[LMB] Belief: Was What makes a character irredeemable?

Gwynne Powell gwynnepowell at hotmail.com
Thu Aug 1 12:48:30 BST 2019

From: Joel Polowin <jpolowin at hotmail.com>

Damien Sullivan <phoenix at mindstalk.net> wrote:
> It would be really easy to be an atheist in belief.? The only common
> sign of the gods could be dismissed as deliberate or unconscious
> manipulation of animals, a la Clever Hans effects.

But seriously, we don't have a lot of information about how clearly
the animals are signing the correct god.  In the case of dy Sanda, the
fox went right to him and plunked itself down, and the other animals
weren't interested: no ambiguity, and the expected result.  In Dondo's
case, the acolytes tried to push the animals to him, with embarrassing
results... but that was an atypical case.  ...We know from _Hallowed Hunt_ that the acolytes
are supposed to "amplify" the animals' behaviour if there isn't clarity,
but we don't know the details of how that lack-of-clarity looks.

Gwynne: We see or hear about a fair few funerals in the saga. The animals
are pretty clear about signalling which god has taken the soul, and they
often resist fairly strongly. There's mention of one case where the grooms
are cheating, but they must have found a way to control the animals (drugs?)

Another issue entirely is the Quadrene system. Four fish in a ceramic bowl.
Only the priests can see them clearly, and they can give any answer they
wish. This gives the Temple a lot of control over people. And there must be
a lot of clergy who just have to wonder why they have to lie at least 20% of
the time. The Quintarians are far more open about all of that, but then they
have nothing to hide.

More information about the Lois-Bujold mailing list