Remove ads

Best Left Unanswered - A Take On The God Quest Genre

Reader mode
I say that any answer that has the general theme of, 'I need/want power because x', probably increases the likelihood of our acceptance significantly.

By that metric George is likely best.
 
Leon12431 said:
can you explain your reasoning for this?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Pierre doesn't seem to be honest and seems to try to satisfy everything. George is setting him self up to be a martyr with no clear goal. Fleur seems to have a clearer goal without sacrificing herself and pacifying the wilds doesn't seem too unrealistic.

"40 cakes were stolen! How did Lex Luthor steal 40 cakes?" Anyone else see this pop up when they put in 40 words?
 
STOP said:
George is setting him self up to be a martyr with no clear goal. Fleur seems to have a clearer goal without sacrificing herself and pacifying the wilds doesn't seem too unrealistic.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
the issue is that the question they are answering doesn't care about those things. George's answer does in fact explain why he is willing to possibly kill himself with magic, Fleur's does not, she is answering something else not our question.

If she had taken it upon her identity in a way such as, "I wish to carve paths through the wilds, so that others may walk free." that would answer our question. The answer she gave doesn't answer it.

This is how I see our question, we require that the person answering has to answer in the context of I/Self, and not in the more universal form of an answer.
 
I would note that the Question who has domain over the Self is Who, not Why. The question of Why is a question of Purpose, not the Self, and I think Pierre and Fleur actually answers this better than George.
 
I think our question is: Why would you do this to yourself?

It is quite clearly referring to the Self in the last part, so it becomes a question of Why a Person would Do something. This then by extension makes the answer have to be in similar form, in other words, referring to the Self or I in regards to a Task/Duty/Desire to achieve.

This is my reading of the question at the very least. We have one of the more ambiguous questions but I think it fits cleaner to the Self/Task model than an universal/external model.
 
I dont think we ought to specift specific references to the self; We should see whether or not the Purpose that they specify is a worthy one to us.
 
STOP said:
Pierre doesn't seem to be honest and seems to try to satisfy everything. George is setting him self up to be a martyr with no clear goal. Fleur seems to have a clearer goal without sacrificing herself and pacifying the wilds doesn't seem too unrealistic.

"40 cakes were stolen! How did Lex Luthor steal 40 cakes?" Anyone else see this pop up when they put in 40 words?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Yep, there's others the most commonly seen is.empty post others include a reference to the hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy.
 
Shard said:
I would note that the Question who has domain over the Self is Who, not Why. The question of Why is a question of Purpose, not the Self, and I think Pierre and Fleur actually answers this better than George.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
And I figured best to get around to this.

Who is about the person. You must be strong of heart, weak of mind, gifted in the ways of the blade, and a lousy musician. Answering who they are, while this is notable, this is their role in society.
Why is very much as much or even more so of a personal question then who. As this asks why they do things, one lousy musician may do it for the sake of fulfilling their dead brother's dreams, while the other does it to rake in money. Answering why is asking about the self, it's a question of why you do the things you do. Who is more about an external perception of the person, as the only way to define yourself is through your interactions with others. Why, doesn't need such a thing and is instead about their ideals, and their wants and desires.

How is their means of pursuing the goal. The way they wish to accomplish their goals, be it by stealth, conflict, or deception.
What questions the obstacles in the pursuit of their goals.
When asks when you will give up on your goals, and how much dedication you will take with them.
Where asks the places for those goals. If My Goal is to be a bard, a good answer would be the towns, and cities where others dwell.


Why, in a sense is the most instrumental question, it's about the goals and drives themselves. Why would you do this to yourself? Why would you take on such a risk, when the world has gone to crap, and the people you love are dying. Yes, Ideals are great, but no one truly believes them. Especially, not the people who say that's why they do it themself. Look at Pierre he wants to stay at his home and farm, why he'd do it to himself isn't to feed everyone it's to make his life easier, and avoid danger. He's actively lying about the answer even if we took it as an acceptable one. Yes, he may believe it to be true, but it's clearly not. Fluer? Same Deal she may wish to hunt, for the good of her village, but she's not doing it to make the wilds safer, it's so that she can make the woods safer, so her why isn't an ideal as well.
How do we know this? Let's look at the posts about them.

This is such a stupid idea. This is such a stupid, stupid idea. The thought repeats in Pierre's head as the revelation strikes him true. He's a simple man is Pierre. He seeks a life with little to no risk or what risk there is he wishes to be made manageable. So when something is proferred to him claiming to eliminate or otherwise handle certain risks?

A means to ensure that he'd never again have to venture from his farm, able to wield his power to tend to the fields such that all would have what they'd need and not throw themselves into pointless suicidal ventures such as this. A means to see to it that the tragedies that lead him to becoming a farmer rather than a hunter such as his father was. A means to help others without needing to venture beyond his walls...

There is risk in answering Pierre realizes. What if he's wrong? What if his answer is unworthy? Would he be smote on the spot or his torture dragged out for centuries? Oh sure these things claim that there is no price but that can't be true. Must be a lie.

But there's risk in not answering as well the very same ones that exist in answering truth be told. Thus it only stands to reason that if there is some reward for answering and the punishment for both outcomes is the same either way then…

His mouth opens and his answers spill forth.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
This is all we get, about his motivations. Now, let's compare it to what we see in the response and whether or not it's acceptable.

To ensure that all may eat freely and readily.
And We get a maybe right? I mean, he clearly is tending to his farm to feed others. Except his concept of all, is clearly different then what Pierre is actually thinking why do we know this? Because, this is a time of strife, and he's not really thinking about the world, he's thinking about his village when he's saying such a thing, and it's limited by another axis time. Once he's gone the tending of the farms will go with him. This is where the answer strikes hollow to me, as Pierre even if we allowed him the magic he wants wouldn't accomplish or even seek the goal he's stating, as he'd simply seek to feed his village.

Fleur stood in open astonishment as she watched Pierre answer these strange lights. What madness possessed him to do this she wondered. Was it desperation? Fear for his own life maybe? Probably, she immediately conceded.

Still, as the six lights seemed to sit there, considering, she too considered what they proposed. Magic but without chance. Wonder without harm. If what they offered was true then…

Survival was paramount. It was always the most important thing to see to above all else. A hunter must take pains to do all they can to ensure they return from the hunt lest the settlement starve. So if she were to ignore these things and the reward they claimed to promise then… Would that not be a betrayal of that very facet?

To use magic without fear… It was a chance, true. But it was a chance too promising to pass up. She pauses, considers carefully the words she will speak…

Then casts them to the air.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
To ensure that the wilds remain safe for all to traverse.

Right off the Bat, without quoting I guarantee you she'd not like everyone to be able to freely traverse the wilds. Simply because of the food problem, and the fact that it's protection from outside influences in a sense, and she's the type of person to actually use it for such, if it's in her interests.

And She's not saying remain safe in the wilds for her goal, it's survival. Her Question should be more along the lines of to. I do this so, I can survive, so that I may come back safely from every hunt. This may be a selfish way of putting it yes, but that's a far more accurate answer of her actual thoughts ideal.


Though, this is my opinion on them, I may just by cynical.
 
[] PIERRE - NO
[] FLEUR – NO
[] GEORGE – YES

I can't give you a exact reason why, but George's answer just strikes a chord in me where the others don't. When asked "Why", Pierre and Fleur answered with "I want X to happen", while George said "So others don't have to."

I admire that, so I vote to respect his answer.

Besides, the Great Question of Why is the domain of Conflict and Life. There can be no plenty or peace for everyone like what Pierre and Fleur want. It's a vicious cycle of evolution, a never-ending competition atop a mountain of corpses. If everyone could eat freely and readily, and all can walk the earth without danger, there would be no conflict. It's the antithesis of Why.
 
In my opinion that Conflict can be varied
There is conflict in taming and keeping the wilderness safe
There is conflict in asserting your power over the land to be able to grow your crops, to keep them alive against the seasons and nature.
All of them fulfills the answer one way or another.
 
Well, I might as well try putting my hat into the ring?

The Great Question of Why is... a lot more personal than the other questions - because it feels like... the last question, in a way? It feels like something that's asked after you face the consequences.

"Why would you do this to yourself?"

In a way, it's asking... is it really worth it? Is the reason why you answered the Questions and learned/gained magic worth whatever the cost may have been?

The other questions have their own way of hitting you, but... the question of Why in the context of "you" has... something "Who are you to use this power?" doesn't have.

Which is why George using "I" in what he said, and his reasoning for it just... fits a lot more with the question of Why, IMO. Sure, there are no consequences or things to go through yet...

But it fits the Question and its Voice very well.

...Or at least that's just how I feel? There's just something that feels 'missing' with Pierre's and Fleur's answers, in context to the the voice that Why uses.
 
[] PIERRE - YES
[] FLEUR - YES
[] GEORGE - YES

It's asking what you would do with power and they all respond the same, though in different ways.
Help others, and if that's a bad reason for power than we are a cruel god
 
'This' is an important part of our question I think.
Herein is the implication that they did 'this' themselves and that this is likely to be negative.
What have they done to themselves?
At the same time 'would' implies a future or a hypothetical.

They are hunting a beast, and they are answering our question without knowing what it may entail.

Piere answered our question expecting there to be a price and unsure of retribution.
Why we ask?
And he answers that he would take an unknown risk in order to insure that others may eat his crops. We promote life and will likely be able to aid him.
He also wishes to not go into suicidal missions anymore. We will likely hinder him here. But that is the price of answering our question.

I think that a similar reasoning works for Fleur. I think that we will likely be able to only aid her here as she seems to already have a decent drive for conflict.

In contrast to what they others think I feel that Georges reason why he would do this to himself the weakest.
He would take an unknown risk so that others don't have to risk themselves as he does.
But others are already taking risks. He was the last to answer. And he may have tried to draw our ire, but the others he can not the risks others need to take.
I also think that protecting others is likely to cause those to force those he wishes to protect to be forced to take more risks in the long run, because those who answer our question will seek to create conflict.


EDIT: I feel that there is a hole in my logic and that I've been reading with my eyes closed. I might change my thoughts about what to vote when I'm awake again🛌
 
Last edited:
An angle that I don't think was mentioned yet is the effect of our domains on those we accept. Our domains both reward and push toward certain actions. The life domain is rather straightforward, but the conflict domain raises some questions. So, what kinds of external and internal conflicts do you think each character will create?

...I might add my own thoughts on the matter later, but I am to tired right now for clear writings. Just wanted to throw this idea before voting.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top