Board Thread:The Last Sovereign Discussion/@comment-25941257-20170924103337/@comment-29984007-20170929220401

LordCyberForte wrote:

Sigh, these forums like to eat posts. Had a nice long reply typed up and lost it...

the forum had a strange use of temporal token, if you wait more of the five/ten minute after the loading of the page the forum simply ignore the post command and your reply is lost.

my workaround is write the post on notepad (notepad++ isn't suited for this), reload the page and copypaste the reply after that.

- Assumption A: Divine beings and/or goddesses were enslaved with IK powers. Given that evenything we know about this comes from a single, very short exchange with almost no context, I don't think this is a fair assumption to make. For all we know, their slavery had nothing to do with an IK's normal power to enslave mortals. It could easily be some kind of magical binding or even a hostage situation for all that we know.

fair point, but the fact is the MDB is under the control of someone, a 'monster' had zelica and mithyn was a slave some time ago. from the phrasing of the dialogue we can extract a couple of info, the MDB isn't controlled by the same 'monster' had zelica, and both are different from the old 'master' of mithyn. so we have at least three world power of god-scale ability. if this 'must be' male is an assumption without any concrete proof, but i think is accetable. assuming that we don't have any hint to a multiple male gods, only the succubi/ivalan lustlord. and even of him no concrete action form any history record (not the elf, not the dwarf). we know the soulshard (the larger one at least) 'bend' the surround reality, grant a form of immortality and other quirk closing to a god-scale power. so assuming the 'enslaver' of the goddess are powerful IKs is a logic leap, but don't think is out the boundary of reason.

tangential i think the mountain column is in the superreal space and the two goddess aren't in the same location.

- Assumption B: Ginasta is immune to control. This has some support, but not enough to make such a strong claim. We know that Skullcrusher, a relatively weak IK, couldn't enslave her, that she was confident enough to walk into the Gathering, and that she escaped our prison in Yhilin. However, we have no understanding yet of the mechanism for how she escaped, so this could be entirely unrelated to whether she can be controlled by other means. Furthermore, we have no idea if the stronger IKs would've been able to control her at the Gathering. For all we know, she was suicidally overconfident and would've been screwed both literally and metaphorically if the Lustlord had decided he wanted to make her worship him instead of hurting her. So, I don't think we have enough basis to say she cannot be controlled in a general sense.

the skullcrusher was a weak moronic fool, but in the same room esthera challeng both the fucklord and the lustlord to dominate her, and both fail. the lustlord try to kill her in the backlash thus failing again. and i suppose the AoA had try to control her in the confrontation before was killed by simon.

my supposition on the jailbreak of yhilin is simple, she can escape at any time after recovered from the defeat in the palace, but waited to understand better the situation.

I do agree that lying about it seems out of character for her--but, as I said, it could potentially be that she is -unknowingly- a goddess. The same goes for Wendis if one ascribes to that theory. Incarnation doesn't necessarily imply that the incarnated god(dess) knows their own nature immediately. If you look at the most famous story of incarnation in the western world, that of Jesus, he still grew up basically acting as a human even in biblical accounts.

murky point, but ginasta tell simon "I decline to share what I have learned of true power." so she had some knowledge of the true power, if she is truly a goddess or her power originate for a deity she will be know that.