Solo I didn’t mean that the idea was implausible at all, in fact that it falls in the category of plausibility rather than probability.
For this subject, I think my attitude is most concerned with the difference between an explanation that establishes how something could be a certain way, and one that establishes why something would be a certain way.
For time immemorial (read: I really have no clue how long) the most basic conceit of criminal investigation is to establish Means; Motive; and Opportunity. Which may be more pertinently generalized as the How; the Why; and the What/When/Where. Generally one is not considered to have a case without solidly ascertaining at least two, and nailing the trifecta is virtually a case closed.
Motive is perhaps the least crucial, or certainly the most ambiguous in such cases. It is a strictly intellectual concern that can be most easily suggested, yet impossible to truly prove. However, since this is an investigation of a strictly intellectual realm… I would judge the Why to have primacy. Motive is the beating heart of any story worth telling. Abstractly even, with the how/what/when/where’s we’re still ultimately searching for the motive of the storyteller
Which is not to assign any absolute hierarchy in the evidence, but in general it’s quite easy to imagine a How for almost anything, that may establish plausibility; especially because the effective natural laws of this world are so alien and sketchily defined, who’s to say what might be impossible? Whereas the motives of it’s inhabitants, are not so alien at all, their natural inclinations (apparently, broadly) conform to our own. So the rules for ascertaining what might be improbable, by that criteria, are fully transferable.
A How can always be a good place to start, though a Why will nearly always beat it in my books. But a How that’s perfectly matched to a Why is virtually gold. The What/When/Where is typically a given, as opportunity is a matter of the record, and continuity splices are a matter of routine anyway. That’s usually our starting point, we already know opportunity is established because we know something happened; we’re always just left asking How and Why.
I’m not sure who she was talking to specifically, but Rhagg definitely discusses the shrine. There’s some info about it in her encyclopaedia entry: thewilloftheancients.com/encyclopaedia/rhagg
That’s a good effort.
Good point.
[quote=“The Ancient”]Yes. Perhaps the most recurring thematic knot exerting pressure on the direction of my own speculation, has always been the larger context of agency. As I’ve stated before, one of the biggest initial impressions that I had to reassess was a notion that Azel and Atolm’s creation / purpose were somehow parallel to the Heresy dragon’s. But really only because of the way things ultimately played out, and a number of details make that a clearly untenable presumption. But a main part of the impulse to lean that direction, is the imperative to explain or rationalize why the Heresy program manifested as a dragon when it did; only after “thousands” of years?
And I’m now feeling quite certain of the answer: because the Heresy program was figuratively (in a literal sense, heh) “formless” in it’s own conviction. Our dragon was prepared / programmed to wait indefinitely for it’s ultimate opportunity, yet it didn’t know explicitly what form that opportunity might take.[/quote]
Although its difficult to prove either way, I think humans would have been struggling just as much before the Heresy Program was ejected from Sestren. Situations like An’jou’s caravan migrating would have been common, since the monsters often would have gone around cleaning up humans who didn’t follow the Preservation Faction’s ecological rules. Perhaps non-Zoah-like tribes of humans were preyed upon by monsters, regardless of their size.
Shelcoof was heading in the direction of the Tower of Uru, but the question remains why. I think, maybe, Shelcoof needed assistance from the larger Tower. It could have been running away from Lagi; after the initial surprise attack on Elpis it would be relatively defenceless (other than it’s monster guardians) against the dragon. Even the Guardian Dragon was not at full strength at this point. It would also not be able to kill the agile dragon easily with it’s laser beam now that the dragon was aware of Shelcoof’s presence.
Hmm - I’m curious, does anything in the games suggest that Shelcoof was in pursuit of the Empire? Other than the general stuff about the Towers reducing human populations.
Very little to go on in specifics yes, but this issue of how and why the Towers may not have been “functioning properly” - or indeed even IF they truly weren’t - has received quite a lot of debate at times. This is at least an explanation with some sort of secondary direct literal basis, compared to the otherwise free flying conjecture of I think any/all of the other possible explanations I’ve seen?
So perhaps rephrasing again the mode I’ve been on with all of this: the fundamental conceit that literal information that may readily apply to an issue will always overrule a lack of information; continues to yield consistency once the track of consistency is found. However even this basic idea about the Heresy program can still be supplemental to a larger theme, one that includes the possibility Sestren’s operation did not begin under optimal conditions in the first place.