The hammerites and the Master Builder - my theory.

Goldmoon Dawn on 25/12/2005 at 03:09

I do believe that he likened it to crap.

:cheeky:

Solabusca on 25/12/2005 at 09:35

Quote Posted by Aedryn

Your assessment is wrong.

So is this crap.

Ah. I see: Your comment is unsubstantiated crap from the peanut gallery. See, we can all play!

Now, if you'd like to back up your statement, I'd be more than happy to debate it with you.

Proofs, as per my assessment:

1) No reference to the Builder during KD period in any in-game documentation. KD were polytheistic, even having a 'divine emperor' that was a direct connection to the gods.
2) Garret's reference to the Trickster as one of the Old Gods (ie, strongly implying that the Builder is a NEW god.)

Extrapolate and you find that the Builder did not exist during this era, and has come into being at a later time. Apotheosis is one possible way.

Thanks for playing, though.

.j.

[EDIT: Once again, I find that I_Hate_Burricks has failed to understand my meaning - my hypothesis is that the Builder began mortal, but became a god. Not that he's 'just this guy', but is indeed a font of divine power.]

kamyk on 25/12/2005 at 18:21

Interesting. I like the idea of an ascension.

DreadLord on 25/12/2005 at 18:39

IMO the builder is a new god.....

...but I also think that the Trickster is one of the Old gods of the polytheistic religion of Karath Din. When the earthquakes started they tried to calm Nlahayothep (I dont know the exact name) aka the Trickster with sacrifices because they knew that there new inventions(for exemple the cultivator) made him furious....

Maybe one of the old gods supported their path towards tecnology but I think that this god has nothing to do with the builder at all....

Aedryn on 25/12/2005 at 20:30

Your ability to see things how you want and pull shit out of no where is amazing.

Quote Posted by Solabusca

1) No reference to the Builder during KD period in any in-game documentation.

Extrapolate and you find that the Builder did not exist during this era, and has come into being at a later time.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_of_a_negative) You fail.

Your 'proofs' are unsubstanciated opinion. You can't prove anything about the birth/creation of the Builder because you have no evidence for anything.

Wingman on 26/12/2005 at 08:42

You guys are funny. Here’s the thing: this game was made by guys sitting around a table at 3:00 am, playing trash bin basketball, and tossing back and forth ideas that they thought might be cool. Not only is there a storyline to worry about, there are the tasks of building a game engine, creating the levels, working out the scripting, hiring the voice actors (and compromising when they don’t play a part convincingly). The list goes on and all of these things have deadlines.

While these guys did create an entertaining and unique background, they did not build a whole world with unlimited layers of depth that require multifaceted interpretations and comparisons of in-game evidence to figure out.

Who is the Builder? He is an archetypical representation of order that draws heavily on Catholic symbolism to create a real world referent that the player can easily grasp onto. It’s the same sort of deal with the Trickster, except he draws on a sylvan theme. The guy looks like a taller meaner version of Pan for Christ sake!

Analyzing this stuff is fun, but what it ultimately comes down to is some dudes drunk on coffee up at 3:00 am drawing on recognizable archetypes and improvising the rest. The player is often only given enough elaboration and depth to satisfy on the most basic level so that everything sort of makes sense as you play the game. Just my two cents.

Solabusca on 26/12/2005 at 13:28

Quote Posted by Aedryn

Your ability to see things how you want and pull shit out of no where is amazing.

Wow. Aren't you just a special ball of glee. Hadn't realized we were indulged in an excercise in rheotoric. Oh, by the by, if you plan on pointing out errors, perhaps you should proofread your own statements?

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_of_a_negative) You fail.

Excellent point. So feel safe to discount the first of my two extrapolation points - which is really all they are, truthfully.

We haven't seen reference to the Builder in any Karath-Din literature. This does not discount it's existence, as it may be something that was not included. My extrapolation is based on this: given the monotheistic/dualist nature of Builder worship, it is difficult to harmonize the view of a polytheistic Precursor pantheon with the religion of the Master Builder.

However, you're on weaker ground on the second extrapolation point. Garret refers to the Trickster as one of the Old Gods, surprised that anyone still worships them - in direct contrast, one can make the logical assumption that worship in the style of the Hammerites is not uncommon - that Hammer worship is more recent.

Quote:

Your 'proofs' are unsubstanciated opinion. You can't prove anything about the birth/creation of the Builder because you have no evidence for anything.

I wouldn't say unsubstantiated opinion - I've made more-than-tenuous connections between the two.

But thank you for deciding that this is a more formal affair.

.j.

DreadLord on 26/12/2005 at 13:37

Quote Posted by Wingman

We know that of course :p

But IMO it is fun to think about that stuff....to give the world even more depth than it already has. Becuse those dudes drunk on cofee at 3.00am did create a unique world with a lot of potential....

Archangel on 28/12/2005 at 13:28

Quote Posted by DreadLord

I'll bet last night's haul of loot to say that Coffee wasn't the only thing they drank, and tobacco wasn't the only thing they smoked. But, as a result, a most interesting world came to be - And the options are really endless. I mean, The Master Builder could be a chimp in a pink tu-tu for all we know AS A FACT. We can assume that he isn't, and no doubt it'll be logical and accepted, but we can't really ever say for 100%. What's important is what he stands for: He's man, overcoming nature in a hundred ways - Building stone houses, making electric lights, constructing machinery that nature never created. Of course, the exact opposite applies for the Trickster - He's man, succumbing to nature. Living in the forest, wearing untreated hides, using "naturally occuring" weapons - A blowgun is just a piece of hollow reed, after all. A mace isn't.

So the way I see it, it's a conflict of perception:
You have the "Early Era", which is equivalent to mankind's own stone age - Caves, hides, all that.
Then there's the age of discovery - When man, in his endless search for something better, comes up with all that the builder stands for (Think Precursors here).
Next, disaster. This is (Or could be) the first conflict between the Builder and the Trickster - Where each side tries to force the other into submitting to another way of life. Think for a moment - One side goes and makes sacrifices to their god, what would the other do? Try to appease their god. In the end, the result is the same - Buhbye KD.

The result of this disaster is catastropgic to both sides - Just think what would happen in our world, if Y2K really did happen at it's worse prediction. Does that mean that the Trickster actually won? Not really, it just means life was reset to it's default status - And that means caves, hides, blowguns.

And then... of course... It all starts over. Hammers, Mechanists, Pagans, Keepers - Locked in an infinite chain of disasters. What would happen if back in The Dark Project, Garret would fail? Hell, what if the Keeper council would vote in favour of sending the enforcers after him, while he's still barely a rookie? Then the Trickster would get some other patsy to play fetch, and then the city would go down, and we'll start all over again.