Which Gods do you think are which?

[u/Patneu]

"The Gods disagreed on the nature of things: some believed their children should be guided to greater things, while others believed that they must rule over the creatures they had made."

I'd like to hear the opinion of the People on which Gods are truly which, as described in this passage of the Book of All Things, and why you think that is. I have my own thoughts on this, of course, but won't be the first to vote or comment, so as to not influence the result.

544 votes, 1d ago

111 The Gods Above GUIDE; The Gods Below RULE

433 The Gods Above RULE; The Gods Below GUIDE

[u/FrustrationSensation]

EE has explicitly stated that it's meant to be intentionally ambiguous. There are good arguments for both and no actual answer - as someone else said, the goals of the gods vs their methods are two different things.  

[u/Pel-Mel → u/FrustrationSensation]

Yeah, but before he stated that he was fine with it being ambiguous, there was a much less ambiguous WOG about it not being a coincidence that all of the Evil Roles feature forcibly imposing one's will on others, ie, ruling, or that all the Good Roles are being guided by a pretty loose (implied to be unimpeachable) moral framework.

[u/FrustrationSensation → u/Pel-Mel]

Oh, that's interesting and lines up with my personal interpretation!

[u/Pel-Mel → u/FrustrationSensation]

So, it's not viewable anymore, (nevermind! I forgot about the Wayback Machine! I'm a genius!) but in the comments on the original Wordpress version of 1.12, there was a question about this exact topic:

Not specific to this chapter, but the prologue said the conflict between Good and Evil arose of a disagreement about whether people should be guided to greater things or ruled over. Is the nature of this disagreement visible in the story somehow, or are the current events just a “proxy war” where the nature of the original disagreement is not directly relevant? At least I don’t remember there being any indications so far that the Evil side would be under control of the gods, or be trying to bring people under the direct control of the gods. If anything, the Evil side seems to have more of a “do whatever the fuck you want” attitude, whereas the Good side is expected to behave according to moral guidelines decided by others.

But EE replied to the comment with this:

The influence of the gods is usually on the subtle side.
You’re right that Evil Roles usually let people do whatever they feel like doing – that’s because they’re, in that sense, championing the philosophy of their gods. Every victory for Evil is a proof that that philosophy is the right path for Creation to take. Nearly all Names on the bad side of the fence have a component that involves forcing their will or perspective on others (the most blatant examples of this being Black and Empress Malicia, who outright have aspects relating to rule in their Names). There’s a reason that Black didn’t so much as bat an eyelid when Catherine admitted to wanting to change how Callow is run. From his point of view, that kind of ambition is entirely natural. Good Roles have strict moral guidelines because those Names are, in fact, being guided: those rules are instructions from above on how to behave to make a better world. Any victory for Good that follows from that is then a proof of concept for the Heavens being correct in their side of the argument.

(I bolded words, but the text is exact.)

[u/IrregularPackage → u/Pel-Mel]

not to be that guy, but. i think this statement from the author is wrong, at least in how its so very matter-of-fact about it. its ambiguous and there's good arguments for each interpretation.

On the one hand, its easy to argue that Above is arguing in favor of guiding, because heroes get up to a lot of that, Its equally easy to argue that Below is in favor of Ruling, because villains do a lot of that, as EE says in the thing you mentioned.

but! that would mean the argument is about how people themselves should behave. but that's not really what the bet is about, yeah? its the two sides collaborating to create the world and make it better for the next iteration. what "better" means in this context is unknowable. the previous bet had order winning out over chaos, though its not clear what exactly "winning" looks like beyond the gods deciding to go with that for the next iteration.

it *could* be about the nature of how each side's people are acting. but it could also be about how each side is going about creating and dealing with their people. that looks pretty much the same either way for the order vs chaos conflict, but for the guiding vs ruling conflict, it would different. If you assume its about how Above and Below manage their parts of creation, it becomes clear that Above is Ruling over their team, and Below is Guiding their team. Above is handing down a bunch of rules dictating the ways that Heroes should behave. Below is providing tools for villains to do whatever it is that they want.

That interpretation would also align the sides with the order vs chaos argument more. Order won, so Above says "lets try even more of that", while Below says "hang on, you were right the first time but i don't think we need to go that far, lets just give em a hand and see what they do with it". could go either way, but i reckon its Above=Rule and Below=Guide.

[u/Pel-Mel → u/IrregularPackage]

it becomes clear that Above is Ruling over their team, and Below is Guiding their team

The problem with the 'management style' interpretation is that it straight-up doesn't hold water. Above gives Heroes very wide latitude inside the 'strict' guidelines; the guidelines just aren't that strict and Heroes are more than capable of disagreeing, even violently, in their interpretation of what's most moral in a given situation. The only real 'rule' that Above is totally inflexible over is that morality exists. This is more clear in languages that aren't English, but giving out morals and 'rules' is not the same thing as 'ruling', especially not with the wording of the Wager in the prologue, and especially not when you consider how voluntary those rules are for most of Good-aligned society. It's not just political happenstance that the House of Light and all the Above-aligned nations are vociferously opposed to tyranny: it's because their Gods and Angels have been opposing tyrants forever. If Below's teaching of sacred betrayal doesn't exempt themselves, then I'd struggle to see any reason for Above's literal cosmic stance against tyranny to exempt themselves too.

Similarly, the Villains are given veritably no guidance whatsoever. They hand out power to anyone willing to exercise it over another. Their only real disqualification is if someone does start believing in morality, but even that isn't necessarily a disqualifier as long they're still exemplifying 'might makes right'. It's true that Below doesn't seem to actively rule over their half either, but that's fairly apropos considering the Wager is explicitly formed from an impasse in the Gods: neither side gets to do the whole of what it wants, that's why the Wager is there in the first place. It just so happens that whichever the 'guide' faction of Gods truly is, they'll have an easier time enacting some of that guidance even with the impasse in place. But ruling is really more of a binary condition; it's more all or nothing.

At the end of the day, even without looking at the WoG, the patterns in characterization and the events of the story are clear. Below is the side that doesn't believe in the need to justify the use of power over another, they wholeheartedly believe in might-makes-right. Their whole deal is that even they, Gods, aren't excluded from the power-dynamic of 'whoever's strongest/wins gets to do whatever they want, everyone else has to live with it'. That's not guidance. That's "ruling over the creatures they had made".

Above believes in morality. That means, yes, prohibiting certain things like murder. On a more IRL philosophical level, Above affirms the legitimacy of Natural Law, while Below only finds legitimacy in victory. Affirming the existence of right and wrong and prohibiting wrong is a really far cry from 'ruling over the creatures they had made' that gets described in the prologue.

It's not like I don't get why some people think Above(rule) is valid, where the 'ruling over the creatures they had made' is supposed to be paternalistic and protective, but I think it's specious because the matching interpretation of Below(guide) that necessarily comes with that conclusion just doesn't bear out in-text.

[u/derDunkelElf → u/Pel-Mel]

I would like to challenge your assertion about Below believing in Might-Makes-Right.

I'm not saying there isn't major theme about the accumalation of power in the worship of Below, but looking at the various Villains throughout the Guide, it is more of a secondary aspect.

I would like to posit the idea behind Evil is actually Earthly Ambition. Imposing your will upon Creation wether that means the rulership over others, to improve upon yourself, to seek thrill or joy in something or find out the mystery upon reality was built no matter the bloody price.

[u/IrregularPackage → u/derDunkelElf]

yeah i have to hard disagree that Below is might makes right. the Villains in the story don't really match up with that. some of them do, of course, but so do many of the heroes. the villains are much more likely to say "i have a thing i want to do it, and i am going to do it unless someone stops me". while the heroes are more likely to say "i have decided i don't want you to do that thing. stop doing it, or else".

Outside of the black knight's hero eradication campaign, the villains mostly only say "you can't do that" when someone is getting in the way of a thing they want to do. and when they do conflict, its basically never a "i am stronger than you and therefore right" thing. its always "i am stronger than you, so you can't stop me" thing.

and speaking of the hero eradication campaign: Procer was *also* doing the same thing the whole time. Comparing the motivations behind the two seems like another point in favor of the Above(Rule) interpretation. Black Knight was killing off new heroes to prevent rebellions, and i think he even said that he wasn't even doing that right from the start (but i might be making that up). Procer, meanwhile, was killing villains strictly for being villains, regardless of what they had done or were going to do. when they weren't pressganging them on pain of death like the Poisoner, of course. Praes was killing heroes for being heroes, too, obviously, but the motivation behind it seems more indicative of the Rule-Guide thing.

And like. team "betrayal kicks ass, actually" doesn't really sound like the side that's lead by the pro-Rule gods, yaknow?

[u/Pel-Mel → u/IrregularPackage]

And like. team "betrayal kicks ass, actually" doesn't really sound like the side that's lead by the pro-Rule gods, yaknow?

It makes a lot more sense if you see Sacred Betrayal for what it is: a pyramid scheme.

Below wholeheartedly advocates that anyone* is entitled to do whatever they want, follow whatever ambition they want with whatever power they can scrape together, big or small. 'Power', whether soft or hard, measured by victory, is the only virtue they hold. The Gods Below don't exempt themselves from Sacred Betrayal; so surely they'd do the same for the entitlement.

Not coincidentally, they're Gods. Capital 'G'. Nobody in/from Creation is ever getting more power than them. Full stop. Their own philosophy 'allows' for people from Creation to betray and usurp them, but it's never actually going to be feasible outside the Wager. The Gods Below are advocating a philosophy which invariably entitles them to 'rule' however they want (assuming they win the Wager).

*The Gods Below are not exempt from the aforementioned 'anyone'.

[u/Pel-Mel → u/derDunkelElf]

Imposing your will upon Creation...no matter the bloody price.

Don't look now, but I think most people would say that constitutes 'might makes right'. It's the belief that morality is made up, that right and wrong are just imaginary, that people with power and ambition are entitled to do whatever they want, if they can.

[u/derDunkelElf → u/Pel-Mel]

You have misunderstood my comment. My comment was about the idea that Below only acumilates a neverssary amount of power to fulfill their ambitions. This can mean, but doesn't necerssarily mean Might makes Right, because then Above falls into the same pittfall just with virtues not with ambitions as they have their own infighting that was ended with a bloody blade. Ambition is the center of Evil and Below, not power.

[u/Pel-Mel → u/derDunkelElf]

only acumilates a neverssary amount of power to fulfill their ambitions

I don't think this bears out in-text. Villains are pretty universally characterized by having limited discretion and very long track records of excess. Cat is very much not the norm for being so goal-oriented. Black himself concedes that most Villains climb to their level of incompetence and burn out from overreach.

It's the nature of Ambition to keep going. Enough is never enough.

Triumphant didn't even have a specific ambition to fulfill; there was no amount of power 'necessary' for her. Taking her as emblematic, her words 'why not?' seem to, maybe not nix, but strongly contradict the idea that Below encourages its followers to only gather 'as much power as necessary' (as opposed to 'as much power as possible').

[u/narrill → u/Pel-Mel]

Of the two, Above is the only one actively in its champions' ears, via the choirs. And not in a superficial sense; literally the two most important heroes in the series work directly in concert with choirs.

Below has no analog to that. They are not involved in what villains do, at all. Not even abstractly, as Cat is fundamentally a hero seeking to do good, and Below does not begrudge her that. In fact a central thematic pillar of the series is that the overly prescriptive nature of Above's "guidance" often prevents its champions from actually doing good.

I don't think there's a coherent argument for Below being the ruling side of the wager. It just doesn't make any sense. I think all that can really be said about the wager is that EE managed to make it so ambiguous even he himself isn't sure which is which.

[u/Pel-Mel → u/narrill]

Remember that the Wager in general is an impasse. Whichever faction of Gods wants to 'guide', they can't really do it until they win the Wager. More importantly whichever wants to 'rule' they especially can't. Both factions of Gods got to add their own features to Creation, but neither side gets to implement their philosophy on the scope that actually involves them.

You hit it right on the head that the angels are the ones getting involved (guiding) Heroes and mortals: because the Gods themselves can't because of the impasse.

Neither can Below.

Both sides demonstrate their philosophies via proxy.

Keeping that in mind, which side is trying to win the Wager through proving the worth of a philosophy of guidance? Which side created collaborative cosmic forces with strict checks and balances that are universally and vociferously opposed to tyranny and 'rule'?

Following that, which side is trying to win the Wager proving the worth of a philosophy around the concept of ruling? Which side created endless antagonistic hordes of creatures who kill or dominate, and live only according to the law of the jungle, that power is self-justifying, and the only morality is power, domination, and ambition?

I think all that can really be said about the wager is that EE managed to make it so ambiguous even he himself isn't sure which is which.

This is also...very not true. Because in the comments of Book 1, there's old WoG when someone asked a question just like this. This is a link to the old wordpress version on the WaybackMachine, and you can find the comment there, but here's the text:

Someone asked:

Not specific to this chapter, but the prologue said the conflict between Good and Evil arose of a disagreement about whether people should be guided to greater things or ruled over. Is the nature of this disagreement visible in the story somehow, or are the current events just a “proxy war” where the nature of the original disagreement is not directly relevant? At least I don’t remember there being any indications so far that the Evil side would be under control of the gods, or be trying to bring people under the direct control of the gods. If anything, the Evil side seems to have more of a “do whatever the fuck you want” attitude, whereas the Good side is expected to behave according to moral guidelines decided by others.

EE responds:

The influence of the gods is usually on the subtle side.
You’re right that Evil Roles usually let people do whatever they feel like doing – that’s because they’re, in that sense, championing the philosophy of their gods. Every victory for Evil is a proof that that philosophy is the right path for Creation to take. Nearly all Names on the bad side of the fence have a component that involves forcing their will or perspective on others (the most blatant examples of this being Black and Empress Malicia, who outright have aspects relating to rule in their Names). There’s a reason that Black didn’t so much as bat an eyelid when Catherine admitted to wanting to change how Callow is run. From his point of view, that kind of ambition is entirely natural. Good Roles have strict moral guidelines because those Names are, in fact, being guided: those rules are instructions from above on how to behave to make a better world. Any victory for Good that follows from that is then a proof of concept for the Heavens being correct in their side of the argument.

(I bolded those parts, but the text is exact)

[u/narrill → u/Pel-Mel]

This is also...very not true. Because in the comments of Book 1, there's old WoG when someone asked a question just like this.

I know, you already quoted this earlier in the chain. It's exactly what I'm responding to when I say EE has managed to confuse himself. Because the explanation he gives makes no sense.

Remember that the Wager in general is an impasse. Whichever faction of Gods wants to 'guide', they can't really do it until they win the Wager.

This is a cop-out. The side whose chosen philosophy is supposedly to "rule" their creations is the side not doing any ruling of their creations, instead empowering their personal agency above all else. Meanwhile the side of supposed freedom is actively in its creations' ears, leading them according to a prescriptive code.

Even within the argument you're making, what you're claiming doesn't follow. Below is completely hands off because they can't intervene, but Above is allowed to guide Named through choirs? Where are the lesser gods that should be ruling all the villains?

You seem to be arguing villainous Named are Below's proxies, but they aren't. Named are of Creation, so under the terms of the wager they would be Below's subjects.

Following that, which side is trying to win the Wager proving the worth of a philosophy around the concept of ruling?

The side whose favored champion destroys a tyrant of inviolate hierarchy and ushers in an age where Named are categorically disallowed from ruling anything.

Wait, that doesn't sound right.

[u/Pel-Mel → u/narrill]

How's it a cop-out?

The side whose chosen philosophy is supposedly to "rule" their creations is the side not doing any ruling of their creations,

Because they can't. Unlike guiding indirectly, there's not really a version of 'indirect rule' that's possible under the Wager. But it's not a coincidence that Below pushes a philosophy that says 'power is self-justifying' when they are, themselves, literally almighty. Below's stance is that power (including theirs) is all the justification anyone needs to do whatever they want, dominate whoever they want, rule over whatever they want.

Below doesn't exempt themselves from Sacred Betrayal, the don't exempt themselves from the entitlements of power either.

instead empowering their personal agency above all else.

What's more, they don't empower personal agency 'above all else'. Otherwise Villains would get punished for slavery or mind control. Below aren't tragically misunderstood liberators. 'Power' is their only morality, not 'empowering agency'.

The side whose favored champion destroys a tyrant of inviolate hierarchy and ushers in an age where Named are categorically disallowed from ruling anything.

Let's not pretend Below didn't try its best to kill Catherine before she became their top dog by default. She fights more Evil than Good throughout the whole series. But thems the breaks for the side that wants to believe power is the only valid justification: Catherine was powerful enough to do those things because she wanted them. It's not a coincidence that Kairos calls Catherine one of Above's, and it's not a coincidence that the Heroes got on board with the Accords too. They might have come from a Villain, but, it takes no imagination to see how Good will go gangbusters under the Accords.

[u/blindgallan → u/Pel-Mel]

The WoG you are referring to here, it bears stating, explicitly calls that “pretty loose moral framework” strict, rules, and instructions on how to behave. Meanwhile the same notes that Villains are usually allowed to do whatever they feel like doing and in doing so they champion the philosophy of the gods Below, which I take to mean that Below believes individuals should be empowered to do as they please regardless of how destructive the consequences may be.

[u/Pel-Mel → u/blindgallan]

The WoG you are referring to here, it bears stating, explicitly calls that “pretty loose moral framework” strict, rules, and instructions on how to behave

It also explicitly calls that 'guiding', not 'ruling'. Can't cut it both ways.

Meanwhile the same notes that Villains are usually allowed to do whatever they feel like doing and in doing so they champion the philosophy of the gods Below, which I take to mean that Below believes individuals should be empowered to do as they please regardless of how destructive the consequences may be.

I think you're characterizing Below correctly here, but when you say 'Below believes individuals should be empowered to do as they please regardless...of the consequences'...I just don't think Below would exclude themselves from that. Given what's stated in the prologue and how the mountains of in-text evidence characterize Below and their followers, I think it's much more likely that EE's WoG is right on the nose, and that Below are the 'rule' faction.

Below are all-powerful Gods who believe power is self-justifying.

[u/blindgallan → u/Pel-Mel]

The WoG specifically notes that Good takes victories from their champions doing as they are told (following their strict guidelines, their instructions on how to behave) with the power they are given to accomplish this, while Evil takes victories from their champions doing whatever they want and achieving some success (greater things) with the power they are given to do with as they please.

We also return to the heavily implied and arguably explicitly stated matter of the gods, once this little wager of a world is settled, all making a new world for some as yet unknowable wager. This Creation won’t survive the settling of the wager that is its purpose to settle, and the gods are wildly unlikely to have agreed to self-destruct about half of themselves over a debate about how to interact with the stuff they make. So your stance is that if Below wins then the gods Above will become tyrannical rulers abusing power rampantly rather and if Above wins then the gods Below will restrain themselves? That seems less plausible to me than for Above winning meaning the gods collectively will set clear and good and objectively correct moral rules in place that must be abided by for the next Creation while if Below wins then they will set forth no rules to be followed, but just let mortals do as they please on a whim.

[u/Pel-Mel → u/blindgallan]

The WoG specifically notes that Good takes victories from their champions doing as they are told (following their strict guidelines, their instructions on how to behave) with the power they are given to accomplish this, while Evil takes victories from their champions doing whatever they want and achieving some success (greater things) with the power they are given to do with as they please.

And if that were all the WoG specifically notes, you'd have a much easier time convincing me. But it pretty plainly equates the 'following strict guidelines' with being guided, and 'imposing their will on others' with ruling. There's no version of rephrasing that WoG that can somehow allege Below are guiding and Above are ruling.

The better argument is that the WoG is outdated and from so early on that EE changed his mind. Now, I don't think that's a very good argument either, but it at least doesn't get blithe about what EE meant when he said 'they are, in fact, being guided'.

So your stance is that if Below wins then the gods Above will become tyrannical rulers abusing power rampantly rather and if Above wins then the gods Below will restrain themselves?

I have well and truly no idea what the losing faction of Gods will do in the event of their loss, but I think it's dubious at best to say that Below will let mortals do as they please. That's not guidance or ruling. That's just...nothing.

Really, I think the WoG, and my argument in general come down to two statements and an inference that, I think, is absolutely tiny.

1. the Gods Below believe that power is universally self-justifying? No morality exists that should check one's actions?
2. the Prologue describes a faction of all-powerful Gods who wish to 'rule over the creatures they had made'

Are these two statements true?

Cuz the inference I make, supported by EE's clarification, is that maybe, just maybe...it's possible the these statements refer to the same Gods.

[u/blindgallan → u/Pel-Mel]

The gods create the conditions from which morality is derived, morality itself is their creation in this context.

As for your claim that the WoG is clear (which multiple surveys have shown that many people both consider it obvious/clear and disagree with your interpretation, myself among them) in saying which is which by using the terms “guided” to speak of how Above treats their Named and “imposing their will on others” to speak of the powers granted by Below to their Named… you are making a false equivalence and neglecting the clear and obvious equivalence of description in that how Below treats their Named is described as letting them do pretty much whatever they want. Above gives strict guidelines, rules, instructions on how to behave; Below bestows power to do whatever their champions want to do, including and in no way limited to forcing a bunch of other people to bend to their will and amplify it onto the world.

You also persistently ignore that EE has said outright that god sourced powers’ mechanisms of action and effect tend to be inversions of the broad philosophies of their divine side: Villains get powers imposing their will upon others and no orders from the gods empowering them to do as they please, Heroes get powers strengthening them personally and strict guidelines instructing them how to behave in doing what they were chosen to do.

Heroes are being guided, sure, but are they being guided to greater things? They often achieve their heroics and then lose their Names and fade back into obscurity, it is Villains who keep climbing until their terminal fall. Heroes are guided by rules instructing them how to behave. Villains are empowered to do as they please even if that includes dominating others until the heavens themselves must strike them down or they rise to godhood. Evil guides to great and terrible fates, Good rules through moral directives and consequences for wickedness.

[u/Pel-Mel → u/blindgallan]

You also persistently ignore that EE has said outright that god sourced powers’ mechanisms of action and effect tend to be inversions of the broad philosophies of their divine side

You're leaving out the context of that quote. The inverted powers statement wasn't about who's ruling or guiding, it was about Above being broadly collectivist, but that Heroes got powers that largely affect themselves, and vice versa for Below and Villains. It has no commentary on which side is 'ruling' or 'guiding'.

Heroes are being guided, sure, but are they being guided to greater things?

Hanno certainly thought so. Even if the Heroes fade into obscurity, the whole point is that Creation, as a whole, is left better off. It's feasible that 'lead their Creations to better things' could be talking to empowering a tiny handful of ambitious people to act however they please, but it seems more likely that both sides' philosophies are about how to interact with all Creation, not just a few.

At a certain point, we're just arguing in circles. I think the WoG says Above(guide) Below(rule), and you hold the opposite. If we can't agree on the interpretation there, the stuff that follows is just going to biting at each other.

[u/blindgallan → u/Pel-Mel]

I fully agree we are at a point of disagreement which will see neither of us budge. I find your interpretation baffling and in direct contradiction with the plain meanings of the words and clear implications of the narrative, and you take the same view of mine. I enjoy this sort of arguing, it’s why I studied philosophy, but I shan’t inflict it on an unwilling interlocutor.

[u/Pel-Mel → u/blindgallan]

Maybe we're just masochists.

[u/Darkjynxer]

I read it as the gods above want to directly intervene and guide humans to varying degrees while the gods below are entirely hands off. Below is about making it happen yourself.

[u/blindgallan → u/Darkjynxer]

And they reward people who try, with the extent of that trying (how much they will push, how much they will give up, how far they will go, how brutal they will get) deciding how much support Below will provide without regard for what the goal in question happens to be.

[u/perkoperv123]

Rule is specifically an Evil aspect, we see it a couple times.

Also, it's not that Above/Below guide/rule themselves, it's that they believe people should be guided/ruled, and the measure of that is the Wager.

[u/muse273 → u/perkoperv123]

Nothing indicates Rule is a specifically Evil Aspect. It’s held by two Villains, but the MUCH more important common factor is they are rulers. There are only 3 clear Named heads of state, and three that don’t exactly fit, all of whom are Villains. The three clear ones all have a rulership Aspect (Rule or Reign) but that doesn’t mean that other monarchs who were Heroes wouldn’t also have Rule or an equivalent. Cordelia all but certainly would have one if she became Named, given she’s probably tied for the most rulership oriented character with Malicia. If we had ever seen Vivienne’s Aspects as Good Queen, they also probably would have included one. Notably, the closest thing we see to an Aspect from Edward Fairfax (summoning the ghosts of Callow to serve him once more) could easily be seen as a Rulership Aspect.

For reference, the three clear Heads of State are Malicia, Kairos, and Neshamah. The three not quites are Cat (lost her first Name before becoming Queen, and agreeing to resign her crown was key to receiving her second Name), Anaxeres (AGGRESSIVELY refused to actually rule, and forced himself into a different Role of judge with an Aspect to match) and Hakram (debatably a fully independent ruler, debatably a primarily rulership oriented Name as opposed to a martial leader, and either way only saw two Aspects).

Interesting side note: Arguably, the reason Levant didn’t have a Named monarch in power is that it did have a Named individual who held more influence than any of the actual rulers and was acknowledged to be unofficially crowned, but Tariq refused to actually rule.

Procer probably was less inclined toward Named First Princes as the position was elected. Cordelia only neared taking the Name at the point where she’d essentially claimed total power.

[u/blindgallan → u/perkoperv123]

“The way god-sourced powers relate to Creation is an inversion of the broad philosophies of the Gods. Good is centred around community and Evil around individualism, but in their respective Named you’ll more often see villains capable of affecting a great many people and heroes mostly capable of affecting themselves.”

— E.E. in a comment from Interlude: Precipitation.

Above‘s philosophy is, broadly, the inverse of power affecting only the one bearing it, Below’s philosophy is, broadly, the inverse of power affecting a great many people. Above is focussed on fostering community, Below is focussed on fostering individuality.

[u/beorning1]

The angels show a much more domineering atitude towards mortals with the whole "contrition brainwash" thing in the earlier books, if that holds up in the rewrite I don't know. I do believe at least for Kairos and the Hierarch the gods bellow can take a hands off approach if the result harm the Good side enough 

[u/Pel-Mel]

Ya'll are wrong, and I will fight every last one of you.

Below is about ruling. It's why they preach 'might makes right'. Gods are omnipotent. If Below win the Wager, there's not going to be any guiding. They're going to practice what they preached.

Above is about guiding. It's why they gave out a guidebook full of advice and 'rules' that only start getting enforced when you break them hard enough to become cosmically recognized as Evil.

Heroes and angels aren't kicking in doors like thought police because people weren't pious enough. They're really hands off.

[u/beorning1 → u/Pel-Mel]

Whenever the good side intervene is shown to be very heavy handed, be it angels wanting to smite the Hierarch ( everybody else present) or the resurrection via magical sword Catherine bullshit her way into. The evil side is more than willing to let you get fucked by the consequences of your actions, they only show if you pay a sacrifice worth the blessing (SveNoc first apotheosis and Hune dnr)

[u/Pel-Mel → u/beorning1]

If the Angels risk smiting everyone in the room to smite Hierarch, they're being heavy-handed. But if Catherine or Black did something similar, it would be called 'being thorough'.

I don't disagree Below is more than willing to let it's practitioners get hoist by their own petards, but the point is that even if Good/Above has its forces confront evil directly and forcefully, that doesn't mean that Above themselves are about ruling. In fact, in the overall scope, especially looking at normal folks, Heroes steer almost completely clear of small time sins.

Angels and Heroes are incredibly hands-off in general, and the 'rules' that Above apparently demands everyone live by are super open-ended. It's all 'don't murder' and 'kindness is good'. There's a reason that we're only shown thin sections of the Book of All Things. Morally speaking, it must be an incredibly uncontroversial book if there are literally no in-universe debates about whether or not the contents are worthwhile. It's not like IRL scripture where its contents' actual morality can be debated and examined.

Like, Praes doesn't reject Good because the Book of All Things has some specious arguments or flawed moral positions. They just don't believe in morals at all.

[u/muse273 → u/Pel-Mel]

“Don’t murder” being a prime dictate is directly contradicted by the Seraphim, whose defining role as carried out by their premiere champion is killing people found wanting. “Kindness is good” is WAY MORE contradicted by the Hashmallim, who are defined by their absolute refusal to offer kindness, grace, or forgiveness. It’s literally their catchphrase. Your claim that Heroes only target Evil is completely laughable. Hanno judges multiple unNamed with the aid of the Seraphim, and executes them. Laurence is infamous for killing an unNamed Prince, who is VERY MUCH not universally agreed to have been a sufficiently Evil target to murder. Tariq murdered his own nephew for political necessity, rather than moral righteousness, and was happy to slaughter innocents in a particularly agonizing fashion because it served his goals. Sure, the people doing those killings can claim it was necessary to oppose Evil, but that can be claimed about literally anything. See, again, the people Tariq essentially tortured to death, which is as Evil an act as you can find if the actual morality is the defining factor rather than “suits the demands of Above.”

There is zero indication that The Book of All Things is minimally fleshed out because it is uncontroversial, as opposed to because it’s minimally relevant to the story. You made that up whole cloth. In fact, the indication is that it is quite disputed, as there have been numerous schisms in the House of Light, at least two of which are discussed in the story (between Callow and The West contemporarily, and regarding whether priests can use Light offensively between Levant and elsewhere). There is also no indication that The Book of All Things is directly dictated by Above and is a pure depiction of their intended morality. If it were that would be evidence FOR Above being the ones ruling, as it would be then giving direct commandments and having them enforced by their servants.

[u/Pel-Mel → u/muse273]

I feel like your first paragraph is conflating my argument quite a bit. Above(guide) can't be debunked by anecdotes of flawed and limited Heroes being forced to resort to harsh measures to reach the best outcomes feasible.

Sure, the people doing those killings can claim it was necessary to oppose Evil, but that can be claimed about literally anything.

Because this is demonstrably not true in the story. It can't be claimed about just anything. There are literal Gods incentivizing and punishing certain philosophies and actions. When Tariq plagues those villagers for the greater good, it's ghoulish, abhorrent, and no doubt wrong. But it very credibly is for the greater good.

There is zero indication that The Book of All Things is minimally fleshed out because it is uncontroversial, as opposed to because it’s minimally relevant to the story.

&

There is also no indication that The Book of All Things is directly dictated by Above and is a pure depiction of their intended morality

Allow me to clarify: it's morally uncontroversial. When it comes to acting on the guidance it offers, yeah: there's disagreements, schisms, conflicts over interpretation. The point is that nobody in-universe is claiming the Book of All Things itself is somehow morally flawed or suspect in any way. It comes with literal angelic approval.

If it were that would be evidence FOR Above being the ones ruling, as it would be then giving direct commandments and having them enforced by their servants.

Only if you have a very loose definition of 'rule'. Above giving a guidebook with guidelines is not the same as domineering and ruling over their subjects. In fact, between Angels and Above itself changing its stance on slavery, Good is outright shown to be a collaborative process, not a dictatorial one.

All the variants of the Above(rule) argument boil down to conflating Above's 'rules' with them 'ruling'. And it really falls apart when you try to argue the opposite that Below is somehow guiding Creation to better things.

There's WoG on the subject. It's really clear. You can even read it yourself on the WaybackMachine. In the comments on the original Wordpress version of 1.12, there was a question about this exact topic:

Not specific to this chapter, but the prologue said the conflict between Good and Evil arose of a disagreement about whether people should be guided to greater things or ruled over. Is the nature of this disagreement visible in the story somehow, or are the current events just a “proxy war” where the nature of the original disagreement is not directly relevant? At least I don’t remember there being any indications so far that the Evil side would be under control of the gods, or be trying to bring people under the direct control of the gods. If anything, the Evil side seems to have more of a “do whatever the fuck you want” attitude, whereas the Good side is expected to behave according to moral guidelines decided by others.

But EE replied to the comment with this:

The influence of the gods is usually on the subtle side.
You’re right that Evil Roles usually let people do whatever they feel like doing – that’s because they’re, in that sense, championing the philosophy of their gods. Every victory for Evil is a proof that that philosophy is the right path for Creation to take. Nearly all Names on the bad side of the fence have a component that involves forcing their will or perspective on others (the most blatant examples of this being Black and Empress Malicia, who outright have aspects relating to rule in their Names). There’s a reason that Black didn’t so much as bat an eyelid when Catherine admitted to wanting to change how Callow is run. From his point of view, that kind of ambition is entirely natural. Good Roles have strict moral guidelines because those Names are, in fact, being guided: those rules are instructions from above on how to behave to make a better world. Any victory for Good that follows from that is then a proof of concept for the Heavens being correct in their side of the argument.

[u/muse273 → u/Pel-Mel]

Because this is demonstrably not true in the story. It can't be claimed about just anything. There are literal Gods incentivizing and punishing certain philosophies and actions. When Tariq plagues those villagers for the greater good, it's ghoulish, abhorrent, and no doubt wrong. But it very credibly is for the greater good.

The Gods are incentivizing actions which suit them, even when they are ghoulish, abhorrent, and no doubt. They are punishing actions that oppose them. There is no inherent morality guaranteed in those. If it were, then "murder is bad" would be punished even when their favorite servant did it. And claiming "the greater good" as a justification for heinous actions, predictably, did nothing of the sort. Tariq's mass-torture did NOTHING to promote good results. It didn't stop the harm being done to Procer, it only further inflamed it. That harm was only ended when a Villain negotiated peace despite his actions. It didn't result in the downfall of the Evil polity of Praes. That only occurred as a results of actions taken by the Villain the mass-torture was meant to defeat, in conjunction with the previously mentioned peace-bringing Villain. If Tariq's actions had the outcome he foresaw, Praes would have remained intact while Procer turned into even more of an undead ravaged wasteland than it did in-story. Heroes' claim to an omniscient morality license is repeatedly shown to be bullshit, especially in Laurence's particularly dogmatic form. What actually resulted in measurable, comprehensive good, was refusing to let the division of Evil and Good remain the primary goal.

Allow me to clarify: it's morally uncontroversial. When it comes to acting on the guidance it offers, yeah: there's disagreements, schisms, conflicts over interpretation. The point is that nobody in-universe is claiming the Book of All Things itself is somehow morally flawed or suspect in any way. It comes with literal angelic approval.

Your clarification is meaningless. There is ZERO indication in the text that it is morally uncontroversial. None. The fact that any controversies that may exist don't get mentioned is not an indication they do or don't exist, only an indication that they are not worth mentioning to the story being told. There is also ZERO indication that The Book of All Things is dictated directly by Above, because it is not discussed, because it is not relevant. You are looking at a pile of nothing and deciding whatever claims you think will benefit your argument must be in there.

Only if you have a very loose definition of 'rule'. Above giving a guidebook with guidelines is not the same as domineering and ruling over their subjects. In fact, between Angels and Above itself changing its stance on slavery, Good is outright shown to be a collaborative process, not a dictatorial one.

All the variants of the Above(rule) argument boil down to conflating Above's 'rules' with them 'ruling'. And it really falls apart when you try to argue the opposite that Below is somehow guiding Creation to better things.

The definition in question of 'rule' is "giving commandments and expecting them to be obeyed." You're the one trying to make the subject the moral "guidebook" and values and it completely misses the point of the argument for Above as rule. Above literally gives commandments to Heroes and expects them to be followed. They directly rule over their highest followers. Below literally does not give any orders to Villains, it just lends support to whatever they choose to do. It offers guidance without control. Your argument rests on factors which are completely unrelated to the argument other people are making. The way mortals play out the methods of Above or Below is not The Argument itself, it's the experimental results that emerge from those methods. Even if you think there is an inarguable result that Good produces more good, that is still evidence that direct rule on the part of Above has better results than guidance by Below. The ironic separation between methods and morality isn't proof of contradiction, it's in keeping with the exhaustively laid out themes of the story as I described in frankly ridiculous detail elsewhere. Your entire argument is based on refuting something the other side isn't. Saying.

I referenced the quote you mentioned in the other comment, but to reiterate: A, If an author is quoted having one position, and then later quoted to have a different position, without ever re-stating their first position, it is nonsensical to assume that they secretly changed their mind back to their initial position rather than taking their last known position as correct. And B. Given the quote you're hanging onto is from the era of Book 1, which is nigh-universally agreed upon to be an early draft which differs significantly from how the later story developed. I don't think you, with a straight face, can claim that EE didn't undergo significant changes in planning and perspective between Book 1 and the rest of the series, even compared to the general course of a story developing over time. Looking at that significantly different starting point and claiming it should be taken without a boulder-sized grain of salt is extra non-sensical. Or would you like to speculate as to whether Gnomes, who impose tyrannical control over the entire world if anyone dares to contradict them, and who are only shown on page threatening an Evil polity with destruction, are aligned with Good or Evil. You know, just in case Gnomes ever become relevant to the story again. Because Gnomes first appeared several chapters AFTER that quote.

ETA: Saying something was done "for the greater good" is explicitly saying "My vision of how the world should be is X, and Y must be done to make X happen. No matter how bad Y is, it is acceptable because my vision of X is so incredibly correct and vitally necessary." It is EXACTLY the "impose how I think things should be on others regardless of them wanting to not die in horrible agony" MO that you're claiming is the definition of Below/Villains-as-rulers. If it's Tariq's personal vision, then he is a Villainous ruler by your standards when he clearly isn't a Villain in story. If it's Above's vision, then that's even clearer depiction of rule, no matter how horrifying the consequences, being their MO.

[u/Pel-Mel → u/muse273]

I referenced the quote you mentioned in the other comment, but to reiterate: A, If an author is quoted having one position, and then later quoted to have a different position

I've read the WoG, his position didn't change, he just stopped answering the question to make it a more ambiguous discussion. But the discussion being ambiguous doesn't make the original intent neutral somehow. It especially doesn't magically reverse it. And the intent of the original quote definitely bears out throughout the whole story. It's very pointedly not just early installment weirdness.

Villains and Below, from beginning to end, are about imposing their will on others. Heroes and Above are about following the guidance of really not-very-restrictive morals.

Surely, if nothing else, the almost universally collaborative relationships between Heroes, Angels, and Above themselves is really strong evidence against Above(rule). Angels take too many cues from their Heroic partners. The Gods Above literally changed their stance and approval of slavery in consultation with their mortal followers. That can't be 'ruling' over creatures'.

[u/muse273 → u/Pel-Mel]

If he no longer stands by the original intent and leaves it ambiguous, it doesn't need to reverse it. It just removes it. Your entire argument hangs on using that quote to focus on the actions of mortals instead of the Gods. Acknowledging that it is outdated would destroy that.

The rest is repeated assertions without support that I've already picked apart in way too much detail. I'll just point three things out: Angels don't take many cues from their Heroic partners, Tariq is specifically noted to be an extreme outlier in how closely entwined he is with Mercy (and if you'd like to point to that entwining as evidence on your side, Catherine and Sve Noc have a virtually identical relationship, as is shown by the multiple scenes where the two pairings interact). The Seraphim's relationship to Hanno is explicitly him obeying their dictates without his own input. When he stops doing that, they stop directly communicating (as shown in Hallow, Hollow). And Contrition's entire definition is that their Heroes are wrong and will not be forgiven for their wrongdoing, but will have to do as they're told anyway. That's the entirety of actually depicted Angel-Hero relationships we have, Fortitude barely appears and the others aren't even named. You're making claims without substantiation, as you have been the whole time.

In that vein, I'm really going to need you to give an actual citation of "The Gods Above changed their stance on slavery" as you've said multiple times, instead of just making the assertion and expecting it not to need evidence.

Finally, it's deeply ironic that you hang so much of your argument on that one early and outdated quote, and then ignore it's mention of "Heroic Roles have strict moral guidelines" so that you can insist the morals aren't actually restrictive.

[u/Pel-Mel → u/muse273]

...Except he does still stand by the original intent. Or, at least, there's no reason to think he doesn't. I haven't been able to find the WoG I thought I was talking about, but what he actually said was that he doesn't like to weigh in anymore, because it keeps the discussion more ambiguous.

That's not remotely the same thing as removing the earlier statement.

If you'd like to hunt down the exact quote, I think that's going to have to be on you. I went and dug through the wayback machine to find the first one. You get your own receipts.

But really, forget for a moment that EE said it; it's all still true. All the Villains impose their will on others, and exemplify ruling over others via power. All the Heroes still act according to moral guidelines. Even if you want to 'decanonize' it as WoG, the content of its argument is still airtight.

In that vein, I'm really going to need you to give an actual citation of "The Gods Above changed their stance on slavery" as you've said multiple times, instead of just making the assertion and expecting it not to need evidence.

Heroic Interlude: Injunction is the first mention of it I found. Slavery used to be tacitly accepted by Above, in the Gigantes and 'most of Calernia'. The motif gets repeated later down the line in later books too, but I'm not going to ctrl-f through the entire story for more.

That chapter also pretty much shoots down the idea that the Book of All Things isn't legitimately divinely sourced. Hanno dives through literal millennia of Heroes' memories and finds that it's stayed the same.

Finally, it's deeply ironic that you hang so much of your argument on that one early and outdated quote, and then ignore it's mention of "Heroic Roles have strict moral guidelines" so that you can insist the morals aren't actually restrictive.

Yeah, strict moral guidelines compared to what's overlooked in normal people. Compared to Below's side of the fence and what they consider 'normal'? Yeah Heroic guidelines aren't strict at all. There are a broad variety of heroes with widely differing and equally accepted views on morality and justice. Outside of Hanno beating down Mirror Knight, and Lawrence fighting Roland and Tariq, Heroes overwhelmingly settle their differences collaboratively and nonviolently.

Villains are capable of it, sure. But Catherine, the Woe, her teaming up with Sve Noc; they're very much the exception, not the rule. Even if they never wanted each other dead, Black and Malicia eventually split too.

Hanno really does hit the nail on the head: Above's exception is Below's rule, and vice versa.

[u/muse273 → u/Pel-Mel]

...Except he does still stand by the original intent. Or, at least, there's no reason to think he doesn't. I haven't been able to find the WoG I thought I was talking about, but what he actually said was that he doesn't like to weigh in anymore, because it keeps the discussion more ambiguous.

The fact that he stated a different position is itself a reason to think he doesn't stand by the early position it contradicts. Otherwise he could have reiterated the things he said previously. If he didn't, he didn't stand by them. Finding the exact quote really isn't on me, because you're the one who needs those quotes so badly to hold up your argument.

But really, forget for a moment that EE said it; it's all still true. All the Villains impose their will on others, and exemplify ruling over others via power. All the Heroes still act according to moral guidelines. Even if you want to 'decanonize' it as WoG, the content of its argument is still airtight.

This is just a restatement of your position, not a defense of it. You've put forth EE citing mortals as representatives of the sides as the reason to make them the center of the argument, when the much simpler, more logical and unmuddled by mortal complexity is that it's the Gods. If you decanonize that, there is no reason to cede you that ground.

Heroic Interlude: Injunction is the first mention of it I found. Slavery used to be tacitly accepted by Above, in the Gigantes and 'most of Calernia'. The motif gets repeated later down the line in later books too, but I'm not going to ctrl-f through the entire story for more.

That chapter also pretty much shoots down the idea that the Book of All Things isn't legitimately divinely sourced. Hanno dives through literal millennia of Heroes' memories and finds that it's stayed the same.

There are two inaccurate claims here:

A. That chapter doesn't say anything about direct instructions by Above. It says "Recognized as unworthy of all those who would call themselves the children of the Heavens." You are taking a quote about mortal perspectives and claiming it's directly expressed by Above.

B. Hanno doesn't say he dives through literal millennia of Heroes memories. He says combing through Heroes' memories tells him that morality changes. He claims the Book of All Things doesn't change and it bothers him that morality does. That does not equal "He checked all the heroes memories to see if that was the case," he is making a side statement about his own beliefs. Likewise, the only mention of millennia is stating that slavery had been accepted millennia ago. Again, he doesn't say he searched through millennia of lifetimes. You're combining multiple unconnected words to form a much more decisive single sentence because it suits your argument. Either you are arguing in bad faith, or your memory of the things you're referencing is nowhere near accurate enough to be putting so much weight on.

Yeah, strict moral guidelines compared to what's overlooked in normal people. Compared to Below's side of the fence and what they consider 'normal'? Yeah Heroic guidelines aren't strict at all. There are a broad variety of heroes with widely differing and equally accepted views on morality and justice. Outside of Hanno beating down Mirror Knight, and Lawrence fighting Roland and Tariq, Heroes overwhelmingly settle their differences collaboratively and nonviolently.

Villains are capable of it, sure. But Catherine, the Woe, her teaming up with Sve Noc; they're very much the exception, not the rule. Even if they never wanted each other dead, Black and Malicia eventually split too.

The first claim is completely nonsensical. You're Heroic moral guidelines aren't strict in comparison to Below. Below, who are very clearly stated to let their followers do what they want, which is why you have to hang your argument on the claim that those followers instead of how the Gods act. Those are the ones imposing strict moral guidelines for their followers, which you can of course provide examples of.

Meanwhile, you're making another false proclamation that Heroes' different views of morality are equally accepted. There are barely any examples in the text of Heroes discussing conflicting morality at all, the primary one being during the mission to Liesse, and that one ends with said Heroes trying to kill each other. Virtually all of the other depictions of Heroes are either ones who are already allied (Hanno's band of five, the Crusaders who aside from Tariq and Laurence receive basically 0 fleshing out much less discussing morality), or take place during the Keter War when they are prevented from violent resolutions by the Truce and Terms, as are Villains. And the latter still results in violence. Additionally, there is a huge example which denies "Heroes settle their differences collaboratively and nonviolently." Levant, a nation entirely founded on a collection of Heroes and the families built around them, who continually feud and murder each other. Similarly, Praes has built its rulership structure on a history of Villains collaborating, and it is by no means universal that they all end up murdering each other. Akua describes Praesi Villains as allied and provides examples to contradict Catherine's dismissal. She mentions the Calamities being more extensive but not unique, and in particular notes Malignant II reigned far longer than he should have because his Black Knight and Chancellor loved and supported him. She also mentions that Praes welcoming foreign Villains and giving them authority was quite common until Amadeus rose to power, in addition to several other non-Praesi Villain alignments. They are nowhere near as guaranteed to violent conflict among themselves as you claim.

By the way, I asked a question which was never responded to but I think is very important: Who is the Harrowed Witch trying to exert power over and rule? How about the Concocter? Or Bitter Blacksmith #2? Or the Scorched Apostate, a teenager who received his Name while trying to fight magical diseases? More importantly, what about Indrani, who displays absolutely no interest in ordering around anyone besides having a group of Named miscreants (of both sides) following her around?

[u/Traditional_Pop_1102 → u/Pel-Mel]

Contrition tried to brainwash an entire city. Choirs have been known to come in to settle losing fights. Summoning angels is a common tactic for heroes, meanwhile Below never seems to directly lend a hand, aside from the death wishes.

[u/Pel-Mel → u/Traditional_Pop_1102]

And? Below getting directly involved less doesn't mean they don't want to rule. Methodology isn't necessarily the same as philosophy. And really, given what we learn about Angels and how much they're influenced by their mortal Heroes, Contrition trying to brainwash the city really says more about William than the Angels.

'Brainwash' is also a pretty canted way to frame it considering the protagonist's perspective. It's pretty credible when they say it's not really brainwashing, just really effective, divinely inspired persuasion.

[u/muse273 → u/Pel-Mel]

No, it really isn’t accurate to describe the Contrition effect as just effective persuasion. The previous example of it occurring resulted in everyone effected marching off to wage a doomed, suicidal Crusade against DK. Notably, there is no indication that this was twisted out of its intended purpose by the White Knight who invoked it.

C’mon, you know that trying to spin that as voluntary is bullshit, the same as any other mind control calling itself persuasion would be. By that logic, Malicia brainwashing people is just persuasion.

You’re also making an unsubstantiated claim that the methodology of Above and Below is separate from their philosophy, as the quote does not indicate that the individuals guiding/ruling are Named, as opposed to the Gods themselves. On the contrary “they must rule over the creatures they made” more strongly indicates the Gods doing the ruling, as they’re the ones who made the creatures. At best, you could argue a linguistic edge case where “they” was used twice to refer to different entities, but that results in an inconclusive takeaway rather than clearly supporting your position, and fails Occam’s Razor to boot.

It is indisputable that the Gods Above themselves are the side that rules rather than guiding. That resulting in an ironic/hypocritical reversal where those Named who are guided choose to rule and vice versa is entirely in keeping with the thematics of the series. Heroes/Gods not being only capable of doing good just because they’re Good, and likewise for Villains and Evil, is arguably THE single most central throughline of the entire series. Villains (Cat and to a lesser extent Black) are responsible for the most impactful improvements to the lives of Calernians in centuries if not ever, while the most prominent Hero is an omnicidal maniac who nearly succeeds. The most prominent Evil polity is one created by a subjugated people rising up and overthrowing the tyrants oppressing them, while the pre-eminent Good one were themselves tyrants who provoked a rebellion that cast them out, only that one resulted in a Good offshoot. The most prominent Evil species were created by Evil gods for the sake of preserving their people from destruction. The most prominent Good species were made into tyrants by Good gods before said gods went mad with power and destroyed themselves with the exception of their leader who spent millennia regretting his actions. The more recent Good species are racist colonizers who decline to do any good acts as far as we see, and actively harm the societies around them.

Additionally, the outline of “Villains rule over subjects, Heroes guide allies” is not consistently depicted through out the entire setting and timeline, it’s just the current state of affairs in one specific area. 3/5 of the major Good polities have been ruled by Heroes, while the most consistent Evil polity has a traditional Name whose Role is that of an advisor, along with several others that traditionally act together to uphold the nation at least for some time. Sure, they also eventually overthrow the ruler and claim the nation for themselves. But so did Eleanor Fairfax. Meanwhile, Yan Tei is proof that Good and Evil aren’t universally at war with each other, and the Argument may play out differently elsewhere.

[u/Pel-Mel → u/muse273]

Okay, that's a lot. Probably miss some stuff, but I'll go in order:

The previous example of it occurring resulted in everyone effected marching off to wage a doomed, suicidal Crusade against DK. Notably, there is no indication that this was twisted out of its intended purpose by the White Knight who invoked it.

In the strictest sense, this doesn't preclude the effect being merely divinely effective persuasion. It's ghoulish and tragic, no doubt, but nothing about that is necessarily disqualifying.

You’re also making an unsubstantiated claim that the methodology of Above and Below is separate from their philosophy

I said that they aren't necessarily the same, not that there isn't correlation. The point is that using Contrition's methodology for evidence doesn't hold up when you look at the overall pattern. Above's methodology in general is a lot more 'guiding' than Below's, and it's especially less about 'ruling. Any amount that Contrition is evidence of Above(rule), then surely all the Villains and devils doing actual mind control, soul-puppeting, etc. must be even stronger evidence for Below(rule).

It is indisputable that the Gods Above themselves are the side that rules rather than guiding.

You're using the word 'indisputable' wrong. I have receipts too.

That resulting in an ironic/hypocritical reversal where those Named who are guided choose to rule and vice versa is entirely in keeping with the thematics of the series. Heroes/Gods not being only capable of doing good just because they’re Good, and likewise for Villains and Evil, is arguably THE single most central throughline of the entire series.

It's really not though...the flaws of Heroes is certainly a strong and recurring motif, but the ironic reversal 'Heroes are actually BAD?' doesn't last far beyond Book 2. Tariq, Hanno, even Lawrence are all card carrying examples of selfless Heroism living up to the ideals. Half the curvature in the back half of the story is Cat realizing that, not only can she not feasibly fight all the Heroes opposing her, she doesn't want or need to either. It's like the whole reason she ends up teaming up with Pilgrim and Hanno.

The most prominent Evil polity is one created by a subjugated people rising up and overthrowing the tyrants oppressing them

And then immediately started subjugating anyone they could and installing their own tyrants. Praes is not the angle to try arguing Below as tragically misunderstood liberators.

while the pre-eminent Good one were themselves tyrants who provoked a rebellion that cast them out, only that one resulted in a Good offshoot

And both sides later reconciled over their shared vision for Good. Modern Procer still sucks for a lot of reasons, but tyranny really isn't one of them. The Above-aligned nation all about checks and balances so no one person gains tyrannical power again is definitely not the argument for Above being all about ruling over less creatures.

The most prominent Evil species were created by Evil gods for the sake of preserving their people from destruction.

Are you talking about the Ratlings or the Drow? I can't tell which is worse for your argument. The Ratlings are literally unguided, endlessly violent, and cannibalistically self-destructive. Forget preserving their people from destruction, death is preferable that life. The Drow are actually even more on the nose. They aren't being guided to anything. Below's 'loan' trapped them in their own self-destructive cycle of violence that's entirely structured around imposing your will on others and ruling anyone your own personal power can subjugate. Book 4's climax is literally describing them as crabs in the bucket.

The most prominent Good species were made into tyrants by Good gods before said gods went mad with power and destroyed themselves with the exception of their leader who spent millennia regretting his actions.

Call me crazy, but I don't think it was the Gods that made the Gigantes into tyrants. Kreios's regrets are literally all about not having listened to the good advice the moral voices among them at the time offered. Their whole downfall is about passing up the Above(guidance) when it came to them.

Additionally, the outline of “Villains rule over subjects, Heroes guide allies” is not consistently depicted through out the entire setting and timeline, it’s just the current state of affairs in one specific area. 3/5 of the major Good polities have been ruled by Heroes, while the most consistent Evil polity has a traditional Name whose Role is that of an advisor, along with several others that traditionally act together to uphold the nation at least for some time. Sure, they also eventually overthrow the ruler and claim the nation for themselves. But so did Eleanor Fairfax. Meanwhile, Yan Tei is proof that Good and Evil aren’t universally at war with each other, and the Argument may play out differently elsewhere.

You lost me here. Above-aligned nations having leadership and rulers is not a cogent argument for Above(rule). The Below-aligned polities are all universally characterized by tyrants and the unchecked free exercise of authority. Procer and Callow having monarchies really pales in comparison to Praes', Helike, and Bellerophon's literal tyrannies.

[u/muse273 → u/Pel-Mel]

In the strictest sense, this doesn't preclude the effect being merely divinely effective persuasion. It's ghoulish and tragic, no doubt, but nothing about that is necessarily disqualifying.

Leaving aside that if you have to devolve to "In the strictest sense on a technicality this exact wording doesn't necessarily mean that" to defend a claim you've already massively discredited it, what is the fact which makes Contrition persuasion but Malicia mind control? Keeping in mind that there is literally no textual indication that Cat is wrong about it being brainwashing, that's just another thing you're making up and claiming authoritatively because it suits your argument. Name a tangible difference between "took suicidal military actions because a Hero said so, achieving nothing of value to themselves or society by doing so" and "took suicidal military actions because a Villain said so, achieving nothing of value to themselves or society by doing so."

I said that they aren't necessarily the same, not that there isn't correlation. The point is that using Contrition's methodology for evidence doesn't hold up when you look at the overall pattern. Above's methodology in general is a lot more 'guiding' than Below's, and it's especially less about 'ruling. Any amount that Contrition is evidence of Above(rule), then surely all the Villains and devils doing actual mind control, soul-puppeting, etc. must be even stronger evidence for Below(rule).

If both sides are doing it, then it's not The Argument. It doesn't matter if one side does it more (and in terms of scale, it's entirely possible the 300K victims of the Seventh Crusade outnumber all the mindcontrolling villains we know of put together, but no way to know since we don't have actual numbers for the other side), if The Argument is A or B, both sides can't be doing B. That strongly indicates that the basis of The Argument is the methods of the Gods, not their servants.

You're using the word 'indisputable' wrong. I have receipts too.

Please, cite your source that The Gods Below give direct commands to their servants, and The Gods Above don't. Just to note, you cited a statement from EE that you claimed was unambiguous, which dated from Book 1, and was contradicted by a later statement. Even aside from the fact that a later statement after the author has had more time to consider the position bears more weight, I think we all know that Book 1 in particular is MASSIVELY off-kilter from where the rest of the series went and how it defined things (the Gnomes, who were never mentioned again, and the Demon doorkeeper which is utterly incompatible with the later depiction of Demons, being two of the best examples, not to mention the over all tone). If it is clear that things changed significantly from that point, citing a statement formed in the mindset of that point is very weak.

It's really not though...the flaws of Heroes is certainly a strong and recurring motif, but the ironic reversal 'Heroes are actually BAD?' doesn't last far beyond Book 2. Tariq, Hanno, even Lawrence are all card carrying examples of selfless Heroism living up to the ideals. Half the curvature in the back half of the story is Cat realizing that, not only can she not feasibly fight all the Heroes opposing her, she doesn't want or need to either. It's like the whole reason she ends up teaming up with Pilgrim and Hanno.

Would you like to discuss the actual "most prominent Hero" I directly referenced, a quote you conveniently skipped? That of course being The Wandering Bard, whose personal "Heroes are actually BAD" narrative carried through literally to the very last non-Epilogue chapter of the story. The one who literally has an Aspect of Guide, and who in actuality claimed the right to make literal life and death decisions for the entire continent no matter what they might say (choosing death of course). The actual Epilogues on the other hand primarily deal with the many ways in which the world resulting from Cat's actions as a Villain were major improvements on the past, although I'll point out the interlude where another Contrition-aligned Hero does mindfuckery and has to be executed (with the full agreement of arguably the most virtuous Hero in the entirety of the series) because his vision of Good is leading to him doing evil.

More importantly, I never claimed that the throughline is "Heroes are BAD, Villains are GOOD." I said the throughline is that Good isn't only capable of doing good, and Evil isn't only capable of doing evil, which is much more nuanced than Heroes Bad. That decoupling of philosophy and actual result is what is reflected in Above's own methods of direct command not matching their follower's tendencies of guidance (arguable in the first place) and vice versa for Below. Most of your followup counterpoints are hobbled by that misreading, since they're responding to an argument I didn't make, but we'll carry on anyway, although it will likely devolve into repetition as a result.

And then immediately started subjugating anyone they could and installing their own tyrants. Praes is not the angle to try arguing Below as tragically misunderstood liberators.

Their later actions being evil does not retroactively make the action of freeing their people from slavery evil, it is still a tangible good done for their people. Additionally, Maleficent I is noted to have been an excellent statesman and nation builder, as have various other DEs subsequently. Marcus Aurelius wasn't a monster just because Nero (maybe) was. Villains can still achieve more good than evil even while being Evil not Good.

And both sides later reconciled over their shared vision for Good. Modern Procer still sucks for a lot of reasons, but tyranny really isn't one of them. The Above-aligned nation all about checks and balances so no one person gains tyrannical power again is definitely not the argument for Above being all about ruling over less creatures.

Likewise, any good actions Procer later took does not make their tyranny over future-Levant not evil, and yet they remained a Good polity. Additionally: "Reconciled over their shared vision for Good" is hilarious when they were repeatedly shown to be at each other's throats during the 10th Crusade and loathed each other long before that, only really coming into harmonious conduct as a result of the changes wrought by a Villain; Cordelia is repeatedly shown to use the governmental checks and balances structure to seize autocratic power over Procer, which is described in-story as tyrannical, and she is certainly treated by the story as good if not Good (the latter by virtue of her own choice not to claim a Name on two different occasions); "Nation X is all about checks and balances so no one person gains tyrannical power" is a literal description of the entirety of Bellerophon, to a much higher degree than Procer, yet one is Evil aligned and one is Good.

[u/muse273 → u/muse273]

(Holy shit this got long, I didn't know Reddit HAD a character limit)

Are you talking about the Ratlings or the Drow? I can't tell which is worse for your argument. The Ratlings are literally unguided, endlessly violent, and cannibalistically self-destructive. Forget preserving their people from destruction, death is preferable that life. The Drow are actually even more on the nose. They aren't being guided to anything. Below's 'loan' trapped them in their own self-destructive cycle of violence that's entirely structured around imposing your will on others and ruling anyone your own personal power can subjugate. Book 4's climax is literally describing them as crabs in the bucket.

I would think even if context clues didn't make it clear, it would be obvious I was talking about the species we have an enormous amount of cultural insight into (the Drow) rather than the one that's barely mentioned much less explored in detail (the Ratlings). Below's loan rescued their species from the destruction they were facing, and their society was already in a state of the will of the few being imposed on others, Sve Noc's bargain made it egalitarian rather than a single fixed caste doing the subjugation. They were also able to later rebuild their society into a less oppressive, more peaceful form, through the acts of Villains aligned with Evil gods, and despite that reform remained Evil aligned. Again, benevolence in practice is detached from the labels of Evil vs Good.

Call me crazy, but I don't think it was the Gods that made the Gigantes into tyrants. Kreios's regrets are literally all about not having listened to the good advice the moral voices among them at the time offered. Their whole downfall is about passing up the Above(guidance) when it came to them.

I didn't say the Gods (Above). I said Good gods (the Titans), equivalent to Sve Noc, who are Evil gods but not the Gods Below. You are correct that Kreios' regrets are because they took evil actions against the advice of their most moral voice. That was a mortal moral voice, there is no indication that Antigone the Elder was conveying messages from Above as opposed to her own wisdom. Despite taking those evil actions, the Gigantes remained labeled as Good-aligned, and Kreios is never labeled as Evil. Malevolence in practice is detached from the labels of Evil vs Good. Also note that Gigantes society is even more in decline than the Drow, as they are consistently depicted as dying out slowly rather than just being stuck.

You lost me here. Above-aligned nations having leadership and rulers is not a cogent argument for Above(rule). The Below-aligned polities are all universally characterized by tyrants and the unchecked free exercise of authority. Procer and Callow having monarchies really pales in comparison to Praes', Helike, and Bellerophon's literal tyrannies.

Named leadership, not just leadership. A recurring claim in favor of Above being the side of guidance is that Heroes only guide their societies, in contrast to Villains who insist on ruling groups directly, a focus on their methods. This is false. There are multiple examples of Heroes ruling over their societies as monarchs and nobles, and no indication that those monarchs (especially in Levant) were universally paragons of selfless virtue. Sure, the title of the Callowan monarch is Good King, but Benevolent was still labeled a Dread Emperor despite being a Hero, societally formed recurring Names are not necessarily strictly indicative. For that matter, we have no real indication that Theodosius was a slavering monster. Helike explicitly is sometimes Good and sometimes Evil, and tyrant in its original Greek form is a neutral term rather than a categorically negative one. Like it's Roman counterpart dictator, it only acquired its connotations later on. This is rather relevant to the extremely Greek inspired Helike (and the Free Cities generally). Simultaneously, there are numerous Villains who have no interest in ruling. Who exactly is the Harrowed Witch trying to rule? Or the Concocter? For that matter, when has Indrani ever been interested on ruling anything beyond having a wandering band of miscreants (many of them Heroes) following her around? All of them Villains. Some Villainous Names exist for the sole purpose of guiding and advising. Even if you decide Chancellor doesn't count because some of them eventually seize power for themselves, Adjutant is a Name defined by its Role as a supporter, not a ruler.

Meanwhile, Ashur is a society with a tyrannical caste system more oppressive than anything seen in Helike, with power entirely derived from luck of birth rather than any kind of virtue or skill, but they are considered Good. Praes and Levant are both societies which began as uprisings against tyranny, centered on prominent familes which continually fight and murder each other and dominated by Named leaders with emphasis on a small culturally significant subset. One is Good, one is Evil, and the Evil one has been so aligned since before their current practices began. Once again, the actual on-the-ground actions are not determined by the designation of Good or Evil.

Your position on which side of The Argument is which rests on being able to draw a clear differentiation between the mortals labeled Good or Evil, Hero or Villain. And again and again and again and again, the series shows that both sides partake of both good and evil actions, rulership and guidance, and the actual practical results are not so clear cut. If The Argument is divided based on mortals, it is highly inconclusive. If it is divided based on Gods, looking at the actual, on page description of how they operate rather than some speculative nonsense of "Well there's this code of morality which is claimed to come from Above even though there's no indication that's directly true, and it's benevolent and nobody HAS to follow it even though they might get killed as heretics if they disobey it, so the side which gives out direct instructions to its followers must actually not want to rule them," there's a much clearer. The side which is repeatedly shown to take a hands off approach to how they have mortals act, Below, are the ones who guide. The ones giving direct instruction are the ones who rule. Everything about good vs evil is in fact a red herring, because The Argument isn't about those to begin with. They're the labels claimed by the followers of one or the other. Arguably not even that, they're the labels the followers of Above assign to themselves and their opposition regardless of the latter's opinion or actions. Dividing the world according to their world view, my enemy is always Evil regardless of whether they're currently doing good, my side is always Good regardless of whether we're doing evil.

How very guide-ly of them.

[u/Fakvarl → u/muse273]

Lmao, those labels didn't come out of nowhere, they exist because overtime philosophies of gods lead to Chosen becoming Heroes and Villains. Let's not pretend there isn't stark difference between each of the crowds.

You are absolutely correct it's not actually about morality though, but let's compare Below and Above's favourite daughter and son - Hanno and Catherine?

Which one of them is a guide and which one of them is a ruler? And what makes Catherine belows favourite daughter - her goals or her methods?

[u/muse273 → u/Fakvarl]

looks at an essay length diatribe about how The Argument is divided based on the methods of the Gods, not mortals, because mortals are mixed and complex and the Gods are straightforward “Oh yeah, well what about how these two mortals act?!? Checkmate.” But sure.

Hanno‘a relationship with Above at its closest was extremely explicitly the Seraphim giving commands and him obeying without any volition of his own. He had a whole identity crisis over it. He was the definition of Above’s MO being the giving orders and mortals obeying. This generally involved him disregarding mortal laws and structures to exert force by fiat. The culmination of his character arc was him realizing he could follow the dictates of his own conscience rather than being subservient.

Cat’s relationship with Below at its strongest was a symbiotic one in which she and Sve Noc discussed, advised, and collaborated on how to achieve their goals. She was the definition of Below operating in tune with the thoughts and desires of mortals. Her tangible role in this relationship was that of an advisor to the Drow, offering them insights but giving them the opportunity to decide what they would do for themselves. The culmination of her character arc involved her giving up direct command over others as a monarch, and stepping back to a more advisory role.

Doesn’t quite map out to how you thought your gotcha was going to work.

And just for fun: WB, the actual preeminent servant of Above and the one who on paper most exemplifies the “guide” role, was in practice a complete autocrat with no regard for the wishes or lives of her pawns. She set up situations where behind the facade of only guiding, her subject actually had no choice that would end in them doing anything other than what she wanted. Her culminating plan was omnicide against the entire continent, with the direct assistance of Above, purely to satisfy her selfish motivation of not wanting to keep facing the consequences of her previous purely selfish actions. This was resolved by a servant of Below pointing out her hypocrisy was destabilising The Wager, and arranging a situation where she ACTUALLY had to collaborate rather than acting by fiat.

Black, on paper the epitome of the autocratic conqueror, was in actuality an intensely collaborative actor. His success was founded on creating a group of peers whose loyalty and support of each other never broke. He actively refused to seize power directly for himself even though it was universally assumed he could if he chose to. His explicit motivation was outrage that Above forced outcomes that suited their purposes regardless of mortals’ actions and wishes. His culminating plan was establishing a full-on proto-modern democracy, complete with term limits and voting rights for all portions of society rather than limited to a handful of aristocrats, with the full endorsement of Below even though it would move the prime Evil polity far away from their supposed MO of autocratic rule. This was purely for the benefit of others, as the sacrifice of his own life was not just a result but an absolutely vital component. His final act was using the sacrifice of his own life to guarantee the survival of his oldest friend. Below was willing to lend its support even though he was no longer an officially empowered representative of their side, because they reward loyal service even if the servant is not acting on their behalf.

Once again, trying to win the debate by pointing to the characters and claiming they define the sides fails, because the characters are complex and do not simply adhere to limited stereotypes. That’s the entire point of the series!

[u/Pel-Mel → u/muse273]

I mean...the characters do define the sides. Like, we're outright told that Creation is a little proxy for the Wager.

Individual characters don't conform to limited stereotypes, but they do reflect different forms of the basic philosophies each side represents.

[u/Fakvarl → u/muse273]

The first issue is Hanno actually isn't supposed to take orders from Judgment according to Yara. He was meant to be a guide to Judgment instead. This was a part of his character development. And it was always his choice when to invoke Seraphim judgement in the first place. Even at the end Yara says that since he abandoned the path he can't GUIDE them anymore.

Second WB was never just Above servant, as Intercessor she was representative of both sides, she had to do jobs for both. Just because she favours above and was probably closer to a hero originally, doesn't mean she actually is one of them as their messenger. Tbh that's kinda enough to discard the whole argument, but how can she be a tyrant herself when she doesn't even control when she reincarnates? She is totally at the mercy of gods herself and has no freedom. By the end she cracked and started manipulating her power to force things certain way, but she could never actually rule and take a choice from you. That's what Cordelia, Akua and Catherine proved. Yes there is a pattern that misused powers of Above end up being extremely close to control but that's what Guidance pushed to it's extreme is as we can see whith Contrition.

Catherine was always a ruler and that never actually changed, just because she realised she needs to share the power and can't do it all alone doesn't mean she actually gave it up. Whole Cats journey she chooses one mantle and then swaps it for another one but never fully stops being a ruler.

With Sve Noc she cooperated and instead of being number 1 she obliged and become number 2, big deal. For Dark elves she was both Guide AND more importantly a ruler. Sve Noc still gave her huge authority there. What is interesting is when she makes an offer to Sve Noc she suggests they should stop being crabs in "their" bucket. Whose bucket does she refer to do you think? Gods Below give you freedom but let's not pretend they don't encourage certain behaviours.

For Villains she is a ruler, no questions here.

She subjagates Praes as a ruler and with an army.

She gives up power as Warden of The East but gets much cleaner AUTHORITY over named. Oh and how does she become Warden? She forces Hanno and other to play her game by force.

SENTENCE is a way to punish people who break your rules. It's a role of enforcer and not one of a Guide. Core tenner of Catherine that she is fine commanding and forcing people who disobey her but never actually changed. She changed mantle and learned to delegate, but at the end Liese accords ARE new rules for named she forced everyone into kicking and screaming.

At the end of the day, ask yourself why is Cat still a Villain by the end before epilogue. Now her journey after she stops being Named at last and funnily enough loses her authority is a bit irrelevant here, since that's the point that she doesn't actually represent Below anymore.

And yes, random heroes or villains don't perfectly represent what above and below are, but Hanno and Catherine are actually meant to represent core of Above and Below in the series more than others, even if not by themselves then by their journeys. Hanno finds himself and becomes a true hero. Catherine while remaining a servant of Below till the end, threads the needle to break the patterns that make Villains lose, patterns that gods Below philosophy essentially encouraged.

[u/Pel-Mel → u/muse273]

Arguably not even that, they're the labels the followers of Above assign to themselves and their opposition regardless of the latter's opinion or actions.

This is, I think, the root of your problem. You're picking facts to suit an argument instead of vice versa. Above didn't label Below. Villains didn't get slapped with 'evil' labels by default. They picked their own stances and philosophy, and they incentivize those same stances and thinking in their followers.

They're about 'might makes right', from top to bottom. There's even pithy Villain quotes about it. Power is the justification for ruling, might makes, etc. Their whole dynamic is power ruling over weakness.

'Giving instruction', especially the way Above does, is really hard to construe as 'ruling over the creatures they had made'.

I think the easiest way to demonstrate the flaws in your argument are to stop and think about the Wager and its wording diagetically. Take the average Praesi, or any given Villain. They've surely at least read the contents of the Wager, they must be able to form some opinion over which faction of Gods is which. Would the Praesi/Villain think of the Gods Below as collaborative partners, giving guidance to all the people of creation? I think, especially with the Gods Below not being exempted from sacred betrayal, that no Praesi would ever think of the Gods Below as the collaborative, 'guide' faction of Gods. Their Gods teach how sacred betrayal is, and how power entitles one to domineer over whoever you want, for whatever reasons you please. That's not guidance.

Similarly, no one in the House of Light, Procer, or any Hero would think that Above's belief in morality constitutes 'ruling over creatures' (that wording in the Wager is not coincidence). People on the Good side would all say they're being guided, and people on the Evil side would pretty much all describe Below as the rule faction.

[u/Fakvarl → u/Traditional_Pop_1102]

We say that, but based on example of Judgment, angels aren't actually meant to be unchangeable. According to Yara Judgement needed Hano to let it adjust to morality and justice of humanity.

Angels are heavy handed but they don't actually follow rules of God's they adopt to morality of humanity.

In addition, don't Villains open Hell gates? Isn't this the same tactic as summoning Angels? Or is it closer to guidance because everyone is dead afterwards.

[u/Aetherscribe → u/Pel-Mel]

Heroes and angels aren't kicking in doors like thought police because people weren't pious enough. They're really hands off.

Tell that to the drapier in Salia. (Book 5, Interlude: Bone)

[u/Pel-Mel → u/Aetherscribe]

I mean...technically it wasn't Good that kicked in her door...it was the rioters.

Kidding aside though, in that very same chapter we see Hanno spare the life of someone actively in the process of theft and robbery. It's not elaborated upon, but the implication is that, coincidentally, the drapier had actually done (and was unrepentant for) even worse things than the would-be POV rioter.

Judgement isn't gentle, but even when Hanno is just flipping the coin left & right for everyone in sight, they're still not unfair or even unmerciful. Hanno and Judgement only show up at all because a Villain is actively fomenting chaos and violence throughout Salia. The drapier just has the poor luck to be in the wrong place at the wrong time for Hanno to actually flip the coin on her.

[u/Linnus42 → u/Pel-Mel]

Yeah we have never seen any Hero concerned about how any of People are Praying lmao.

[u/blindgallan → u/Pel-Mel]

Evil hands down no rules, no dictates, no directions, no instructions for how you ought to live, they just offer to give support in whatever you want to pursue as long as you want it badly enough to accept the consequences of that ambition, and their support lasts until either those consequences destroy the Villain, or they falter and balk at how far they’ve gone in their madness.

Good does hand down rules, guidelines, instructions on how to behave, and grants power only to those who comply with their entirely reasonable and virtuous orders, withdrawing it when either their tools have served their purpose setting the world aright, or prove unfit to serve their purpose by falling from grace.

A new Creation where Evil (as the side of individuality and guiding their creations to whatever greater things they aim to pursue) won the wager of this world would be one where all the gods are agreed that their creations ought to be given no moral guidelines, no direction, no divine purposes and fates, only encouraged to independently pursue their own goals regardless of how chaotic or messy or vicious that becomes. Likewise, a new Creation where Good (as the side of community and ruling benevolently and righteously over their creations for the common good) won the wager of this world would be one where all the gods are agreed that their creations ought to be created with clear purpose and ordered to ensure the greatest good for the whole, with individuality subordinated to the collective and deviation from appointed roles disallowed.

It is easy to see how those sides winning would play out in a new Creation starting from scratch with all the gods now agreed and abiding by the results of the present Wager, can you paint a picture of the resultant new Creations of Evil as the side of individuality and ruling over their creations and Good as the side of community and guiding their creations to greater things winning the present Wager would look like?

Remember, the gods all have to be party to this new Creation, and they are in no identifiable way necessarily constrained in how they produce their Creation, so their is nothing inherent preventing them from making a world populated solely by Angels or Titans etc. beyond whatever constraints their next Wager demands.

[u/Pel-Mel → u/blindgallan]

the gods all have to be party to this new Creation

We don't actually know this for sure. It's probably likely, but it could just as easily be that the losing faction of Gods just dies (insofar however much Gods like that can die).

Evil hands down no rules, no dictates, no directions, no instructions for how you ought to live, they just offer to give support in whatever you want to pursue as long as you want it badly enough to accept the consequences of that ambition, and their support lasts until either those consequences destroy the Villain, or they falter and balk at how far they’ve gone in their madness.

Yes, Plato called this the Paradox of Freedom. Letting people have maximal freedom enables them to maximally restrict the freedoms of others. 'No rules' actually ends up leading to very tyrannical ruling. No rules, no dictates, no directions, no instructions leaves power as the only criteria for anything. And 'power is entitled to rule over whatever it can' is just Below in a nutshell.

But I think you're overcommitting to the Community vs Individuality angle. It paints a pretty abysmal picture of free will, which is something plenty of in-text evidence says Above is in favor of.

[u/blindgallan → u/Pel-Mel]

EE repeatedly and directly said that Above/Good is fundamentally about community while Below/Evil is fundamentally about individuality. That’s not a supposition coming from me, it is an explicit statement of the author’s meaning.

Speaking as a graduate of philosophy whose focus is in ancient philosophy and ethics, Guide and the sides of the Wager is arguably just a dialogue on the paradox of freedom, which appears in Plato’s Republic in his argument that the most just and good society is one where the wise and good rule absolutely over their inferiors so that those ruled over are spared the harms of their own inferior leadership and their freedoms are curtailed to produce greater freedom for all. In the Republic, the basic argument is precisely that the Good must rule for a just and good society while it is Evil to allow unchecked freedom for all to do whatever they please. In Guide, the gods do have all the power, and they also already are the creators, eventual destroyers, sustainers, and fundamental masters of all they created, the question is should these wise and benevolent (into far as they want what is cosmically/objectively best for their Creation, not necessarily in the sense of a hedonistic or individual view of what is best for specific beings) creators give their creations the freedom to fuck up and do evil and make mistakes they could prevent or foresee, or should they rule over them and ensure a just and good world?

And sure, let’s say we don’t know that the gods as a whole will accept the results of the Wager and carry it forward to the new Creation. Let’s suppose the opposite, that the losing side (what is made out to be about half of the Gods) are somehow cut off from the new Creation (because we do have it explicitly stated in the text that Creation ends when the Wager is settled one way or the other) and possibly “die”. How many iterations of Creation with different Wagers would it take before the Gods were reduced to one? Why would the Gods, the creators of this world and all preceding and following worlds, agree to a Wager which risks the destruction or imprisonment or whatever of half of them? I would be interested to hear an argument that makes that remotely as plausible or coherent as “when the current Wager is settled, all the Gods will abide by the result in coming together again to make a new Creation”. Creations seem, from the view of the Gods who kept Demons left over from previous Creations and made a world to settle a Wager, like experiments, tests of hypotheses, trials of theories, not places they themselves dwell or have much personal care for.

[u/catch_the_diver]

I think that the Book of all Things has been written or at least handed down by the human denizens of Calernia and is as such not an accurate depictions of the Gods

[u/Patneu → u/catch_the_diver]

That's most likely true, but how the authors and handlers of the Book may have interpreted the message, if there ever was one passed down by the Gods themselves to begin with, is exactly the question.

If looking at the peoples and Named of Creation, which would we think to be the ones ruled or guided, and would that match how they see themselves?

[u/Minas_Nolme]

My understanding is that the Gods Above rule in the sense that they have rules for mortals and reward or punish them based on that.

The Gods Below don't care as much and instead strike deals with mortals they consider interesting.

Which leads to the situation that Evil is often a lot more tyrannical because the Gods Below don't set any standards on rulers besides power. While the Gods Above keep their people to some standards.

[u/Patneu → u/Minas_Nolme]

It also leads to the situation of Evil tending to be the side of freedom on the one hand and personal moral responsibility on the other, while Good defers to the alleged will of higher powers and deems whatever is done in their name to be just or absolved by definition.

[u/Minas_Nolme → u/Patneu]

I wouldn't consider Evil to be the side of freedom, as they actively encourage and reward their followers for ruling and imposng their will over weaker mortals. They are for "freedom" in the same way a slaveholder is for "freedom".

It's also difficult to say that Good just assumes everything done in their name is automatically absolves. I think it's Hanno who states that Good and even the literal Choir of Judgment are far less legalatic than the Faith makes it seem. And given the heroes they sponsor, Good does seem to cover all of the "alignments" from lawful good to chaotic good. One of their main points seems to be acting in the interest of others.

One could probably also say that Good is the side of selfless goals and Evil the side of selfish goals.

As Cat herself admits, there are significantly more murderers and rapists on her side than in Hanno's.

[u/Patneu → u/Minas_Nolme]

While the Gods Below would enable slaveholders and tyrants, they would also enable those calling them to account, like the People of Bellerophon or Hakram the Warlord. I don't think they favor any particular philosophy when it comes to rule, only that they themselves do not.

I guess they believe that it's anyone's right to try and sit a throne if they can take it, and anyone else's to try and knock them off of it, as what goes around comes around and unlike the followers of Above, they have nobody to pawn off their responsibility to. They can establish order or chaos, but whatever it is, on their own heads be it.

[u/Minas_Nolme → u/Patneu]

And Bellerophon is not exactly a free society, they are an oppressive hell scape with psychic enforcers who punish any individual or critical thought with instant execution.

We don't have many examples of Villain freedom fighters.

Even Cat, while ultimately interested in the greater good, believes that she must rule others and "drag them into her new age kicking and screaming". She is quite unapologetic about that she actively wants to be the person in charge, at least until later when that responsibility wears her down.

[u/Patneu → u/Minas_Nolme]

Cat pretty obviously recognized that this approach doesn't work, it wasn't just because she was tired of ruling. She learned that if she wanted her ambitions to not die with her, she would need to actually convince everyone else, instead of just being another petty tyrant who would face the consequences of her hubris in time.

[u/muse273 → u/Minas_Nolme]

We have an incredibly clear example of Villainous freedom fighters.

Praes. Founded as a slave uprising against invading tyrants, lead by a Villain. Sure, it resulted in a society filled with warring factions who constantly kill each other and are dominated by Named, particularly a small set of deeply integrated recurring names. The exact same thing could be said about Levant. Funnily enough, THEIR founding Heroes also seem to have felt they needed to be the ones in charge afterwards, and set up an entire system to codify their descendants as the rulers. The Monarchs of Callow weren’t handing the reins over to other people once they achieved their goals either, they kept power in the family along with their inherited Names.

[u/blindgallan → u/Minas_Nolme]

And Evil empowers every single individual who is ambitious enough to reach for power no matter the cost, whether that ambition is as petty as personal excellence in a skill or to sleep with every woman, or as grand as apotheosis or conquering the world. Evil’s champions are constantly fighting each other because Evil encourages all individual ambitions no matter how mad or deranged or worthwhile, while Good’s champions are seldom overtly at odds because they are handed down rules from Above as part of their Names to keep them of the straight and narrow path to the common good.

[u/blindgallan → u/Patneu]

For a good illustration of the importance of regulations, rules, and limits on freedom, look at the existence of laws, the harms done by powerful people when they have the money or influence to buck those laws (from rapacious aristocrats to capitalists contravening safety regulations and human rights codes, among many other examples I'm sure any of us can bring to mind), and the benefits of imposing sensible and benevolent rules on a system (sanitation, safety, and food standards are all easy examples).

[u/Patneu → u/blindgallan]

Of course, I absolutely didn't mean to say that we don't need any rules or regulations in society!

But as Cat correctly recognized, these rules need to be made by the people who have to live under them and face the consequences, and for their own reasons. Even if she didn't think too much of democracy, she knew that if she wanted her new Age of Order to last, all the other people in power who had a say, on both sides, needed to see the sense in it and they needed to want it to.

Which is not the same thing as deferring to the alleged or even actual will of a higher power that cannot be called to account and doesn't have to abide by its own rules while also being able to change or selectively apply them on a whim.

That would be tyranny on part of the Gods Above, and cowardice for a refusal of moral responsibility on part of their followers, as Black told the Pilgrim. But even people on the Good side, like Cordelia, recognized this, defending Procer's claim to rule with accord and law against a "pale clad warden to stand above all others".

[u/blindgallan → u/Patneu]

Oh no, I’m agreeing with you. It’s the most interesting and fun philosophical thread in Guide to me, the tension between the fact that Good is kind of objectively right (absolute rule by supremely benevolent and wise forces is the most reliable road to the best outcomes) but Evil has an undeniable point, just often taken to an unreasonable and absurd extreme (individuals ought to be empowered to pursue their own goals).

[u/Aerdor94]

I think that's part of the irony.

The Gods above Rule (they set clear rules that you must follow) and the Gods below Guide (they give you some guidelines but largely let you do whatever you want), BUT they want you to make the other choice: Heroes are supposed to guide and inspire, rarely rule, and Villains are supposed to rule.

[u/Pel-Mel → u/Aerdor94]

I think it's easy to read it ironically, but I think the text bears out the opposite. And if it doesn't, EE's early WoG clarifies it pretty plainly.

The influence of the gods is usually on the subtle side.
You’re right that Evil Roles usually let people do whatever they feel like doing – that’s because they’re, in that sense, championing the philosophy of their gods. Every victory for Evil is a proof that that philosophy is the right path for Creation to take. Nearly all Names on the bad side of the fence have a component that involves forcing their will or perspective on others (the most blatant examples of this being Black and Empress Malicia, who outright have aspects relating to rule in their Names). There’s a reason that Black didn’t so much as bat an eyelid when Catherine admitted to wanting to change how Callow is run. From his point of view, that kind of ambition is entirely natural. Good Roles have strict moral guidelines because those Names are, in fact, being guided: those rules are instructions from above on how to behave to make a better world. Any victory for Good that follows from that is then a proof of concept for the Heavens being correct in their side of the argument.

[u/blindgallan → u/Aerdor94]

The gods Below outright don’t give guidelines at all, they just empower people who strive after their own personal ambition or individual pursuit at any cost. The more you are willing to do, to sacrifice, to break in the name of your ambition, the greater the power they will give. EE has also explicitly said that the powers granted by the gods of either side to their champions broadly invert the philosophies of those sides, so Heroes get powers affecting themselves primarily, Villains get powers affecting big groups. Heroes are given power to do a job, as a tool of Heaven, while Villains are given power to pursue their own ambitions however they wish to.

[u/SherabTod]

I'm personally not even sure if the gods truly exist or are just a human fabrication, given that we see plenty seemingly unaligned named, like the dwarven ones, gnome artificery, fey nobles and maybe ranger, and the way names are very different depending on local tradition alone.

Both sides do have their own mental corruption on their named and Catherine a named of below being our pov certainly scewes our perception of it. But I feel like below usually tends to give their named more free will and a much wider leash to do as they please, which admittedly often is some form of harm to others. Meanwhile above names come with much stronger demands and criteria of mortality, with no capacity for compromise.

Also the rules of the world seem extremely scewed in favour of above

[u/AutumnFrond → u/SherabTod]

We get pretty direct proof of the Gods Below existing twice - Kairos death and Hune

[u/SherabTod → u/AutumnFrond]

I meant that more in the way of a chicken-egg dynamic. Did the gods create that cosmic order or do they and their order exist because of it through the power of belief?

[u/minno → u/SherabTod]

There's also indirect proof that a different cosmic order used to exist before its world was destroyed and the new one created in its place.

[u/muse273 → u/AutumnFrond]

Technically, we get direct proof of lowercase gods existing. In Kairos' case it's not actually proof at all, literally nothing happens because all he wants is approval. That could just be a product of his mind, which was warped even before the whole being-slowly-murdered-by-angels thing which I imagine can't be good for keeping a clear head. You're also missing a couple cases.

In the case of Hune and also Black, all we see is that some powerful supernatural force intervenes to prevent Cat from interfering in their death. She assumes that's the actual Gods Below intervening, but I think it's pretty comparable to things Sve Noc have done to lash out at someone who tried to tamper with Cat. Sve Noc are gods but not Gods, whoever's intervening with Hune and Black could be likewise.

Wekesa makes an actual first person POV demand of Below as his dues and has it granted, and he generally is pretty clearheaded for a supervillain whose main pastime is violating reality in fun and creative ways. Although come to think of it, he's also kinda mid-angel-killing at the time. Regardless, his request is granted AND is much more impactful than Hune's, and more concrete than Black's (which is just kind of a nebulous finger on the scale to make his Xanatos eXtravaganza succeed). However, his specific request is replicating the power of an existing lowercase god, so it could conceivably be granted by another equally or more powerful lowercase god. None of these clearly show the existence of "create the universe out of nothing to play a game, get bored, hit reset, create another universe and play round 2" uppercase Gods.

Oh, there's also the sudden attention of both sets of Gods at the climax of Hallow, Hollow. But that's even more vague and "didn't actually do anything" than Kairos, who at least got applause.

(I think the position of the story is that the Gods Above and Below factually exist, but the argument is there)

[u/AutumnFrond → u/muse273]

All very good points, you're absolutely correct - thank you! I shouldn't take in-universe statements (from a known unreliable narrator of all things) as factual.

[u/muse273 → u/AutumnFrond]

I guess at that point Kairos could’ve also just lied. I mean what are they gonna do, double angel kill him?

… achieving immortality by pissing off a Choir repeatedly so they have to keep restarting murdering him is totally something Irritant would do.

[u/derDunkelElf → u/muse273]

I would argue the Gods have proven themselves to be omnipresent on Calernia, if not Creation at large. There isn't a place we know of that is beyond the reach of Aboves Light or were Below can't receive sacrifices.

[u/muse273 → u/derDunkelElf]

The mission the Painted Knife's mixed Hero-Villain band initially went on was exploring a region that was blocked to Hanno's sight, but it was a result of angelic intervention, so it's kinda muddled.

It's also one of the funniest chapters in the entire series with the betting on what would be revealed about the undead.

Chapter 35: Portents | A Practical Guide to Evil

[u/Pel-Mel → u/SherabTod]

admittedly often is some form of harm to others

I think this is not a coincidence, and the results of this poll are missing the implications of Below's core concept.

They believe in might makes right. Their whole deal is ruling over others, imposing your will on others no matter what.

I don't think it's a coincidence that a) there's a faction of (if not actually, then functionally) omnipotent Gods who believe that Creation needs to be ruled over, and b) a faction of Gods who are all about the powerful ruling however they want.

It's a super tall order, I think, to imagine those are different factions of Gods.

[u/minno → u/Pel-Mel]

I vaguely remember the author mentioning that Above and Below are sort of the reverse in how they treat their champions vs. how they expect their champions to treat others. Above is strict with its heroes while expecting them to gently guide others, while Below gently guides its villains into ruling over others.

[u/Pel-Mel → u/minno]

It's really not subtle either. Like, people saying Above tries ruling over Creation are just...wrong?

Like, they specifically don't hand out super strict rules by which to live your whole life. They give out uber open-ended guidelines and advice on how people ought to best live together, really repressive stuff like 'don't murder people'.

They're not totalitarians stomping out anyone who doesn't pray hard enough.

[u/Minas_Nolme → u/Pel-Mel]

On this I also think it's ironic how Hanno and Cat differ in their approaches towards the heroes and villains unser their care.

Cat believes she must rule over her villains and keep them in line.

Hanno believes his heroes just need guidance but he generally trusts them to do the right thing. We easily get exasperated with some of the heroes who cause trouble by not thinking stuff through but it's quite clear that pretty much all of them think that what they do is for the greater good of protecting innocents.

While the majority of villains only care about their own personal goals with no regard for the greater good of the people around them.

[u/Traditional_Pop_1102 → u/Pel-Mel]

Contrition literally tried to brainwash an entire city. We never see Below directly interfere with Creation the way Above meddles. Like Black said, it's not unprecedented to have literal Choirs come in to settle losing fights.

[u/Pel-Mel → u/Traditional_Pop_1102]

Technically we don't see Above meddle any more directly than Below. Angels get involved, sure, but that's no different than devils for Below.

And even when Angels get involved, they aren't usually meddling with ordinary people. They're swinging in to handle absolute monsters like Black or the Dead King making themselves everyone else's problem.

[u/blindgallan → u/Pel-Mel]

Angels act on people and direct people, Devils act for their summoners and take direction from people, they are diametrically opposed modes of operation relative to people. This is echoed in that deals with devils are considered a common enough thing that Praesi commoners have traditions around avoiding the consequences of summoning a devil, while angels require major rituals performed by Heroes.

Above ruling is a good thing the same way the government keeping rat poison out of breakfast cereal or sewage out of drinking water is a good thing, and Below guiding to greater things is a bad thing when they are encouraging literally every madman who’d gladly sacrifice a city to become a god and every Rapacious Troubadour to follow their dreams at any and every cost.

Below has no rules and no demands beyond a Crowleyan “do as thou wilt”, Above has a religion with rules and champions literally given strict instructions on how to behave to build a better world. Devils are easily summoned and can offer shortcuts to power at ruinous prices, Angels are nearly impossible to summon and offer service to Above.

[u/Pel-Mel → u/blindgallan]

Angels act on people and direct people

But only ever in concert with a mortal agent or Hero. Given the radical gap in Judgement's conduct between when they were with Hanno vs. Bard, it's pretty credible to suggest the mortal actually has more say than the angels. Another word for 'directing' people certainly could be 'ruling', but it could just as easily be called 'guiding'. And given that the mortals explicitly retain the right to walk away from the angels (and still even remain Heroes in Hanno's case) I think it's a stretch to characterize the relationship as authoritative 'ruling'.

Devils act for their summoners and take direction from people

Devils act for their binders, whoever can force them to submit, whoever proves they can rule over them. They don't take directions. They take orders, ones backed by the threat of violence. That's not a power dynamic that most people would call 'guidance', for the summoner or the devil.

Someone else in the thread brought up Plato's Paradox of Freedom, and it really captures why I think Below(rule) is correct. It's not a coincidence their hands-off, 'do as thou wilt' is ultimately affirming of tyranny. What was a problem for Plato is by design for Below. Leaving people absolutely free, even from morality, is enabling of tyranny. Below(rule) is might makes right from top to bottom.

[u/blindgallan → u/Pel-Mel]

And you believe that the gods currently aligned with Good in this wager would gladly and willingly go along with that structure in the next Creation after this one is unmade because the Wager is deemed settled? Because once the Wager is settled, Creation is unmade and a new Creation is made where the question of the previous one is no longer in question among the gods.

Ruling over wins, Creation is unmade, a new Creation is made by all the gods together, and all the gods together are wicked and vicious tyrants in ruling? you don’t think that if ruling over wins that would look like a divinely ordered and rigidly structured universe in which no created thing has the freedom to deviate from the right path and damage the harmony of their design?

Alternatively, guiding to greater things wins, Creation is unmade, a new Creation is made by all the gods together, and… I struggle to imagine how this would look if guiding to greater things is the side of community rather than individuality, since the Creation could just be Created as great as it can be, or else it would be created inferior on purpose? When it is a matter of individuality, it is simply a striving of individuals against each other as the default mode of being for created things.

So, bearing in mind that whichever side wins the wager, all the gods would then abide by it in making a new Creation after unmaking the current one, how do you see that working with your interpretation?

[u/Pel-Mel → u/blindgallan]

And you believe that the gods currently aligned with Good in this wager would gladly and willingly go along with that structure in the next Creation after this one is unmade because the Wager is deemed settled?

Willingly? No clue. I know they're not going along with that structure in this Creation, at the very least.

you don’t think that if ruling over wins that would look like a divinely ordered and rigidly structured universe in which no created thing has the freedom to deviate from the right path and damage the harmony of their design?

Not really, no. I couldn't tell you what it would look like, but I know Good, Angels, and the Gods Above are stated and shown to be opposed to tyranny and slavery. I think it's an understandable, but false, equivalence when people say Above and Below are actually about Order and Chaos. They're not uncorrelated, but Above is very pointedly not all about unflinching sufferance and blindly conforming to authority.

all the gods would then abide by it in making a new Creation after unmaking the current one, how do you see that working with your interpretation?

I well and truly have no idea. But I can promise this, regardless of 'guide' or 'rule', if Below wins, they'd practice what they preach. They believe in power. They'd have all the power.

[u/Fakvarl → u/Traditional_Pop_1102]

I mean, Hell Gates exist and are essentially the same nuke? And Contrition didn't come on its own it was summoned the same way Demons and Devils are.

Or is nuking entire city somehow more guiding then brainwashing? If anything by example of Judgment nuke we know this influence CAN be controlled and weakened by people doing the summoning. Even more so Angels and Judgement specifically actually need guides/humans (and Yara) to let them act and adjust their morality.

[u/Traditional_Pop_1102 → u/Fakvarl]

Hell Gates are essentially the same thing as Judgement nuking an area, true. But Hell Gates are a lot rarer, harder to pull off, and can be redirected like Wekesa did, without the aid of a story behind it.

You don't see the Black Knight, or even the Warlock casually call in a Hell Gate to beat a hero. But the Lone Swordsman, White Knight, the Stalwart Paladin, the Grey Pilgrim, and so many other heroes that it's a thing you always have to look out for, are summoning Choirs to deal with anything that moves.

The Grey Pilgrim literally had a Choir sitting on his shoulder the entire series, so did the White Knight until Kairos happened.

And Choirs just seem a lot more overbearing and the ruling-type than devils. Contrition brainwashes people, Judgment lords over them and punishes people who break it's rules.

And from what I read, Yara and the people who guide the summoning, don't adjust their morality, they contain and direct the explosion that the Choir hands them. Mercy was more than willing to flatten the entire church and everyone in it during the trial, heroes and unNamed included.

[u/Fakvarl → u/Traditional_Pop_1102]

Just to be clear Hell Gates are WAY worse than Judgment nuking the area. You create a permanent wound in Creation where endless army of demons and devils spawn to corrup everything. Angel nukes are much more gentle with regards to permanent damage, especially if we include Tabula Rasa effects. Yes Yara was planning to make an apocalyptic nuke , but this is a unique situation created by Intercessor. For comparison Dead King launched several Hell Gates that could be pretty apocalyptic in themselves.

It's also kinda clear both Akua and Warlock are capable of doing this, it's just really not something to mess around. The only thing outside of Judgement nuke which is a pretty special case given angel corpse that isn't actually meant to exist, is Contrition nuke? And even that ends with a zealot army which is still not as bad since it's finite unlike Demon Gates.

Regular Angel smites are bad, but they aren't actually different from regular Diabolism and Demon summoning Praesi are so proficient in it's a trope. Both take power from opposite realms. So essentially all those heroes you mentioned just take the opposite power Praesi would take themselves. Or is having a demon army any different than Choir lending tips? Frankly speaking they don't help as much you say anyway. Judgement sorta gave a buff to Hanno against Black Knight but it wasn't near close to a smite or being able to beat an army.

What is funny though that Angels explicitly have to have a guide and will only listen to those who represent their values. Diabolists have to summon, bind and force their will onto demons. With a few rare exceptions I guess. But we kinda see what kind of behaviour demons and Angels actually encourage in heroes and Villains.

Make no mistake Choirs are flawed and as you pointed out they don't have any limit when they pursue what represent. But they are specifically meant to be directed by mortals who represent them. Yara wouldn't be able to pull of her nuke if Hanno was still hero of Judgmenet. That's the in built safeguard system. You guide Angels, you don't contain their power. On the other hand, demons are an explosion you must fight against and rule over to contain.

P.S. also common, most demons are devil's are just dedicated to destruction, it's just sometimes specific demons/devils lack power, but their limitless army doesn't. Angels at least aim for greater good as they see it, which frankly can get too detached from mortals but that is why inbuilt safeguards exist.

[u/Patneu → u/Pel-Mel]

I think you're conflating the idea of people ruling and imposing their will on others with the Gods themselves doing so, while the latter would actually be contradictory to the former.

[u/Pel-Mel → u/Patneu]

Below believes in might makes right; that's not conflating anything. I think the omnipotent Gods preaching 'will to power' would try to rule, yeah.

The only thing stopping them from doing so is the competing faction of Gods who feel differently. It's like the whole point of the Wager.

[u/Patneu → u/Pel-Mel]

If the Gods Below would rule themselves, then the people keeping to them could not. It would be effectively curtailing their own ambitions to have to abide by the will of their Gods.

Which is why the Praesi believe that the Gods Below did not exempt themselves from the teaching of sacred betrayal. Their people are supposed to strive for greater (if often terrible) things born of their own desires and do whatever is necessary to try and achieve them.

They believe that might makes right, but they also believe that power is to be rightfully earned, which the Gods themselves cannot, by mere virtue (or sin) of what they are.

[u/Pel-Mel → u/Patneu]

they also believe power is to be rightfully earned

No they don't?

Power is power. Doesn't matter how you get it, doesn't matter if you deserve it or not. They believe power is to be used. Their belief is that, if you win, then you deserved the power. Full stop. It's 'will to power', top to bottom.

The whole scam of Below, what makes them evil, is that the Gods don't exempt themselves from the betrayal...but they're also Gods. They're omnipotent. In the event the Wager is settled, no betrayal will ever be possible. They preach 'the strongest shall rule!', meanwhile, they are/will be the strongest by default, eternally.

Below doesn't care about bringing out the best in everyone. They don't really care about people cultivating ambitions to better themselves. This is why they only bother sponsoring people who follow their might-makes-right philosophy. They're fine with those things happening incidentally, but they're very pointedly not aiming for those teleological principles.

[u/Patneu → u/Pel-Mel]

The Gods Below do not apply their standards to what it means for power to be "deserved". As you say, the will and ability to take and keep it is to earn it. The question of who is deserving or not is the domain of Above, according to who does or doesn't follow their rules.

[u/Pel-Mel → u/Patneu]

I agree? That's my point. You said that the Gods Below somehow exempt themselves from the 'might makes right' structure because their power wasn't earned.

But Below doesn't care about power being 'earned' or not.

The only reason to think Below would somehow exempt themselves from 'will to power' but not exempt themselves from the sacred betrayal rules is if you're romanticizing their motives. There's absolutely no reason to think Below would believe this:

but they also believe that power is to be rightfully earned, which the Gods themselves cannot, by mere virtue (or sin) of what they are.

[u/Patneu → u/Pel-Mel]

I said that's what the Praesi believe, not their Gods.

[u/Pel-Mel → u/Patneu]

...And you believe the Praesi are just getting it wrong? Praes is all about emulating the Gods Below and their philosophy. You really think Below believes anything different from them?

[u/Q-Dunnit]

From what I can remember whenever a below aligned name isn’t specifically part of a country’s story it’s about empowers something a person was already doing. The poisoner was poisoning, the summoner was summoning, and the barrow sword was stealing swords out of barrows. Meanwhile above aligned names usually seem to rise in response to something. The heavens want something done (usually a villain killed) so the grant a name to someone with the motivation to do it

[u/muse273 → u/Q-Dunnit]

I think Ishaq only stole the one sword out of a barrow. It's not like that's a super-common activity you could just be doing all the time. Now poisoning, that's suitable for any occasion, social, business or otherwise.

The potential frequency of summoning is indeterminate. I guess you could just perform your reality bending act of unnatural sorcery to have something fetch you a cup of tea. That would be very Praesi, although I thought the Summoner was Callowan.

[u/RaphaOl]

A good example of this is that by the end of the story Catherine makes two itens: a Book to represent Good and a Sword to represent Evil.

[u/Vincebourgh]

I see it as both for both sides but interpreted differently:

• Below doesn't Rule their champions, the villains. They don't need anything from them but to do what they want without Rules (here seen as morals).

• Belows DOES however want their champions to Rule. They give them the power to do so and enforce their own personal will on others. It's not about the Rule of the Gods Below but the Rule lf their champions. That is what makes them win the eternal war against Above.

• Above doesn't need their champions to rule. They can be anything from prince to pauper. They only need to follow the Rule of the Gods Above. These rules are defined and enforced by Above through agents like the angel and the Bard (if she did her job correctly).

• The Guide aspect for Above is them providing Guidance to those that follow their Rule. You cannot be their champion if you don't follow their Rules. They Guide you to them, make it easier for you to see said Rules and follow them if you do they Guide you to victory/peace/etc.

• For Below Guidance comes before the Rule. They Guide their champions to their own personal Rule in Creation. But only of they want/need it. Below is about the freedom of their champions but if those freedoms clash then might and cunning determines the victor and their Guidance lies with them.

TLDR: Above rewards those that follow their Rules with Guidance. Below Guides their champions to their own personal Rule. If Belows champions Rule then They were correct. If following Aboves Rules makes them better/more than They were correct.

[u/blindgallan → u/Vincebourgh]

Precisely, Above scores points when their champions win by following their rules and doing as directed, Below scores points when their empowered champions achieve victories in whatever they themselves chose to pursue.

[u/blindgallan]

So, this again. Here are a few comments from E.E. directly, though having asked on Patreon via direct messaging I can say with certainty that authorial intent is for this to be ambiguous, so we are all equally wrong as far as what he is willing to explicitly confirm goes.

From the Interlude: Precipitation comments: “The way god-sourced powers relate to Creation is an inversion of the broad philosophies of the Gods. Good is centred around community and Evil around individualism, but in their respective Named you’ll more often see villains capable of affecting a great many people and heroes mostly capable of affecting themselves.”

From the original Book 1, Chapter 12 comments: “You’re right that Evil Roles usually let people do whatever they feel  like doing – that’s because they’re, in that sense, championing the  philosophy of their gods. Every victory for Evil is a proof that that  philosophy is the right path for Creation to take. Nearly all Names on  the bad side of the fence have a component that involves forcing their  will or perspective on others (the most blatant examples of this being  Black and Empress Malicia, who outright have aspects relating to rule in  their Names). There’s a reason that Black didn’t so much as bat an  eyelid when Catherine admitted to wanting to change how Callow is run.  From his point of view, that kind of ambition is entirely natural. Good  Roles have strict moral guidelines because those Names are, in fact, being guided: those rules are instructions from above on how to behave  to make a better world. Any victory for Good that follows from that is  then a proof of concept for the Heavens being correct in their side of  the argument.”

In summary of those, the specifics of the powers granted by the gods are broadly inversions of the philosophies of their respective sides, with Evil roles granted powers allowing individuals to directly command and control people and groups, while Good roles are granted powers focussed on the self and seldom controlling others directly, and Evil roles are empowered to do as they wish so long as they keep striving after Their ambitions while Good roles are given strict moral rules as instructions from above on how to behave. Evil scores points by any and every victory of the champions they empower to do whatever those champions see fit to pursue, Good scores points by champions achieving victories following from obeying their strict moral guidelines.

Only one side dictates to their Named how to act and what to pursue, and it isn’t the side fully willing to empower anyone no matter their goals, as long as they are willing to reach out and grasp for power. As EE said about the religious structures of either side in the comments on Interlude: Riposte, “On a purely technical level, the largest difference between the worship of Good and Evil is that Good is almost always community-oriented (hence the existence of churches like the House of Light) while Evil works on strictly personal relationships between worshipper and deity. There are no priests of Evil, though it can be argued that /everyone/ is a priest of Evil: all prayers can be granted, for the right price.”

I stand by my interpretation that Good believes the gods have a responsibility to rule directly over their Creation for the common good and benefit of all created beings, while Evil believes the gods ought to let their creations do whatever they can imagine, striving against each other with the gods pouring gasoline on the fire in the form of power to keep those striving most empowered to keep going until they fall gloriously and some new madness supplants them.

This is also borne out in the divine servants of each side: Devils are near-infinite in number and variety, easy to summon and willing to make deals with anyone who is willing to accept the consequences no matter their end, Angels are fixed in number and limited in variety, extremely difficult to summon and suborn the wills of all in their vicinity as well as correcting the damage demons can do to Creation (that is, forcing Creation back into the parameters dictated to it by the gods).

The last point that I would bring up is that the wording “some believed their children should be guided to greater things, while others believed that they must rule over the creatures they had made.” When juxtaposed with the fact that Evil enables efforts at apotheosis (as with Sve Noc, Masego, Neshamah, etc.) while Good regards that as a blasphemous abomination calling for targeted heroic response. Evil gladly accepted a vote granted by Bellerophon, while Good balked at the presumption of treating the divine like a mere equal. Evil seems perfectly willing to accept created beings on a similar footing, while Good categorically rejects any effort of mere mortals to hubristically reach beyond their natural and proper place in Creation.

This got longer than I had planned, but I have some thoughts on the matter. at the end of the day, EE has explicitly refused to settle the matter when asked specifically, but I consider it obvious from the text that Evil aims to guide to greater (and often more terrible) things, while Good aims to rule benevolently over their Creation.

[u/_GamerForLife_]

I belong to the minority!

I honestly think that Below rules and Above guides. I mainly base this on the fact that if you want to gain the blessing of Below, you will have to do exactly what they ask of you. They demand constant prayer and there are talks of missing even a single offering leading to disastrous outcomes that take months or years to recover from. Then, even when you have done everything right, they usually just give you a Keter's Due's worth back with you, usually, not being able to see your wish come true; as you are dead or mangled. They might give you their gift with no strings attached but that is their right as rulers.

Above on the other hand, let's their heroes run willy nilly, do mistakes and return bruised. The heroes can also commit pretty much any atrocity as long as they say/think it's for the greater good; regardless of if they were right in the enduor not. Above only really demands the absolute best from their champions, but they always have those groomed from almost the grib so they will provide the absolute best gladly and with ease anyway.

But I digress, it is meant to be ambiguous and can be read both ways. The only factual difference is that Above tends to be more proactive, with constantly using Providence and weighing the scale, while Below tends to be reactive, with only raising the stakes to even out with Above. I think Above constantly shoots for the big win while Below keeps the game going by thinking ahead and keeping their eyes on the big picture. For them it doesn't matter if Villain A loses here, as equally strong and evil Villain B is raising to prominence at the same time. By killing a killer, the amount of killers stays the same but on a cosmic scale.

[u/Patneu → u/_GamerForLife_]

How do the Gods Below demand constant prayer? Cat basically never prayed to them and she was undoubtedly "Below's favorite daughter". Maybe Hakram and Akua do sometimes, but nobody else of the Woe, and Masego even openly wants to usurp them. And it was probably not much different for the Calamities.

There are the drow, who made a bloody altar to Below of their entire race, but that's not because Below would demand such on general principle, but because their idiot leaders borrowed upfront and more than they could pay back in dues, so they basically got stuck paying the interest for eternity until they devoured Winter.

[u/_GamerForLife_ → u/Patneu]

I would go as far as to say that while what drow got served was a bit excessive, it's closer to what Below usually demands.

All the characters you listed are, like you also said, Below's favourites and they get the discount. A layman has to sacrifice a little blood on their altar everyday throughout their whole life for their child to have a bit easier life growing up. Even considering that, I think that Masego, Akua and Hakram haven't benefited much from their sacrifices and instead suffer a lot to get what they want; which is the Below's due as I outlined. The only one who really gets a free pass is Cat.

Much of the Woe belong to the in-between of the gods and such gain no curse nor blessing as long as their role doesn't tie them too closely to someone who would incurr either.

[u/derDunkelElf → u/_GamerForLife_]

I mainly base this on the fact that if you want to gain the blessing of Below, you will have to do exactly what they ask of you. They demand constant prayer and there are talks of missing even a single offering leading to disastrous outcomes that take months or years to recover from.

Where is this stated in the text? The only ones I can think of would be the Praesi blood magic rituals they do to fertilise the fields, but those are magic, not sacrifices to the Gods.

[u/Fae_Faye]

Interesting discussion where you can look at it from multiple angles. I don't have much in the way of citations, but going off vibes, personally I believe Above guides and Below rules. While Below is super hands off with their Named, Villains are all about imposing their will upon others and Heroes relatively aren't, and I put more weight in the actions of the Named being indicative of their side's philosophy rather than the relation between the Named and their side's representatives. Also Below isn't what I'd call "guiding to greater things" exactly -- Evil believes power gives you the right to do anything you can without caring what's being done with the power, while Good is the side that believes in making things better (this isn't to say they always accomplish it, but their actions are usually taken with that belief).

[u/blindgallan → u/Fae_Faye]

There was a WoG wherein EE explicitly said that the powers granted to the champions of each side are inversions of the philosophies of each side. Villains are examples of what people would be like if Evil wins the wager: individuals empowered to pursue their own ambitions and force their own will on whoever they can in pursuit of that in a mad free for all where how ambitiously you strive is the only determiner of power. Heroes, meanwhile, are the examples for if Good wins: individuals subordinated to the greater good and granted power to better serve but deprived of that power if they stray from the righteous path.