SureAI

Yeah, that is a good way, but it sadly doesn't work with the Black Guardian, as he's mostly the sole source of information on almost everything. So in this case I suggest a different strategy.

Since it's a story, and not real life, I ask myself what serves the story better. And since him telling the truth serves the story in providing us with an explanation, while him telling lies basically doesn't serve the story in any way, because we don't have an alternatie explanation, I prefer to think that he mostly tells the truth.

i can work with that.

That is an interesting point, however with Enderal underlying themes and how the game's story unfurls means that taking anything at face value is far from being a good idea, even if, narratively, makes sense.
After all I am sure the scenario made for Arantheal made sense to him as well, and look how that ended...

Of course, one must always be critical of provided information. But there are differences between Tealor and the Black Guardian.

First, the timing: Tealor presents us with his theory fairly early into the story, which means that we as the players get more than enough time to ponder whether it is true or not before we are presented with evidence that shows that he was wrong. On the other hand, the BG is shown at the very end of the game and he serves as the ultimate information giver. There is nothing that follows him that could give us a different opinion. That alone makes me think that the writer's assumption was to provide us with an explanation at the very end.

Second, the contradictory evidence: Tealor's theory gets debunked at the end of the game, partially by what happens and partially by the information given by the BG. On the other hand, there is nothing that would either contradict, or support the claims by the BG. Most of the things the BG said fit the story (some of them don't), but we're not given any evidence to support it, or to disprove it. This is important, because it means that the BG has only as much value as the player gives him.

And this brings me to the previous point of narrativity. Everything a story gives us serves a purpose. There are many different purposes: it could be a red herring (i.e. a false proof which purpose is to lead the audience astray from the truth so that a plot twist can work more efficiently), it could be a Chekhov's gun (i.e. a subtle proof provided early on that serves as foreshadowing), and so forth. However, the BG doesn't really work as either of those literary devices, because of what I stated earlier: he appears too late in the story to be a red herring (because there's no plot twist afterwards) and so the only purpose he can serve is to give us answers.

Because if we assumed that he's incorrect, he serves no purpose at all. He doesn't give us answers, his false claims are not refuted later on as a plot twist, so we simply refuse his claims for the sake of not believing anything at the face value, without this refusal serving anything in the story.

If the BG appeared, let's say, in the middle of the story, then it's entirely different, because we are then left with the second half of the story to ponder on his words and to check the evidence we're provided with after his theories are presented. But that's not the case and so I am left with only two possible purposes of the BG: either to confuse the player at the very end of the story, or to provide us with an explanation. But confusing the player doesn't really work, because, again, the BG not only gives us some explanations, he is the only one to give us any explanations. And that leads me to conclude that the narrative basically demands us to believe in his words, because:

A) his only purpose that works is to provide us with an explanation and
B) we're never provided with anything to contradict his claims, other than the general "don't believe anyone".

well, anyway... lets assume for the moment the BG isn't lying to us (other than the lies to convince us to push the big button), at least as far as he knows? now how much of that conversation is factual, and how much is supposition, and how much is being left out? because i still have issues with the idea that, beings who can't interact with the physical world in any other way, can somehow create these flessless entities or "emissaries". to me it makes more sense that it's a natural occurrence that they can accurately predict. unless they actually can interact but decide not to, maybe an ace in the hole being saved for a rainy day.

---edit
just because someone doesn't act, doesn't mean they can't.

Well, I don't think we can answer that until we first answer the simple question of "Who are the High Ones".

I mean, everything we know about them are assumptions. We don't actually know if there are many of them or if it's just a single force of nature. We don't really have any proof of the Cleansing being a mean of procreation for them. We literally know nothing about them, apart of the fact that they like to mock the Emissaries.

I doubt that the emissaries are a natural occurence, as it doesn't look like they're common. There are certainly many people who die who could become Fleshless based on the conditions (dying while having a strong unfulfilled desire), yet there aren't many of them. And if we look at the list of the possible Fleshless (Tealor, maybe Coarek, that high priestess of the Pyreans and the rebellious general of the Pyreans, most likely a Prophet of the Pyreans as well), and if we assume that there are only the three Emissaries (Emperor, Prophet, Messiah), that two of the Emissaries are people who were already important (leader of the Holy Order, leader of the rebellion in Nehrim, leader of the Pyrean Church, leader of the Pyrean armies), so that leads me to assume that the High Ones pick someone who can serve their cause to become a Fleshless. I know that a lack of evidence isn't an evidence of nonexistence, but the lack of people showing the traits of the Fleshless (highly increased ability, single-mindedness bordering with zealotry on fulfilling their urges) is too apparent.

Unless (another crackpot theory) the people afflicted with the Red Madness are actually Fleshless whom the High Ones don't need. But that raises too many questions, mainly where are all those dead bodies that got replicated as the Red Mad Fleshless? (And another crackpot theory - could the woman's ghost from that Riverville quest be an incomplete Fleshless?)

I'll be combining now somewhat with the theory I posted here (http://forum.sureai.net/viewtopic.php?f ... =10#p85612) and try to do a complex explanation of the High Ones, making a lot of assumptions based on little to no evidence.

The High Ones are beings that either cause or revel (or both) in misery, especially on the mental level (nightmares, depressions, those sort of things). They most likely don't have a higher goal and the Cleansing is their ultimate goal, as it's their means of procreation (just like procreation is the ultimate goal of any other living being). They may either be primitive in their nature (that is they have no culture or civilisation and the urge to procreate is the their ultimate urge), or may even posses some kind of a civilisation on a higher plane of being, but that is ultimately irrelevant since I still doubt that the Cleansing serves any other purpose (compare this to the Reapers from Mass Effect - the cycle there served a clear goal and the harvesting was just a side effect).

So if we are to assume that the High Ones operate mainly on the fulfilling of basic urges (don't be killed, satisfy hunger, procreate), it would mean that they only hold back out of fear of being harmed, because there's no other logical explanation. If they had more powers than what they showed, why wouldn't they use them to make the Cycle faster for example? The one power we know they have is the ability to manipulate human beings and alter their thinking (as that's something we've witnessed) and then we assume that they can create the Fleshless (and I don't think that the Fleshless are a natural occurence, see above), the question is why wouldn't they create as many Fleshless as possible?

I think there are several possible explanations. First, The Fleshless can't actually be cleansed. Yes, the Cleansing kills them but if we assume that they really aren't affected as much as normal people (as many here speculate), we can take the speculation further and say that the Cleansing does kill them, but their soul isn't absorbed by the High Ones. After all, the actual human being that the Fleshless is based on is already dead. (Of course, this can all be a moot point as the High Ones don't kill the people that become Fleshless, they merely use their death). So possibly they could fear that creating too many Fleshless would cause chaos and disrupt the Cycle (and why change something that works?)

So that brings me to the second possibility, that there is more to the Cleansing that just using the Beacon. It's amazing how similar the two cycles we know are. Both the Pyreans and the Vynians (?) end in the very same fashion: a civil war that threatens to destroy the world, two parties fighting over the Beacon and then, suddenly, right as the battle culminates, the Beacon is lit. If my firsts assumption is correct and the High Ones need misery to survive, it's not that much of a stretch to assume that they also need misery to procreate, i.e. simply igniting the Beacon wouldn't be enough, it must be used while the world bleeds and destroys itself.

Therefore, while the goal of the High Ones is very simple (cause the Cleansing), the Cycle that happens before the Cleansing is not just a means to and end (that is something that causes the Cleansing), but rather a part of the Cleansing itself. The Cleansing couldn't happen without the civil war (which is caused by the High Ones carefully manipulating the leaders of both sides) not because it's the only way to ignite the Beacon, but because without the war all around, the Beacon would merely explode (doing exactly what the High Ones said it would do), but wouldn't initiate the Cleansing. Basically, to use chemical terminology, the Beacon is the catalyst of the reaction, while the misery is the main reactant.

Anyway, that's yet another wall of text from me (sorry about that), TLDR: the High Ones don't do more than they do because it would disrupt the Cycle.

what if it required very specific conditions to create the fleshless, for instance if the mix isn't just so, you windup with a bog standard lost one? as those show up rarely from time to time (only becoming frequent as a cleansing approaches), and to create an emissary it requires a bit more, perhaps the final piece is supplied by the high-ones, either directly or indirectly, or by the wild magical contamination that spreads once the cycle starts near the end of the cycle (as this is what causes the red madness unless i missed something). and maybe the process isn't even under their direct and/or precise control. and how do we know there are only 3 emissaries each cycle? we know there are only 3 visible ones...

--- many edits
-remind me not to post when i'm half asleep

We don't know if there are only 3 Emissaries sadly (and we don't even know if Emissaries must be Fleshless). However, I'm fairly certain that the Lost Ones aren't created through the same process as the Fleshless, since the Lost Ones are basically resurrected corpes, while the Fleshless are (if the BG is to be believed) copies.

So if the creation of the Fleshless is natural and the Emissaries are Fleshless who were, hm, enhanced by the High Ones, then my bet is on the people suffering from the Red Madness on actually being Fleshless copies of recently deceased (but then where are their bodies?).

There is one more issue with the High ones can't affect the world directly.


Starfall.


We know, at least from what we've been told, is that in each cycle a civilization rises, then collapses causing Chaos and gives place for the Immortal Magisters to take the reigns of power.

How can the High ones make sure that this first civilization collapses?

Also, consider that in this cycle, for some unexplained reason, the Veiled Woman decided to stack the deck, She even implies so in her first appearance, asking forgives even (not exactly what we;d expect from a souless being, at least per the Black Guardian's speech)

And then there is also the fact that the Black Guardian is known, if in might and legend not only to the inhabitants of Enderal, but to many, many other peoples. meaning he does have a way of interacting with the world (or maybe he had one?) unknown how limited, though.

I don't think the High Ones are a cause of the Cycle, I even think that the Cycle predates them (that is, at least by one Cycle, meaning that the first High One was created at the end of the first Cycle, when humanity, for some unknown reason, constructed something akin to a Beacon and destroyed itself). They certainly influence the Cycle, but quite possibly only its last stage. So just as the Magisters are (more or less) a natural occurence during the collapse, the High Ones are a natural occurence during the Chaos that follows their fall.

Consider that the Cycle is first mentioned by Sarantha (the personification of Fate) in Nehrim. Sure, it is merely the Cycle of Light and Dark, that is the Cycle of Magisters, but maybe Sarantha was responsible for the whole Cycle? Or maybe she was a being on par with the High Ones, that is Fate was responsible for the rise and fall of Magisters and the High Ones are responsible for the Cleansing. That would mean that there is possibly a third entity responsible for the creation of the world and its subsequent half-destruction during the Chaos.
My explanation to that is that just as he can, sort of, see the world (possibly through dreams?), the world can thus see him back as a reflection. It's like that feeling you get when you're being watched.