself based on subjective idea of that person" is similar to the belief that what cannot be tested by experiment, cannot be known and/or does not exist.

In any case, I think existentialism and/or the subjective idealism you described is a fair reading of the story. I also think it is atheistic, by my definition, in that the gods are not objective.
Posted April 26, 2015
avatar
darkness58ec: We are just using different definitions. I don't think that atheism, by definition, denies the existence of souls or the supernatural. Just god(s). From the Greek, "not - god". I also don't think there is any central belief structure for atheists, unlike some religions, that could claim authority over defining the atheist's beliefs.
Definitions are fine. You're correct that atheism is not a structured belief because atheism is not a belief at all. It's a refusal to accept claims of any god's existence without proof. As soon as a person start believing in supernatural he stops being atheist because if he accepts irrational explanation of any phenomenon then he as likely can explain it by existence of some deity because proof is not necessary. Therefore, atheist who believe in souls is either a fake atheist, i.e. believes in deity like idea but doesn't assign a 'god' tag on it, or a person who cannot think logically.

I am unfamiliar with eastern religious ideals. (As an aside, are you saying he is Buddhist or that Buddhism is an example of something in line with subjective idealism? Also, out of curiosity, do you know the author personally?)
What is shown in the game is not strictly Buddhism or any particular eastern religion. However, it's heavily influenced with Buddhism, Taoism and Hinduism. I don't know Cris Avellone personally, unfortunately, but previously he was the main author of Plainscape Torment plot, which pretty much has the same ideas but even more Buddhist inclined.

The idea that you describe is approximately similar to existentialism. Though, to my ear, it doesn't sound "far from atheist" as you proposed. For instance, the idea that "our own collective perception and ideas create the world around us and given enough knowledge and understanding any person or his soul can become or create a god himself based on subjective idea of that person" is similar to the belief that what cannot be tested by experiment, cannot be known and/or does not exist.
The subjective idealism is not existentialism but the later has some ideas in common with the former. Existentialism is rather loose philosophical movement claiming, I might admit rather fairly, of uniqueness of personal experience, it can be applied equally to both subjective and objective idealist ideas. The problem with existentialism is that it treats human behavior and existence as something irrational, which, in my opinion, doesn't make sense considering modern knowledge of psychology and social behavioral sciences.

In any case, I think existentialism and/or the subjective idealism you described is a fair reading of the story. I also think it is atheistic, by my definition, in that the gods are not objective.
Well, it just shows that you follow objective idealism doctrine, if you believe that gods must be objective. Buddhists will object being called atheists. :D
Posted April 26, 2015
avatar
Maerd: Definitions are fine. You're correct that atheism is not a structured belief because atheism is not a belief at all. It's a refusal to accept claims of any god's existence without proof. As soon as a person start believing in supernatural he stops being atheist because if he accepts irrational explanation of any phenomenon then he as likely can explain it by existence of some deity because proof is not necessary. Therefore, atheist who believe in souls is either a fake atheist, i.e. believes in deity like idea but doesn't assign a 'god' tag on it, or a person who cannot think logically.
You obviously have a very strong sense of what is an 'orthodox' atheist viewpoint, including that atheism is somehow inherently connected to logic. Not sure that follows just from not believing in god(s). Many atheists do not believe in god(s) due to their demand for a certain manner of proof, but that is not always the case, and it certainly isn't something which stems from a purely 'logical' viewpoint, i.e. a deductive conclusion based upon known or assumed premises. Moreover, there are many ways which god(s) have been said to have been proved or argued for, so I don't think its fair to say the only 'rational' viewpoint is atheistic (as you seemed to imply).

On another front, I am not sure what necessary connection there is between the concept of souls and god(s). An atheist, for example, could believe (or conclude for that matter) that there are souls without contradicting the definition of atheist. I believe there are examples in history we could point to, if you do not happen to know anyone who does so believe. It depends on the meaning of soul, of course. We could not mean 'soul' in such a way that it is tied up with god(s), but that is merely a connotation in religious systems and not really part of the definition of soul, which has been used by non-religious philosophers over millenia without employing those connotations.

Obviously, I grant you, if a person believes in something supernatural which meets the definition of 'god', whether or not he calls it that, that person cannot be correctly described as an atheist.

The subjective idealism is not existentialism but the later has some ideas in common with the former. Existentialism is rather loose philosophical movement claiming, I might admit rather fairly, of uniqueness of personal experience, it can be applied equally to both subjective and objective idealist ideas. The problem with existentialism is that it treats human behavior and existence as something irrational, which, in my opinion, doesn't make sense considering modern knowledge of psychology and social behavioral sciences.
What do you mean by existentialist? Self-determination of purpose (my meaning of existentialist) is pretty much the antithesis of objective, so I figure you must mean something else.

Well, it just shows that you follow objective idealism doctrine, if you believe that gods must be objective. Buddhists will object being called atheists. :D
That's just a Western view of what the word 'god' connotes. ; ) It's an objective concept. If Eastern peoples are referring to some powerful spirit that human beings create themselves, then I wouldn't translate that word as 'god' when speaking English, because the word means something significantly different.
Posted April 27, 2015
avatar
darkness58ec: You obviously have a very strong sense of what is an 'orthodox' atheist viewpoint, including that atheism is somehow inherently connected to logic. Not sure that follows just from not believing in god(s). Many atheists do not believe in god(s) due to their demand for a certain manner of proof, but that is not always the case, and it certainly isn't something which stems from a purely 'logical' viewpoint, i.e. a deductive conclusion based upon known or assumed premises.
There's no "orthodox" atheist viewpoint because it's logic, which is always just logic. Logic is universal, supported by everyday evidence and accepted by all philosophies as a given because otherwise there is no way to present any side's argument for or against anything. If you argue for any form of idealism you have to argue logically otherwise it's sophism, which can make arbitrary conclusions out of anything.

Moreover, there are many ways which god(s) have been said to have been proved or argued for, so I don't think its fair to say the only 'rational' viewpoint is atheistic (as you seemed to imply).
Idea of religion is a belief, a belief that doesn't require proof and it demands to accept it without questioning. In most religions asking for proof or expressing a doubt is a sin punishable by sadistic eternal tortures in the afterlife. Objective idealism can be rational but, obviously, not in the form of contemporary religions, which are self-contradictory.

On another front, I am not sure what necessary connection there is between the concept of souls and god(s). An atheist, for example, could believe (or conclude for that matter) that there are souls without contradicting the definition of atheist. I believe there are examples in history we could point to, if you do not happen to know anyone who does so believe. It depends on the meaning of soul, of course. We could not mean 'soul' in such a way that it is tied up with god(s), but that is merely a connotation in religious systems and not really part of the definition of soul, which has been used by non-religious philosophers over millennia without employing those connotations.
Yes indeed, back in history even atheists believed in souls. It was because it was an acceptable model due to lack of knowledge in biology. Their definition of soul was different though from the religious one. The whole concept of soul is an attempt to explain our consciousness and self-awareness. If you believe in soul then you believe that consciousness exists independent from our body. Just the evidence of Alzheimer disease and numerous cases of brain trauma makes such claims invalid. Mental diseases were explained by the soul concept as a sickness of the soul. Modern biology pretty much proven that any mental illness is either a brain damage or brain malfunction and have a very rational explanation. Therefore, soul concept as a separated consciousness is no longer relevant today. If you still believe in it then it's irrational thinking and, therefore, as soon as you accept one irrational idea you're as well may accept any other irrational concept including existence of supernatural god-like beings.

I make an example from physics about outdated models. Not so long time ago in physics there was a dominating theory of aether that everything is floating inside the perfect liquid with no viscosity. Everything was good enough until Einstein explained same phenomena without resorting to the aether concept at all. Consequently the aether theory model was abandoned as outdated.

Thus, if you want to be rational and still think objective idealism is your way then you have at least abandon the classical definition of a soul.

What do you mean by existentialist? Self-determination of purpose (my meaning of existentialist) is pretty much the antithesis of objective, so I figure you must mean something else.
The existentialism is not well defined philosophy and its rather a conglomerate of similar ideas. Some of their ideas were:
- Uniqueness of personal experience creates the need for you to understand yourself, because you cannot rely on other people's experience due to its uniqueness
- Human behaviour is irrational and causes all sort of problems
- To understand yourself you have to dare to put yourself in dangerous situations, only then you can realize your worth
- Fear/dread makes you separate what is essential in your life from irrelevant
- People are free to shape their own existence by the freedom of choices during their lifetime
- Responsibility for existence of those who surround you

There are other ideas too, it would be too long to mention them all... Look it up for yourself, if you're interested.
Posted April 27, 2015
The both of you have the goofiest definitions of existentialism that I've ever heard.

And this is the goofiest forum for a discussion of existentialism that I can imagine. It's quite absurd. ;-]
Posted April 27, 2015
avatar
alcaray: The both of you have the goofiest definitions of existentialism that I've ever heard.

And this is the goofiest forum for a discussion of existentialism that I can imagine. It's quite absurd. ;-]
Can't see why you bothered to post then. : P Couldn't resist?

I think Pillars of Eternity is a fairly relevant context to discuss existentialism, or a number of other ideas for that matter.
Posted April 27, 2015
avatar
darkness58ec: Can't see why you bothered to post then. : P Couldn't resist?
Well I had the existentialism joke to make (that you didn't get). I swear, it takes the patience of Job to make one's self understood around here. ;-))

-edit- forgot the apostrophe.
Post edited April 27, 2015 by alcaray
Posted April 27, 2015
avatar
alcaray: The both of you have the goofiest definitions of existentialism that I've ever heard.

And this is the goofiest forum for a discussion of existentialism that I can imagine. It's quite absurd. ;-]
Yes, that's another concept of existentialism. ;)
Posted April 27, 2015
avatar
darkness58ec: So, just finished the game. Generally I found the ending very well written and I was surprised, but pleased, that there were epilogues for all the party members. I found Sagani's ending in particular to be very sad. She was probably my favorite party member and, in my game at least, she lost all spirit and eventually killed herself or wandered off on a hunt.

I did not like, however, the stories' sudden and casual settlement on the gods don't exist. Its not explained how the Engwithans knew for certain that there are no gods or why our characters should believe this. It was accepted uncritically asif Iovara was some mouth of truth. More than that, it seems plain to me that the writer was an atheist and either believes the atheistic position is undoubtedly true, or simply wished to write a story that disregards divinity. This struck me as coming at the expense of the story and saying something about our positions as human beings. I thought Iovara and Thaos both presented interesting takes on human feelings in the absence of divinity though, again, I got the sense that atheism was undually favored over theism, mostly because all the truthful responses favored atheism and all the noble lie responses favored pretending to yourself or others that there are gods.

I'm hoping this doesn't start a flame war. I don't expect people to agree with my position, necessarily, but it did seem to me that this was a misstep in the story and a better (and more timeless) plot would simply deal with the world's inability to *know* the gods exist or who/what they are in some absolute, scientific way. Which is more akin to reality anyway and would say more about us as human beings.

Your thoughts?
I'm more interested in the results of choices made throughout the game in the end than this atheism talk about a "fantasy" game.

Your Sagani ending is curious, we obviously solved her quest differently. My Sagani died an old woman surrounded by 5 generations of family. Eder took over Dyrwood Village and made it into what Gilded Vale should have been. The King of Gilded Vale I killed returned as a zombie king and killed everyone in the Vale and reclaimed his throne (what the HELL), no mention of the brother I put in power. Animancy was deemed ok and the sanctuary restored. The Crucible Knights eventually put down the rebellion in Defiance Bay, but then gained so much power Defiance Bay became 1984. Pellagina had the sad ending for me - kicked out of her order, working for another order eventually, though never fitting in due to her looks. There was quite a bit more but I can;t recall it all right now.

It certainly left openings for the sequel. In fact, it ended a lot like Fallout (in my game anyway).
Posted April 28, 2015
My personal opinion is this- too much.

If you look at the plot of BG2 it's like this- an evil guy kidnaps your friend. So you go after him. Then he escapes so you have to chase him and kill him. I know it's a bit more complicated but basically that’s it.

And they took it too far in PoE. You have an immortal guy who steals the souls of children to awaken and evil goddess. THAT’S ENOUGH. I mean really- is there any nobler calling then stopping a mass murderer of kids?

But then they go into this whole thing about gods being created, about this chick that tried to expose it, about how you were her something in past life etc. For me- that was completely unnecessary. Like I said- immortal child killer and an evil goddess. That’s all you need. Save that other shit for the sequel.

Come to think about it- a guy tries to kill a lot of people to awaken a god. Sounds familiar? I believe that guy’s name was Sarevok. And after killing him- you got to explore all that god stuff in the sequel.

So in conclusion- really good game, enjoyed it a lot. But the ending- they just put a bit too much in there.

Also- I got endings for some party members a for some- I didn’t. Don’t know what’s that about.
Posted April 28, 2015
avatar
MonkeyMan4816: My personal opinion is this- too much.

If you look at the plot of BG2 it's like this- an evil guy kidnaps your friend. So you go after him. Then he escapes so you have to chase him and kill him. I know it's a bit more complicated but basically that’s it.

And they took it too far in PoE. You have an immortal guy who steals the souls of children to awaken and evil goddess. THAT’S ENOUGH. I mean really- is there any nobler calling then stopping a mass murderer of kids?

But then they go into this whole thing about gods being created, about this chick that tried to expose it, about how you were her something in past life etc. For me- that was completely unnecessary. Like I said- immortal child killer and an evil goddess. That’s all you need. Save that other shit for the sequel.

Come to think about it- a guy tries to kill a lot of people to awaken a god. Sounds familiar? I believe that guy’s name was Sarevok. And after killing him- you got to explore all that god stuff in the sequel.

So in conclusion- really good game, enjoyed it a lot. But the ending- they just put a bit too much in there.

Also- I got endings for some party members a for some- I didn’t. Don’t know what’s that about.
But you need explain WHY the souls are being taken (The gods, literally work with souls and take power from them), and then you prepare the path to the expansion(s) (what are the gods?)

and by the way, technically, wasn't genocide (yet) as the soul were still in this realm, is worth to mention as there is is an option to return them to the already grown up bodies (well, if they didn't become witch)
Posted April 28, 2015
avatar
darkness58ec: So, just finished the game. Generally I found the ending very well written and I was surprised, but pleased, that there were epilogues for all the party members. I found Sagani's ending in particular to be very sad. She was probably my favorite party member and, in my game at least, she lost all spirit and eventually killed herself or wandered off on a hunt.

I did not like, however, the stories' sudden and casual settlement on the gods don't exist. Its not explained how the Engwithans knew for certain that there are no gods or why our characters should believe this. It was accepted uncritically asif Iovara was some mouth of truth. More than that, it seems plain to me that the writer was an atheist and either believes the atheistic position is undoubtedly true, or simply wished to write a story that disregards divinity. This struck me as coming at the expense of the story and saying something about our positions as human beings. I thought Iovara and Thaos both presented interesting takes on human feelings in the absence of divinity though, again, I got the sense that atheism was undually favored over theism, mostly because all the truthful responses favored atheism and all the noble lie responses favored pretending to yourself or others that there are gods.

I'm hoping this doesn't start a flame war. I don't expect people to agree with my position, necessarily, but it did seem to me that this was a misstep in the story and a better (and more timeless) plot would simply deal with the world's inability to *know* the gods exist or who/what they are in some absolute, scientific way. Which is more akin to reality anyway and would say more about us as human beings.

Your thoughts?
avatar
ghosterl: It nowhere does state that any god or gods never existed. All the Engwithans found out was that if there had been any creator god or gods they left a long time ago and that the Wheel turns without any divine intervention. So, following Voltaire ("If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him.") they apparently sacrificed themselves - by the looks of it their entire civilization which also explains why they suddenly disappeared but had enough prior knowledge to ask the Glanfathans to guard their ruins - to create powerful beings that essentially simply *posed* as gods.

The remainder of them, led by Thaos, then started the Inquisition bringing the new gods to every corner of the world so that all kith would feel beholden to try and live as decent a life as possible in order to not garner any divine disfavor that would ruin their next life before it began. Obviously that worked, the new gods of course were ultimately extremely powerful beings, powerful enough to make no difference between real and abstract divinity.

Except for one minor detail, of course. The new gods have no divine mandate at all, which is the *truth* that Iovara was spreading, the truth she was tortured and killed for. They just are what they are, either constructs or severely empowered mortals. I'm inclined to believe that the Engwithans just used a lot of essence (souls) to empower several probably already powerful beings.

Why? Because, well... Abydon was said to have been killed and his soul then bound to some animat (golem). That this is possible is seen on several occasions in the game (e.g. Keeper of Caed Nua). Waidwen was said to be Eothas personified and both Woedica and Magran intervened with his direct meddling in mortal affairs by having Durance and eleven others create the Godhammer weapon, something so powerful it doesn't just kill you, but obliterates your soul.

This is evidenced by Durance's personal quest and the fact that the Watcher sees his soul as damaged, which the Godhammer did. Magren tried to hide her involvement by making sure that everyone who knew about it wasn't just killed but utterly annihilated (I wonder if that pissed off Rymrgand).

That souls or essence can be used to empower beings can be seen during the Sacrificial Bloodlines quest or when doing the Dozen's quest related to ancient Engwithan weaponry that needs to be infused with essence to work. So that ties in quite nicely. Eothas is dead because the Godhammer killed his soul, Abydon still lives because he had his bound to his golem representation. Galawain asks the player to use the gathered souls to strenghen the Dyrwood as a whole, Thaos wanted to give Woedica more power so she can rank among all other gods.

Thaos, over the course of time, then attempted to keep other civilizations from finding out that their gods are simply very powerful, but ultimately not divine, beings. By any means necessary (as he quite directly puts in his final dialogue).

So how does this tie into real world atheism, or atheism in Eora? It doesn't, really. For true faith no proof is necessary, as evidenced by our own reality. See, WE have no proof that God(s) exists either, but that doesn't stop a lot of people from having faith and believing. Iovara just had her own counter-crusade that stated only that these new Engwithan deities were not divine (also, because that's important - she never said the gods do NOT EXIST, just that they aren't REAL - as in REAL divine beings), and she's right about that. They're not. They're really just empored mortals or massively powerful essence-infused constructs.

The true question you as character have to decide then is how, if at all, that matters. You may find it doesn't matter that the deieties of Eora are kith-made and continue on as before. You can tell Aloth how he should lead the Leaden Key in the future. Heck, you can empower Woedica to make sure none of the truth ever becomes public knowledge and finish what Thaos started if you happen to agree with him.

If there's anything that bothered me about the ending is that I had no option to infuse myself with all that power Thaos wanted to give to Woedica. That would have been fun. But nah... *sigh*
Not OP, but this makes sense, thanks. Honestly I feel like the plot was maybe not communicated all that well. The way What's-Her-Face just comes right out and says "The secret is this: The gods aren't real" was, to me, a little silly. I was wishing there was an option to say "What the hell are you talking about? I just met them! Literally the only reason I'm standing here is because they got me down the pit!"" She goes on to qualify that by saying "Okay, they're real in some ways, but not others," but I still think it could have been done better. Especially the way your party reacts. They're all like "Oh, you must be right. I can see clearly now, the rain is gone!" (Though I'm hesitant to make that last comment, as I'm learning that how your party reacts to different things can change radically depending on how you do their questline and how you interact with them, so maybe that was just my playthrough).


What I think the problem is, however, is that unless I missed it, we're never really given much insight into the theology of Eora. I mean, what she described the gods as being were kind of what I assumed the gods were all along. She's all going on about this big, earth-shattering secret that the gods aren't actually infinite, omnipotent beings but instead are just highly powerful creatures that have some influence over souls and that may or may not be the product of mortals
and all I can think of is "Oh, so like the gods in basically every other fantasy setting, then."


Personally I think it would have been a lot better if the writers had made the lie perpetuated by the Engwithans more common and something that the player was completely immersed in, where like the eternal nature of the gods or the notion that the gods are above mortal whims are major plot points and big sources of hope and inspiration for people. Then it would've been more "Holy crap this knowledge could overturn society." Instead to me it just felt like a big, fat "Meh."
Posted April 28, 2015
Did anyone side with Raedric instead of replacing him with his brother?

I'm curious what that ending was. I sided with his brother - even though after speaking with Raedric I felt like his brother (and the game) was tricking me. So my ending was that Raedric returned as a Zombie King, killed everyone in Gilded Vale (I think), and reclaimed the throne - as a Zombie King........... no mention of the brother I put in power.

That was really weird. There are many choices in the game, so maybe something else I did triggered that ending. It seemed very out of place. In the end I returned all the souls to their former bodies.



Also, I never did the Endless Paths at all. I was expecting some terrible ending to that part, because I didn't kill the boss there - but nope, got a fairly good ending for my Stronghold.



If Raedric returning as a Zombie king is a common ending for most people, maybe the devs have it in mind for the sequel? idk .......
Pages:
1
2
3
This is my favourite topic
Community
Pillars of Eternity Series*SPOILERS* Ending discussion(39 posts)(39 posts)
(39 posts)