What's the leading pantheon in the east?

[brian 333]

A fair question - but if you ask it, you then have to ask yourself why the absence of a Halloween Pantheon, a Thanksgiving Pantheon, or, heck, a Valentine's Day Pantheon isn't necessarily relevant to the geography of the worlds the gods weave. And at that point, where does it end?

I'm sorry, but I don't understand your point. The pantheons as we know them have been discribed relative to the cardinal points of a compass. One of the four points of that compass is missing, and therefore the non-existent deities who would have formed the Eastern pantheon did not build an Eastern continent in this world..

So, obviously and of course other non-existent pantheons also did not create continents.

As for Holiday-themed pantheons, I'm sure in all the many tries it's been done at least once. Can you see Odin as Father Christmas? I'm guessing the Eastern pantheon would have had Summer, but alas, there are no good Midsummer holidays any more.

[Emanick]

I'm sorry, but I don't understand your point. The pantheons as we know them have been discribed relative to the cardinal points of a compass. One of the four points of that compass is missing, and therefore the non-existent deities who would have formed the Eastern pantheon did not build an Eastern continent in this world..

So, obviously and of course other non-existent pantheons also did not create continents.

As for Holiday-themed pantheons, I'm sure in all the many tries it's been done at least once. Can you see Odin as Father Christmas? I'm guessing the Eastern pantheon would have had Summer, but alas, there are no good Midsummer holidays any more.

It was a joke about your typo.

[brian 333]

D'oh! I missed the typo. Now I'll have to look for it so I can get the joke!

[brian 333]

Okay, so in the past world Rabbit was the chief deity of the Easter Pantheon. That's now canon.

[Fyraltari]

I mean, we don't know that; there could have been an Eastern Continent on the First World, but there's no reason why that feature should have been retained in subsequent iterations.

Shojo said: "The gods were divided, as they are today, into several pantheons. We know them now by the regions of the world that worship them."
Emphasis mine.

Spoiler: Start of Darkness page 36

Show

And Redcloak's story goes (after the capture of the Snarl):
Redcloak: When the creation was done, the leader of the southern Gods, Dragon, proposed an agreement between the three groups.
Dragon: we all know what happens should we ever come into conflict over how to run this new world. I therefore suggest that each of our three panthneons be granted special dominion over one-third of this planet, to guid as we see fit.

So, it seems pretty clear to me that the division of the world into strict areas of influence per pantheon started on world #0000000000000000002.

[Metastachydium]

Because for the last 700,000 worlds there was nothing but a big ocean to the east of the main continent, and <insert god here> has gotten bored of that.

We are all looking at you, Njord.

Shojo said: "The gods were divided, as they are today, into several pantheons. We know them now by the regions of the world that worship them."
Emphasis mine.

Spoiler: Start of Darkness page 36

Show

And Redcloak's story goes (after the capture of the Snarl):
Redcloak: When the creation was done, the leader of the southern Gods, Dragon, proposed an agreement between the three groups.
Dragon: we all know what happens should we ever come into conflict over how to run this new world. I therefore suggest that each of our three panthneons be granted special dominion over one-third of this planet, to guid as we see fit.

So, it seems pretty clear to me that the division of the world into strict areas of influence per pantheon started on world #0000000000000000002.

Well, fair enough. One can't fight canon!

[Peelee]

Well, fair enough. One can't fight canon!

Canonically, Shojo was not being 100% accurate and he can be off on the details (as he already has been).

[Fyraltari]

Canonically, Shojo was not being 100% accurate and he can be off on the details (as he already has been).

Sure, but even in crayons, if a character (Dragon, here) is shown to say something, I think it best to assume that it is exactly what they said, as so far crayon scenes were only ever shown to lack context, not be untrue on anything shown.

[Peelee]

Sure, but even in crayons, if a character (Dragon, here) is shown to say something, I think it best to assume that it is exactly what they said, as so far crayon scenes were only ever shown to lack context, not be untrue on anything shown.

Eh, I don't agree. Its safe to assume the broad strokes are probably not babpy correct but I'm not going to rely on specific, exacting wording at all in crayon.

[Fyraltari]

Eh, I don't agree. Its safe to assume the broad strokes are probably not babpy correct but I'm not going to rely on specific, exacting wording at all in crayon.

But it's not "specific, exacting wording", it's an entire panel dedicated to explaining the gods came up with the one-pantheon-one-continent system in response to the Snarl's rampage as one of the preventive measures we've seen them abide by in the last two books.

[Peelee]

But it's not "specific, exacting wording", it's an entire panel dedicated to explaining the gods came up with the one-pantheon-one-continent system in response to the Snarl's rampage as one of the preventive measures we've seen them abide by in the last two books.

You're basing everything on the word of a guy who wasn't there, claiming knowledge that is explicitly told to us to not be perfectly accurate.

Id call that "specific, exacting wording".

So would the Eastern demigods, they said "things claimed to be said by us by people who did not hear it and are already wrong about which world they are on to start with probably shouldn't be assumed to be perfectly accurate in all ways until shown otherwise".

[Fyraltari]

You're basing everything on the word of a guy who wasn't there, claiming knowledge that is explicitly told to us to not be perfectly accurate.

Id call that "specific, exacting wording"

I think the word you're looking for is hearsay, this has nothing to do with specific and/or exact language.

Again, every time we've been shown crayons they were factually correct, only lacking context. And the parts that were wrong in Shojo's story were in Shojo's narration not in the parts actually drawn. When characters lie or are wrong, we aren't "shown the lie" as in Rashomon.

At least, so far.

[Peelee]

I think the word you're looking for is hearsay, this has nothing to do with specific and/or exact language.

Again, every time we've been shown crayons they were factually correct, only lacking context. And the parts that were wrong in Shojo's story were in Shojo's narration not in the parts actually drawn. When characters lie or are wrong, we aren't "shown the lie" as in Rashomon.

At least, so far.

The world they are in not being the second world seems like is more "factually incorrect" than "lacking context". As in, entirely the former and not at all the latter.

[Fyraltari]

The world they are in not being the second world seems like is more "factually incorrect" than "lacking context". As in, entirely the former and not at all the latter.

Yes it is. Everything Redcloak and Shojo said happened happened. A second world was created to entrap the Snarl and the Gods made new covenants too ensure no new Snarl would see the light. The world the characters live on is indeed a prison for the Snarl under this covenant. There just lacks the crucial information that the second world was destroyed too and a whole lot of other worlds were build and destroyed before the current one.
This world being the second isn't what matters to Shojo, Redcloak and their respective audience, what matters is that it isn't the first and that the entity that destroyed the first may destroy the current one as well. This isn't belied by the new information, it just adds a whole lot of context. Hell, The Secret Lore of the Sapphier Guard never even says outrigjt that the current world is the second one. Everybody just assumed.
And again, I think it's worth making a distinction between what Shojo, Redcloak or Sigdi say in the narration boxes and what is actually shown in panel in crayons.


And, frankly, I trouble to see why and how it would be revealed that there already existed a pantheonic divide of the world before the Snarl, how that would impact the story and how such false information would come to be.

[Ruck]

If the whole world is destroyed, the continents go with it. In subsequent world's without an Easter Pantheon, why would anyone build an Eastern Continent?

Yeah, but that's a much more general observation than what you said originally:

When the Eastern Gods were destroyed, everything created by their quiddity was also destroyed

We don't even really have evidence that the above is true.

[Metastachydium]

When the Eastern Gods were destroyed, everything created by their quiddity was also destroyed

We don't even really have evidence that the above is true.

I mean, we kind of do. According to Thor nothing other than the Snarl has their quiddity in it anymore, so everything else that had it was canonically destroyed.

[InvisibleBison]

I mean, we kind of do. According to Thor nothing other than the Snarl has their quiddity in it anymore, so everything else that had it was canonically destroyed.

We have evidence that everything the Eastern Gods created was destroyed, but there's no evidence that it was destroyed when the Eastern Gods were destroyed. It may have lasted until the Snarl finished destroying the first world.

[Metastachydium]

We have evidence that everything the Eastern Gods created was destroyed, but there's no evidence that it was destroyed when the Eastern Gods were destroyed. It may have lasted until the Snarl finished destroying the first world.

Ah, I see! What's called to question is that the two destructions occured simultaneously of which we indeed don't have a direct confirmation; still, given that the Easterners and the first world were undone within the same 27 minutes long interval, in practice, the distinction is virtually meaningless.

[Tzardok]

Ah, I see! What's called to question is that the two destructions occured simultaneously of which we indeed don't have a direct confirmation; still, given that the Easterners and the first world were undone within the same 27 minutes long interval, in practice, the distinction is virtually meaningless.

I think the problem is more that the original claim ("When the Eastern Pantheon was destroyed, everything with their quidditiy was also destroyed.") makes it sound like a causation instead of a correlation.

[pearl jam]

It seems to me that the Snarl wiping out the Eastern Pantheon is the precipitating event that leads to the unmaking of the first world which was the only world in which they participated in creating. It is, perhaps, extremely precise to acknowledge that the destruction of that world did not occur precisely at that moment and that the remaining gods could possibly have chosen another course of action, but I also think that it's safe to say that, had the Snarl not destroyed the Eastern pantheon, the gods would not have destroyed the first world when they did. Therefore I think it's appropriate to say there is a causal relationship between the two events, not just a correlation.

[Tzardok]

The Snarl destroyed the first world, not the gods. And even if the gods were the responsible ones, there's a difference between indirect "Oh god, Zeus is dead! Let's destroy everything he made." causation and direct "Zeus died, so everything he made winked out automatically." causation, y'know?

[Ruck]

We have evidence that everything the Eastern Gods created was destroyed, but there's no evidence that it was destroyed when the Eastern Gods were destroyed. It may have lasted until the Snarl finished destroying the first world.

I think the problem is more that the original claim ("When the Eastern Pantheon was destroyed, everything with their quidditiy was also destroyed.") makes it sound like a causation instead of a correlation.

Yes, this gets at the point I was trying to make. Much better articulated than I did.

[pearl jam]

The Snarl destroyed the first world, not the gods. And even if the gods were the responsible ones, there's a difference between indirect "Oh god, Zeus is dead! Let's destroy everything he made." causation and direct "Zeus died, so everything he made winked out automatically." causation, y'know?

Yes, and as our resident flower has stated, while there could be a situation where that distinction is relevant, it's not really relevant to the discussion at hand.

Ah, I see! What's called to question is that the two destructions occured simultaneously of which we indeed don't have a direct confirmation; still, given that the Easterners and the first world were undone within the same 27 minutes long interval, in practice, the distinction is virtually meaningless.

[Smoutwortel]

Canonically, Shojo was not being 100% accurate and he can be off on the details (as he already has been).

That just means the giant can fight canon. For mere mortals like us canon has the final say unless it actively provides conflicting options.

[Peelee]

That just means the giant can fight canon. For mere mortals like us canon has the final say unless it actively provides conflicting options.

For mere mortals like us, the canon is "this is a personal account that may be biased, incomplete, or incorrect".