The Unmaking of Souls

[Tingel]

During the last days I came to read all-too-often in various threads that the enormity of the threat the goblin wearing the red cloak made (namely: to throw prisoners into the rift) is not that this would presumably kill said prisoners, but instead that it would utterly destroy their immortal souls.

I do know that the goblin wearing the red cloak made this claim (regarding the undoing of souls) himself in comic 545. But I do not quite understand how this is possible.


My problem presents itself thusly: Why should the power that created the immortal souls (and the world and the afterlife etc.) in the first place be unable to simply repeat said feat if necessary to "repair" minor defects caused by a goblin wearing a red cloak? Meaning: If the creator wants the souls to be immortal and to experience an afterlife, then why shouldn't he be able to "redo" them after they have been "undone" by falling into the wrong rift?

[Tass]

Because the D&D gods are not almighty.

You may not be able to redo a particularly beautifull sandcastle after a bully has stepped in it.

[Megalomaniac2]

The entity within the Rift responsible for the soul-unmaking is the same entity capable of turning the Gods into confetti in thirty seconds. Ergo, the Gods are not capable of undoing the Snarls destruction of souls.

[NerfTW]

During the last days I came to read all-too-often in various threads that the enormity of the threat the goblin wearing the red cloak made (namely: to throw prisoners into the rift) is not that this would presumably kill said prisoners, but instead that it would utterly destroy their immortal souls.

I do know that the goblin wearing the red cloak made this claim (regarding the undoing of souls) himself in comic 545. But I do not quite understand how this is possible.


My problem presents itself thusly: Why should the power that created the immortal souls (and the world and the afterlife etc.) in the first place be unable to simply repeat said feat if necessary to "repair" minor defects caused by a goblin wearing a red cloak? Meaning: If the creator wants the souls to be immortal and to experience an afterlife, then why shouldn't he be able to "redo" them after they have been "undone" by falling into the wrong rift?

Did you miss the Crayons of Time (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0273.html) story where they explained that the Snarl is more powerful than the gods themselves?

[Tingel]

Because the D&D gods are not almighty.
The creator of the souls does not need to be almighty to validate my question. He just needs to be able to create souls - which he is, since he is the creator of the souls.


The entity within the Rift responsible for the soul-unmaking is the same entity capable of turning the Gods into confetti in thirty seconds. Ergo, the Gods are not capable of undoing the Snarls destruction of souls.
I do not follow your "ergo". I accept that the snarl is more powerful than the creator(s) of the souls. Noted. But I do not see why the gods need to be more powerful to "remake" the destroyed souls. They just need to repeat their original feat. At the beginning there were no souls, so they crafted them out of nothingness. Nobody opposed them, so they succeeded.
After the snarl has destroyed some souls, they - again - are nothing. Thus the gods can simply recreate the souls from nothingness (= repeat their original feat). The snarl's power level is irrelevant for this scenario. The gods do not have to oppose the snarl to "remake" the destroyed souls. The snarl is completely passive anyway. After all, a soul that falls into the rift is presumably destroyed automatically and instantaneously. If someone would "undo" them, it would be the goblin wearing the red cloak, not the snarl (who is not actually "acting").

[Admiral_Kelly]

It would be pointless for they would not be the same persons. They would be copies of the original. The souls that are destroyed are dead in the fullest sense of the word.

[Tingel]

Where lies the difference between a perfect copy and the original?

[Gensuru]

The Admiral already pointed it our and actually you yourself had had the relevant points in you post so i am kinda surprised you don´t see it on your own. The souls were made from nothing as you said. But after than they acted and changed on their own. Once they are unmade as you said they no longer exist. Even if you remake the original version all changes made through "life" are lost. And if you try to create the soul with all it´s developements you´d not only have to know each soul perfectly but you´d also create nothing more but copies. And a copy as the name itself states will never be the original so the very beings lost can not be brought back...they can be copied for the sake of any survivors but the beings themselvers are lost...turned to NOTHING literaly.

[hamishspence]

how does core D&D do it. Close equivalents : the Sphere of annihilation, which destroys souls of those who contact it. Gods can bring the back,
And the Cloak worn by the leShay head of the Garrote, the ultimate assassins guild, which, when spread over a victim and a command word utters, puts the soul beyond the reach of even greater gods.

So, its possible for some things in D&D to destroy a soul and the soul to still be salvaged. However, sems likely that OOTS snarl might be more powerful than that, and the rule would be: forever destroyed, no god can bring it back.

[TheNifty]

The gods in OOTS aren't omnipotent, as has already been shown. Why are you so hung up on them not being able to resurrect destroyed souls when there's plenty of other stuff they can't do? (create the world without help, get rid of the snarl, find out V's gender...)

[Grey Watcher]

Where lies the difference between a perfect copy and the original?

I think that, because mortals appear to have free will within the OotS setting, the exact nature of their souls is determined, at least in part, by their own individual actions and decisions. So yes, the Gods could make new souls to repopulate the world, but those souls won't necessarily make the same choice as the ones they were built to replace, and they therefore won't be the same.

I think.... I've never actually made any study of metaphysics, so I could be talking out of my hat here.

[Wikkin]

Or maybe Redcloak is only speculating what will happen, having never been thrown into such a rift himself.

Wik

[Porthos]

Or maybe Redcloak is only speculating what will happen, having never been thrown into such a rift himself.

Wik

No, Rich has confirmed that the souls get destroyed when eaten by The Snarl. This is why Soon couldn't bring his beloved wife back to life, for instance.

[Admiral_Kelly]

Where lies the difference between a perfect copy and the original?For the moment, let us deny the existence of our own souls as a logical exercise.

Say I were to reduce you to atoms. This would kill you - you would be dead, your consciousness no longer in existence. Then let us say I put those atoms back together again. They would form a new consciousness; however it would not be your original consciousness only a replica. The second Tingel would have all of your memories and everything that made up your mind but the original Tingel would no longer think, make choices, remember, or anything.

Now apply that to the situation here. Those souls consist (at least in part) the consciousness of those people. They would cease to exsist. Creating a new soul would be creating an entirely new person. The fact that this new person would have an identical consciousness as those who died would be irrelevant.

[The Hop Goblin]

For the moment, let us deny the existence of our own souls as a logical exercise.

Say I were to reduce you to atoms. This would kill you - you would be dead, your consciousness no longer in existence. Then let us say I put those atoms back together again. They would form a new consciousness; however it would not be your original consciousness only a replica. The second Tingel would have all of your memories and everything that made up your mind but the original Tingel would no longer think, make choices, remember, or anything.

Now apply that to the situation here. Those souls consist (at least in part) the consciousness of those people. They would cease to exsist. Creating a new soul would be creating an entirely new person. The fact that this new person would have an identical consciousness as those who died would be irrelevant.

That's actually an 'against' argument on some sci-fi boards on the topic of Star Trek Transporters.

To the OP; this isn't a world described by a rl religion, nor do the same rules apply. Often times deities are simply immortals that have been around alot longer than you and know the 'ins-and-outs' of the world. Being that most D&D campaigns are polytheism-based, each deity usually has his/her own niche - and can't/won't go outside of it. I don't believe in either Greyhawk, nor Faerhun that there is a deity responsible for the manufacture and distribution of souls, just having some say what happens to them in life and afterlife.

Snarl is a feature of the universe in question that the various directional gods have no control over, and lives very much outside of their realm of rule. Basically - they have no say. What I do find interesting is that these people are only erased from the hereafter, rather than from history entirely - though in retrospect I suppose it would be hard to write a story based on that

"OMG Josh is gone!"
"Who?"
"... I dunno, nevermind... false alarm."

[NerfTW]

Even if the gods could just remake the souls, why stop there? What not just give everyone eternal life? Why let anyone die? Why not just stick all newcomers directly into paradise?


They don't remake the souls because they're more concerned with running the entire universe. Once they start remaking the souls of the people thrown into the rift, one would have to question why they aren't just smiting Xykon and Redcloak on the spot. That would also mean they knew of the Dark One's plans, and would stop him as well.

While there are certain individuals who merit special attention, apparently, there have to be limits to what the gods will do without destroying the story.

[Paladin29]

If a god can travel in time, he can bring the soul undone from the second before it was undone... perhaps that is a way to "redo" the soul...

[Gensuru]

Yes but if the gods could do that time travel crap they could just as well travel back in time and prevent the snarl from ever existing. Also you might want to consider the usualy time travel stuff...if any god travels back in time and takes the soul in question out of the timeline to reinsert it back in his "present" he has thereby changed his own present by stripping himself of the reason to go back in time and save a soul in the first place. By that logic he would never have gone back in time in the first place. Any more time-traveling ideas or are you willing to drop this before i smite you with the power of annoying logical errors?

[Tingel]

Even if the gods could just remake the souls, why stop there? What not just give everyone eternal life? Why let anyone die? Why not just stick all newcomers directly into paradise?

This new set of questions does not correlate with my original question and is thus irrelevant to the topic at hand.

You need to keep in mind that immortal souls are part of the cosmic status quo established by the creators of the setting. Souls appear to be supposed to experience an afterlife after life. Thus "remaking" undone souls (= the topic of this thread) could be considered repairing the originally intended creation.

Contrariwise, mortality of physical forms as well as a life before the afterlife are integral components of the cosmic status quo, so by preventing everyone from dying or by "sticking" (sic) everyone directly into paradise (= your suggestions) the gods would go against their own wishes instead of maintaining them.

There exists therefore a fundamental difference between the two.

[Paladin29]

Yes but if the gods could do that time travel crap they could just as well travel back in time and prevent the snarl from ever existing. Also you might want to consider the usualy time travel stuff...if any god travels back in time and takes the soul in question out of the timeline to reinsert it back in his "present" he has thereby changed his own present by stripping himself of the reason to go back in time and save a soul in the first place. By that logic he would never have gone back in time in the first place. Any more time-traveling ideas or are you willing to drop this before i smite you with the power of annoying logical errors?

the only thing i find annoying is the end of your post... however i see your logic and i agree, if a god could travel in time he´d stop Xykon and Rc himself.. but about your other argument remember physics and logic have limited repercusion in a fantasy world.. time travel is common fantastic (more on scifi, but is not imposible in fantasy-medieval setting) theme.. perhaps a god is not affected by the time changes.. i don´t know i was only guessing.

[Admiral_Kelly]

You need to keep in mind that immortal souls are part of the cosmic status quo established by the creators of the setting. Souls appear to be supposed to experience an afterlife after life. Thus "remaking" undone souls (= the topic of this thread) could be considered repairing the originally intended creation.

Contrariwise, mortality of physical forms as well as a life before the afterlife are integral components of the cosmic status quo, so by preventing everyone from dying or by "sticking" (sic) everyone directly into paradise (= your suggestions) the gods would go against their own wishes instead of maintaining them.:smallconfused: I do not remember this being anywhere in the comic. Link and show evidence, then explain.

[Tingel]

I made three basic statements in the post you are referring to, Admiral.

1) An afterlife for the dead is part of the cosmic status quo.
2) Having a life before the afterlife is part of the cosmic status quo.
3) Mortality of physical forms is part of the cosmic status quo.

All three of them have been proven countless times throughout the comic, so I do not understand how you can say that you don't remember encountering these facts.

1) was extensively shown after Roy died.
2) is shown in almost every strip, since almost every strip takes palce in the mortal realm.
3) is shown again and again since characters (both central and unimportant) continue to die.

I hope this is evidence enough and you can excuse that I do not follow your request to provide links to specific comics.

[Admiral_Kelly]

That is a theory you made up based on your interpretation of the comic's world. No where is it stated that the gods are always on the watch to maintain a 'cosmic status quo' or that they even follow such a philosophical idea. The gods throughout the comic seem not to interfere with the affairs of mortals unless invoked by clerics or worshipers (there are exceptions such as when Thor causes thunderstorms for fun when drunk).

[Tingel]

You appear to have some misconceptions about what a status quo is. It is certainly not a philosophical idea - it is simply the current state of affairs.

Mortality, a world inhabited by mortals and an afterlife are all clearly shown in the comic. I cannot understand how you can call those concepts a mere theory of mine.
All three concepts are currently a reality in the comic's setting, which makes them part of the cosmic status quo (by definition, not by interpretation).

Your caveats confuse me.

[Admiral_Kelly]

You misinterpreted what I said. The gods are not shown to maintain a 'cosmic status quo' is the point; this is only a theory. Sure, they created the material plane and possibly the other planes too - but no where is it depicted that the gods make sure that every soul stays in existence and that every soul goes to the afterlife upon death. This is only a theory of yours.

[BRC]

I think you have a misconception here. The God's created the world yes, and they created the species that inhabit it, but whether or not they actually created the souls is questionable. People have Free Will, and the afterlife they go to is the result of their actions while alive. So it's not God creates a soul, Soul lives it's life, Soul dies and chills with the god that created it. Also, you must remember that the afterlives are not picked by the diety worshipped, but by the alignment of the dead soul. Let's take for example Roy


Roy was born, he's not that religious but he says he did actually worship or believe in the Norse gods. Now, there are three norse gods that we know about in the Ootsverse. Thor, Odin, and Loki. I'm no expert, but the giant has said somewhere that Thor is LG, we don't know about Odin, but Loki is definetally Chaotic. Also, what if he went down south and started worshipping the twelve gods, heck, he could have become an evil maniac and become CE.

So, Once a soul is let loose in the world it dosn't belong to any one god or even pantheon of gods, it has a choice. So, which god created Roy's soul. If roy was thrown into the rift, which god would, according to you, rebuild his soul.

[Tingel]

I did make the assumption that someone created the immortal souls, that is true. I concede that this is only a guess, as it is nowhere in the comic explicitly stated. I did however never assume that the gods we encountered in the storyline were the ones that created the souls. I spoke of an unknown "creator of the souls", and tried to only use that term. Whenever I spoke of the gods I was replying to someone else's statements.

I assumed that someone or something originally brought forth the immortal souls. I also assumed that this nameless creator did so intentionally instead of by accident. Starting here I wondered why said creator should be unable to simply "redo" souls "undone" by the snarl. Some of you argued that a perfect copy (a perfect re-creation) would not be identical to the original soul (a viewpoint I do not share, yet a viewpoint I consider valid).



I never intended to purport the notion that the gods should actively interfere in the mortal realm (as the Admiral seems to think I did), nor did I claim that the gods or whoever else created the immortal souls in the beginning was omnipotent (an impression various posters nonetheless apparently got while reading my posts, for reasons that elude me).



I appreciate all the replies, by the way.

[Paladin29]

That is a really good point, however i think the "soul" is created by default when a new mortal born.. it´s a unconscious act of the universe fueled by the power of all the gods. Like Plato said the soul is a "tabula rasa" and is decision of the mortal what afterlife will go when he died by his actions.

[Admiral_Kelly]

@The original poster:

Presumably; the gods could recreate a soul destroyed by the Snarl. However, this recreation -although identical and a perfect copy- would not be the same soul. The original person would be dead and there would be no way to bring him back. The recreation would be pointless. See my 'reduced to atoms' example here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4169794&postcount=14). Read it over if you have to.

There is no evidence that the gods have reason to recreate lost souls because of their tendency not to interfere with the affairs of mortals as I mentioned before. 'The gods maintain a cosmic status quo' is only a theory of yours.

It could also be the gods do not have the power to recreate souls without destroying the fabric of the universe or simply cannot period. They have their limitations as they are not omnipotent.

Not the gods then? What other higher being are there? Now you are speaking of hypothetical 'powers-that-be'. The only 'powers-that-be' we have seen thus far are the gods themselves. You have gone into the realm of the hypothetical. The universe is clearly described here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0273.html); the gods are the only creators of the universe mentioned. No 'creator of souls' or anything of that nature; only the gods. It is possible that other higher powers exsist but until such are mentioned they do not; and any theory you come up with based on that premise is highly unlikely at best.

Evidence (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0274.html) against your hypothesis is the destroyed world that existed before the current OotS world. It was filled with millions of inhabitants; all of which were destroyed. There souls no longer exist.

One more thing. Stop saying everything we say is putting words in your mouth or saying it is irrelevant to the subject. :smallannoyed: Everything we have said is relevant and you are misjudging what we are saying.

[Dacia Brabant]

You need to keep in mind that immortal souls are part of the cosmic status quo established by the creators of the setting. Souls appear to be supposed to experience an afterlife after life. Thus "remaking" undone souls (= the topic of this thread) could be considered repairing the originally intended creation.

It's an interesting theory, but my reading of this comic (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0276.html) is that the gods actually cannot repair any damages to their originally intended creation without using the threads of creation--which are rather occupied at the moment containing the Snarl. I imagine that the same principle would operate between threads being needed to fix the rifts and threads needed to remake (fix) the undone souls.

[BRC]

I did make the assumption that someone created the immortal souls, that is true. I concede that this is only a guess, as it is nowhere in the comic explicitly stated. I did however never assume that the gods we encountered in the storyline were the ones that created the souls. I spoke of an unknown "creator of the souls", and tried to only use that term. Whenever I spoke of the gods I was replying to someone else's statements.

I assumed that someone or something originally brought forth the immortal souls. I also assumed that this nameless creator did so intentionally instead of by accident. Starting here I wondered why said creator should be unable to simply "redo" souls "undone" by the snarl. Some of you argued that a perfect copy (a perfect re-creation) would not be identical to the original soul (a viewpoint I do not share, yet a viewpoint I consider valid).

Hmm, So your argument here is that some powerful, intelligent Soul-creator entity, that has never been mentioned in the comic, should just re-create the souls undone by the Snarl. Now, this is acting under the assumption that Somthing created the souls, and that they do not show up on their own like the gods did. Considering we have had absolutally no mention of a Soul-Creator entity, which if it existed would proably be a god in it's own right, meaning one of two things. Either

A) It exists, it's sentient, and yet not a god for some reason (I find this unlikely)
B) Souls appear as part of some Natural Magical process that is not sentient.
Now, the second theory is more or less the standard assumption, and so until given evidence against it, I'll stick with it. So far, we have no evidence against it.

[Alex Warlorn]

During the last days I came to read all-too-often in various threads that the enormity of the threat the goblin wearing the red cloak made (namely: to throw prisoners into the rift) is not that this would presumably kill said prisoners, but instead that it would utterly destroy their immortal souls.

I do know that the goblin wearing the red cloak made this claim (regarding the undoing of souls) himself in comic 545. But I do not quite understand how this is possible.


My problem presents itself thusly: Why should the power that created the immortal souls (and the world and the afterlife etc.) in the first place be unable to simply repeat said feat if necessary to "repair" minor defects caused by a goblin wearing a red cloak? Meaning: If the creator wants the souls to be immortal and to experience an afterlife, then why shouldn't he be able to "redo" them after they have been "undone" by falling into the wrong rift?

Simply, Redcloak is not the one commiting this undoing. The Snarl is a huge system error the gods created when they had conflicting ideas on what shape the world should take. And as a glitch, it can cheat the rules. Including the rule that says souls shouldn't be able to be destroyed.

[namako]

Are the souls in the OOTS universe necessarily incredibly difficult to destroy? They certainly seem to be immortal, given the afterlives, but in 497 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0497.html) a bunch of people literally break into the afterlife to 'earn some XP'. Greenhilt Senior's reaction suggests to me that there might be some danger.

[Tass]

[QUOTE=Admiral_Kelly;4169794]Say I were to reduce you to atoms. This would kill you - you would be dead, your consciousness no longer in existence. Then let us say I put those atoms back together again. They would form a new consciousness; however it would not be your original consciousness only a replica. The second Tingel would have all of your memories and everything that made up your mind but the original Tingel would no longer think, make choices, remember, or anything.
[QUOTE]

That makes no sense. An exact copy, is as good as the original, otherwise it wouldn't be exact.

You can more rigthfully claim that the Admiral Kelly from 5 minutes ago is dead, since the atoms you are made of are in another state now, and the "original Kelly" no longer thinks or anything. So what do you care if you live in five minutes? It will be a different you anyway.

[Paragon Badger]

Say I were to reduce you to atoms. This would kill you - you would be dead, your consciousness no longer in existence. Then let us say I put those atoms back together again. They would form a new consciousness; however it would not be your original consciousness only a replica. The second Tingel would have all of your memories and everything that made up your mind but the original Tingel would no longer think, make choices, remember, or anything.


Do not confuse Dejure (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_jure) existence with defacto (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_facto) existence. :smalltongue:

In principle, a perfect clone with the non-existant original's exact thoughts, memories, and personality is a different person/soul/ect.

In practice? It's the same exact person, as if nothing had ever changed.

It is the same as if dying in a universe without any afterlife. You simply cease to think or feel, and death has no impact on you. It's as if you never existed. The only people who would be effected by death are those who are still alive.

[Remirach]

You can more rigthfully claim that the Admiral Kelly from 5 minutes ago is dead, since the atoms you are made of are in another state now, and the "original Kelly" no longer thinks or anything. So what do you care if you live in five minutes? It will be a different you anyway.
I have myself wondered about the "teleporter dilemma" (or whatever you want to call it) and this is actually making me rethink my first impression that there was no power on earth that could get me to step on one of those pads. Very interesting point.

[Tingel]

Presumably; the gods could recreate a soul destroyed by the Snarl. However, this recreation -although identical and a perfect copy- would not be the same soul. The original person would be dead and there would be no way to bring him back. The recreation would be pointless. See my 'reduced to atoms' example here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4169794&postcount=14). Read it over if you have to.
A perfect copy cannot be distinguished from the original. That's what makes it a perfect copy. Your notion of identity is not necessarily correct, Admiral, and in fact it is widely recognized in philosophy and science to be false.





One more thing. Stop saying everything we say is putting words in your mouth or saying it is irrelevant to the subject. :smallannoyed: Everything we have said is relevant and you are misjudging what we are saying.
Everything I called irrelevant was irrelevant to my question. I explained why, and unless you can refute my explanations you shouldn't attack me. Underlining your demands and adding annoyed faces is not a proper refutation.
My remarks about irrelevance were not supposed to be mean-spirited; I apologize if they nonetheless appeared that way. I did not intend to upset anyone - I just made a logical point.



B) Souls appear as part of some Natural Magical process that is not sentient.
Now, the second theory is more or less the standard assumption, and so until given evidence against it, I'll stick with it. So far, we have no evidence against it.
I did not realize that this was the "standard assumption". I have to admit that seeing that higher powers were a physical reality in the comic and that some sort of deliberate creation had taken place, I simply assumed that the souls were a part of this creation. If however the souls unlike the rest of the world simply "appear" due to an automatic magical process then my original question does not present itself anymore.


Another question, related to some of the replies: The "Crayons of Time" storyline is just a story told by Shojo. Is it necessary to assume that the "Secret Forbidden Lore of the Sapphire Guard" is fact?

[BRC]

\I did not realize that this was the "standard assumption". I have to admit that seeing that higher powers were a physical reality in the comic and that some sort of deliberate creation had taken place, I simply assumed that the souls were a part of this creation. If however the souls unlike the rest of the world simply "appear" due to an automatic magical process then my original question does not present itself anymore.


Another question, related to some of the replies: The "Crayons of Time" storyline is just a story told by Shojo. Is it necessary to assume that the "Secret Forbidden Lore of the Sapphire Guard" is fact?
Well, I consider it a "Standard Assumption", because unless the manner in which souls are created will, at one point be part of the plot, it is rarely specified. Sure, there MIGHT be an intelligent soul-creator deity we never hear about, but because we never here about him, he's just schilling with schrodegers cat, and for the purposes of the reader might as well not exist. I can't disprove your theory, but I can defeat it with the logical argument of "Meh, who cares".

As for your second question, once again we don't know, so far it's been true, and Shojo has no reason that we know of to lie to the order. I'm sure we could think of many reasons why it might not be true, but none of them could be backed up with evidence. Xykon is certainly working off a similar theory, but maybe he and shojo are just part of the a vast conspiricy.

[Admiral_Kelly]

A perfect copy cannot be distinguished from the original. That's what makes it a perfect copy. Your notion of identity is not necessarily correct, Admiral, and in fact it is widely recognized in philosophy and science to be false.>.< I do not think you understand, because you keep missing the point. The recreated person would not be the same person because they do not have the same consciousness. That consciousness is lost forever and cannot be reclaimed. If it is, explain how. I already showed you otherwise.
Everything I called irrelevant was irrelevant to my question. I explained why, and unless you can refute my explanations you shouldn't attack me. Underlining your demands and adding annoyed faces is not a proper refutation.There you go again. Are you the czar of this thread? No, you are not. It is not your place to dictate if someone is going off topic. Furthermore, I already pointed out how they were relevant. As a friendly reminder, purposely continuing to infuriate board members is considered trolling and against the rules. So quit saying what member x says about point y is irrelevant.
I did not realize that this was the "standard assumption". I have to admit that seeing that higher powers were a physical reality in the comic and that some sort of deliberate creation had taken place, I simply assumed that the souls were a part of this creation. If however the souls unlike the rest of the world simply "appear" due to an automatic magical process then my original question does not present itself anymore.I agree here that the souls were created; but by the gods; not some made-up character you dreamed up.
Another question, related to some of the replies: The "Crayons of Time" storyline is just a story told by Shojo. Is it necessary to assume that the "Secret Forbidden Lore of the Sapphire Guard" is fact?Yes. Why? Because, in literature, unless there is any allusions, implications, or evidence pointing to the contrary about what someone said is false (and/or that he is lying) then what he said was true. We may not be able to confirm it as absolute fact but any theories we come up with would be ruled out by Occam's Razor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor).

Case and point. Here you are arguing that the 'Secret Forbidden Lore' is false due to a higher power separate from the gods who created the souls. There is no evidence of this and you are assuming that such a power exists. According to Occam's Razor, you are adding an unnecessary assumption and therefore is false.

Furthermore, every bit of evidence throughout the comic has shown this story to be true. We have seen the gods. We have seen the gates and the rift.

I recommend you read the comic from the beginning (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0001.html) before you start defending far-fetched ideas.

[hamishspence]

Occams Razor is use for more likely/less likely, not true/false. There is speculation on whether Shojo has been fudging things, and more speculation on whether Redcloaks Crayons story is propaganda.

It does makes sense to assume they are most likely to be true, unless later evidence contradicts them. But we cannot say absolutely that they are true or false.

So, we default to assuming them true, but keep an eye out for any later evidence that contradicts them.

[Tingel]

>.< I do not think you understand, because you keep missing the point. The recreated person would not be the same person because they do not have the same consciousness. That consciousness is lost forever and cannot be reclaimed. If it is, explain how. I already showed you otherwise.
You did not show us otherwise. Have you completely missed what tass said for example?


There you go again. Are you the czar of this thread? No, you are not. It is not your place to dictate if someone is going off topic. Furthermore, I already pointed out how they were relevant.
If you did, I honestly do not see where. Please bear with me and again refute an instance where I called something irrelevant to my question even though it is not.


As a friendly reminder, purposely continuing to infuriate board members is considered trolling and against the rules.
I am not purposely infuriating members. I actually apologized just in case I did so by accident. I also did not attack anyone. Thus I don't think calling me a troll is fair.


I agree here that the souls were created; but by the gods; not some made-up character you dreamed up.
Please, Admiral, read my posts. I never claimed that the gods did not create the souls. I simply took the more cautious approach and talked about a "creator of the souls" without specifying said creator more clearly because I do not actually know who created the souls. Maybe the gods we saw did it, maybe someone else did. I don't know. But for my problem it didn't matter who did it, so I chose to use a more abstract term for the creator(s).


Yes. Why? Because, in literature, unless there is any allusions, implications, or evidence pointing to the contrary about what someone said is false (and/or that he is lying) then what he said was true.
That is bogus.

First of all, not every lie a character tells in fiction must come with an allusion to its nature as a lie. The reader might very well have no reason at all to distrust the character only to be completely caught off guard later when the lie is exposed. Many stories featuring a prominent traitor character for example try to make it so that the revelation of the traitor comes as a shock to the reader as well, not just those characters that have been betrayed. This enhances the effects of the treason.

Second of all, Shojo is telling a detailed story about the creation of the very world he lives in and is a part of. This alone is "allusion" enough to the fact that his information might not be flawless. after all, he was certainly not around when the events he describes happened, so he has no first-hand knowledge. Creation myths are not the most reliable source for facts.

Your attempted use of Occam's razor has already been identified as heavily flawed by hamishspence.


Case and point. Here you are arguing that the 'Secret Forbidden Lore' is false
I never did argue that. In fact, I do believe the story Shojo tells is true. I just pointed out that we can hardly rule out the possibility that his account of the story might contain minor or major deviations from the truth - or even that he is intentionally lying.


I recommend you read the comic from the beginning (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0001.html) before you start defending far-fetched ideas.
What far-fetched idea did I ever defend? I just had a question and asked this community for opinions and possible explanations. In fact, I admitted that my whole problem simply disappears if one accepts that souls are not created by a conscious power at all, as the bloddyredcomie suggested.

[hamishspence]

I do not know how OOTS does it, but in 3.5 ed D&D souls supposedly come into being on the Positive Energy Plane. The Bastion of Unborn Souls. see Magic of Incarnum for details. And before that, the adventure "Bastion of Broken Souls"

This may not, however, be canon in 4th ed, or OOTS. but it does set a precedent for deities not necessarily creating souls.

[Estelindis]

I think that, because mortals appear to have free will within the OotS setting, the exact nature of their souls is determined, at least in part, by their own individual actions and decisions. So yes, the Gods could make new souls to repopulate the world, but those souls won't necessarily make the same choice as the ones they were built to replace, and they therefore won't be the same.

I think.... I've never actually made any study of metaphysics, so I could be talking out of my hat here.
I have. :smallwink: I would agree with you. :smallsmile:

[mikeejimbo]

I think I'm of the belief the remaking an exact copy of the soul isn't quite the same as being the same soul. Perhaps you think differently, but let me just say I'm not willing to be the subject for a test of that nature.

[sikyon]

You are assuming that snarl reduces souls to nothing. This may not be true. Being undead is not the same as being dead, but either way you're not alive. It's possible that when souls are undone they are not reduced to nothing but are reduced to crazy anti-nothing, or something similar.

Furthermore it's possible that the creater of souls did not have perfect control over their creation, and is thus unable to perfectly remake them. I can draw a pretty good circle but I can't draw the same one each time.

In short, these are gods. Your understanding is not required nor possible, only your obedience.

[Dragon48]

For the gods to recreate the souls or fix the rifts, they will have to undo and redo their entire creation again, so they decided to just sit tight and hope for the best.

[bluewind95]

This actually reminds me of a nice, interesting (but vastly unknown) game... Loom. My post contains spoilers to that game, so if you intend to play it and haven't already, you've been warned.


Loom was about a guild of Weavers... and their powers included being able to weave the threads of reality itself. Apparently, reality was a grand masterpiece of weaving: the Pattern, and, well, pretty much like a hand-made woven tapestry. Everything, then, was something woven into the Pattern: souls, objects... everything. And by weaving reality, you could change those things. There was, however, a way to unmake things... and things undone were ripped apart down to the very threads of reality and there was no way they could be remade, because the threads that wove them into existence in the first place were broken- not just the pattern that those threads created. In such a world... sure, you could re-weave something that was like the original, but.... the threads that made the original are lost forever. And since it's all "hand-woven"... things are never 100% alike anymore anyways.

OotS mentions that reality is made by threads. Perhaps it follows a similar logic?

[WhitemageofDOOM]

A perfect copy cannot be distinguished from the original. That's what makes it a perfect copy. Your notion of identity is not necessarily correct, Admiral, and in fact it is widely recognized in philosophy and science to be false.

Create one perfect copy while the original exists, this proves they are different since one is clearly the copy and one clearly the original. Unmake original and make new perfect copy. Proof remains.

If a perfect copy is not the original, then it is impossible to revive that which no longer exists, only create new perfect copies of them. Which still leaves the original boned, not that it matters to the original cares as it no longer exists. More importantly the gods may be incapable of creating souls outside the natural channels(ie having people be born) or may be incapable of creating anything but blank souls. Either of which would render them bringing things back from the snarls unmaking moot.

[Admiral_Kelly]

My hat is off to WhiteMageOfDoom; this was exactly what I was trying to point out. I thought I was clear.

So long as I am posting in this thread again...

Yes. Why? Because, in literature, unless there is any allusions, implications, or evidence pointing to the contrary about what someone said is false (and/or that he is lying) then what he said was true.That is bogus.

First of all, not every lie a character tells in fiction must come with an allusion to its nature as a lie. The reader might very well have no reason at all to distrust the character only to be completely caught off guard later when the lie is exposed. Many stories featuring a prominent traitor character for example try to make it so that the revelation of the traitor comes as a shock to the reader as well, not just those characters that have been betrayed. This enhances the effects of the treason.

Second of all, Shojo is telling a detailed story about the creation of the very world he lives in and is a part of. This alone is "allusion" enough to the fact that his information might not be flawless. after all, he was certainly not around when the events he describes happened, so he has no first-hand knowledge. Creation myths are not the most reliable source for facts.

Your attempted use of Occam's razor has already been identified as heavily flawed by hamishspence.

I never did argue that. In fact, I do believe the story Shojo tells is true. I just pointed out that we can hardly rule out the possibility that his account of the story might contain minor or major deviations from the truth - or even that he is intentionally lying.You are missing the point. There is a thing known as a narrative device. Stories are a set of events portrayed by the author. When something important needs to be made known within the course of the story the author will use a character as a means to tell it. In this case; Burlew, the author of the comic, used Sojo. He did this in a way to make things absolutely clear. the reader can tell that these events are a crucial part of the story which will not be changed. There is no 'shocking reveal' here. Doing so would be altering the stories world; and in conclusion Sojo's words are factual.

Oh sure; Burlew could have started at the beginning of the comic and said 'x number of years later...' but he choose to have Sojo to explain it so the readers understand the creation of the universe as the characters do.

Furthermore; all evidence thus encountered has confirmed Sojo's story to be true. Go read the entire comic.

[Paladin29]

This actually reminds me of a nice, interesting (but vastly unknown) game... Loom. My post contains spoilers to that game, so if you intend to play it and haven't already, you've been warned.


Loom was about a guild of Weavers... and their powers included being able to weave the threads of reality itself. Apparently, reality was a grand masterpiece of weaving: the Pattern, and, well, pretty much like a hand-made woven tapestry. Everything, then, was something woven into the Pattern: souls, objects... everything. And by weaving reality, you could change those things. There was, however, a way to unmake things... and things undone were ripped apart down to the very threads of reality and there was no way they could be remade, because the threads that wove them into existence in the first place were broken- not just the pattern that those threads created. In such a world... sure, you could re-weave something that was like the original, but.... the threads that made the original are lost forever. And since it's all "hand-woven"... things are never 100% alike anymore anyways.

OotS mentions that reality is made by threads. Perhaps it follows a similar logic?


Ohhh... I love this game, i play it dozen of times.. you make me serach for it :D

good metaphor BTW :)

[mikeejimbo]

Create one perfect copy while the original exists, this proves they are different since one is clearly the copy and one clearly the original. Unmake original and make new perfect copy. Proof remains.

If a perfect copy is not the original, then it is impossible to revive that which no longer exists, only create new perfect copies of them. Which still leaves the original boned, not that it matters to the original cares as it no longer exists. More importantly the gods may be incapable of creating souls outside the natural channels(ie having people be born) or may be incapable of creating anything but blank souls. Either of which would render them bringing things back from the snarls unmaking moot.

I actually had this thought last night when I was trying to come up with an argument for it. Good job, you explained it better than I could have. :smallsmile:

[Tass]

Create one perfect copy while the original exists, this proves they are different since one is clearly the copy and one clearly the original. Unmake original and make new perfect copy. Proof remains.

If a perfect copy is not the original, then it is impossible to revive that which no longer exists, only create new perfect copies of them. Which still leaves the original boned, not that it matters to the original cares as it no longer exists. More importantly the gods may be incapable of creating souls outside the natural channels(ie having people be born) or may be incapable of creating anything but blank souls. Either of which would render them bringing things back from the snarls unmaking moot.


Who says it is clear which one is the original?

Actually, in the real world, it is impossible (not only practically, which is obvious, but theoretically) to make exact copies of anything. You can't recreate a quantum state perfectly without undoing the original, so what can really be done is transfering something from one place to another - ie teleportation.

If a reliable macroscopic matterteleportation machine was made, I would have no more second thoughts getting on it, than getting on an equally reliable airplane.

[memnarch]

My hat is off to WhiteMageOfDoom; this was exactly what I was trying to point out. I thought I was clear.

Make a perfect copy, mix the two up with no observers (like shuffling a pair of cards into a deck), then pick the original out. You would have a 50:50 chance of getting it right, yes, but if more than one copy if made you will have a much harder time.

So long as I am posting in this thread again...You are missing the point. There is a thing known as a narrative device. Stories are a set of events portrayed by the author. When something important needs to be made known within the course of the story the author will use a character as a means to tell it. In this case; Burlew, the author of the comic, used Sojo. He did this in a way to make things absolutely clear. the reader can tell that these events are a crucial part of the story which will not be changed. There is no 'shocking reveal' here. Doing so would be altering the stories world; and in conclusion Sojo's words are factual.

Of course there is no shocking reveal here. Tingle was not saying that. The subject of a "shocking reveal" is being used as an analogy, a way to convey a point that might otherwise make little sense. In this case, if you read what was said,
...
Second of all, Shojo is telling a detailed story about the creation of the very world he lives in and is a part of. This alone is "allusion" enough to the fact that his information might not be flawless. after all, he was certainly not around when the events he describes happened, so he has no first-hand knowledge. Creation myths are not the most reliable source for facts.
...
I never did argue that. In fact, I do believe the story Shojo tells is true. I just pointed out that we can hardly rule out the possibility that his account of the story might contain minor or major deviations from the truth - or even that he is intentionally lying.
He believes the story true, but isn't ruling out the possibility Rich is lying to us right now.


Oh sure; Burlew could have started at the beginning of the comic and said 'x number of years later...' but he choose to have Sojo to explain it so the readers understand the creation of the universe as the characters do.

This wasn't being disputed but... Yes, Burlew can use characters to give background on his story, but who says that he can't have it be told later that the first character didn't have the full story or was incorrect in someway or, as was mentioned, lying to the group.


Furthermore; all evidence thus encountered has confirmed Sojo's story to be true. Go read the entire comic. I've read the online comic and nowhere in there have I read about a character named Sojo. Maybe you need to reread it? Also, how would reading the entire comic over again help with anything?

[Lissibith]

I guess my problems have been stated before but differently. Either

A. We assume that souls are created with all their personality and future actions/memories already within them and unlocked as the person experiences these things or

B. We assume that a soul experiences things but those things do not matter to the soul and the soul is just the same with or without them (Seems unlikely given that we've seen the afterlife and that people maintain their experiences and personalities from life)

or

C. We assume that souls are created and then are modified based on the person's life.

Now if A is correct, I'll fully believe a God can come in and remake a soul that's been unmade by the snarl and everything will be hunky-dory. If B is correct I'll also buy that theory (though as stated above I don't think that can be the case).

But if C is the case, then doesn't it stand to reason that the only thing the gods -who are not all-powerful and don't seem to be all-knowing either if Thor's any example - could remake would be the soul as it existed before the person lived their life, or at best a rough approximation? We have no reason to believe the gods can see every event that affected the soul or recreate the thought patterns and personalities of said people. In fact, I'd say in the comic there's rather more evidence that the gods don't understand their followers sometimes, or really just don't care.

[Paladin29]

I insist in my time travel theory, if the gods can travel in time they can "rescue" this souls one second before the "unmaking" and bring back to the present,,, or more simple, they can catch the souls from their bodies in the moment of the execution and let the mortal form be unmade... however is widely accepted that the gods aren´t omnipotent and they won´t affect the mortal plane so directly except if the Snarl is released. About "the crayons of time" story... yes, is possible that Shojo lies, but he hasn´t a reason to do it and if we must to work with the most probable theory then we must trust in the former lord of Azure City.

And please don´t transform this thread in a battle of egos, we are here for fun..