Bearded Lady

Fillai·Mar 28, 2017·5 votes·5,415 views

Maybe my statement could be stupid, but I want to ask if I am the only one that can't see Nagakabouros (can't remember how to spell it) as a god, and on top of that, as a good entity, when Illaoi speaks about it I just see some kind of sect and the fact that Nagakabouros is shown as a mass of tentacles which reminds me of Old Gods from World of Warcraft and Illaoi use force to spread her religion (by that I mean pulling out the soul of somebody) doesn't help either... hmm so I just wanted to share this weird thought :)

40 Comments

RiotWAAARGHboboMar 28, 20179 votes

I think good and evil are pretty subjective.
If the only way i can help you is to hurt you... is that evil or good?

I've always thought of Illaoi as someone naturally prone to be altruistic... but serving a religion that does not fit in our traditional norms of good and evil.

patmax17Mar 28, 20172 votes

I was wondering about this today: in terms of D&D alignment, I'd say Nagakabouros is neutral. She doesn't care what you do, as long as you keep moving, and challenging yourself and your beliefs. I guess exploring the good/evil axis would be something she actually pushes for: I'm lux, and i'm "good". How far am I ready to go when I fight for what I believe, or for those I love? Or for Demacia, even? What am I willing to do?

Man, I need to play Dogs in the Vineyard again :D

Warlord DienekesMar 29, 20172 votes

If you're "helping" without the target of your aid wanting your help, like, shown with Gangplank. Yes, you're evil. Especially when your help can straight up kill them.

You're basically Jigsaw from the SAW series, but with magic so things look more clean and less obviously evil.

GreenLoreMar 29, 20174 votes

The thing is that the people who pass her test do improve their life quality,wheras the people who survive jigsaws tests are usually traumatized for life(to put it mildly).

And the way I understand her test is that the people who fail the test,lack the ability to ever overcome their problems.

Warlord DienekesMar 29, 20175 votes

And my response to that is, as ever, so?

They're my problems. Whether I can or can't deal with them is on me. Especially since the bigger problem in most cases is that this crazy zealot is forcing me to undergo a dangerous potentially fatal ritual.

Honestly that people are arguing that this isn't a blatantly evil action is just strange to me. There are things that are beyond good and evil. The concept of death for instance.

But this is not that. This is religious extremism in a strange coat of paint. Who gets to feel a little sorry that they're blatantly setting people up to die.

GreenLoreMar 29, 20173 votes

I'm not saying it is entirely good,it is more of a morally grey zone. I mean if you find someone who has cancer and you have a chance to cure them,but its not enitrely safe would you say it is evil if you try to cure the person anyway?

Though in the end I can understand your standpoint too,i just think that it is more a matter of perspective.

Warlord DienekesMar 29, 20172 votes

Here is the blatantly obvious difference. Cancer will kill you, anyway, being stuck in a rut in an unfulfilled life won't.

If we have to use the cancer example then the cancer is benign. Sure, it's not good to have inside you, but you live. You have your life.

Then a doctor toting some new surgery forces you, without asking, to undergo a dangerous procedure that may kill you instantly on the spot. But if it doesn't it gets rid of that benign cancer.

That is blatantly evil, not to mention drasticly against hospital codes of conduct. That's what I don't get. How are we arguing this morally grey? This is horrifying.

GreenLoreMar 29, 20173 votes

So what if the parents of a child decide to give their child such a treatment despite the child not wanting it? Is that evil as well?

Now you might argue "well the child isn't experienced enough to be a proper judge for that",but then I'd ask how a parent could be considered a better judge than a god?

Warlord DienekesMar 29, 20173 votes

If the cancer was benign and they got their kid killed? I'd call them stupid, probably more than evil. A one time offense or risk.

If the parents did this with a bunch of other people's kids? I'd call them evil.

And I can say, fuck the god. If Nagakaborous is all knowing, good for fucking him. I still have my free will and I'm going to remain free until I die you overgrown squid.

RiotWAAARGHboboMar 31, 20173 votes

You are defining your "life" narrowly. And assume you conciousness is more important than anything else.

By your own analogy what if the parents could put there child in a new body, free of cancer and pain? Although they would never see their child again? (In this lifetime). Kow it becomes grey.

Illaoi exists not in our world but in one where magic, reincarnation, and afterlife is an empirical truth. Ultimately I would argue the dread of death in our world is the suspicion that this is it-- that existance is finite. But that is not the case for Illaoi.

Warlord DienekesMar 31, 20173 votes

Alright, so if we can't judge Illaoi by killing people, because of reincarnation. Then, what is the basis of all moral judgment? Is Jhin excused, because after all, his victims are going to be reincarnated, right? And besides, he's creating art. What is the life of one, what was she? A random servant woman? When compared to his art? His art is most definitely more unique, more original. The servant woman probably wasn't even in motion. We should be thanking Jhin for freeing this poor soul so she can be reincarnated, and hopefully in the next life she will be worth a damn and actually make something of herself.

But we don't think that. We think of Jhin as mass-murdering sociopath. But, at it's core, his dedication to art is not so different to Illaoi's dedication to motion. They're both forcing their views of the world upon others and killing them in the process.

I would also argue, that I am not assuming my consciousness is more important than anything else. I'm assuming that everyone's consciousness is as important as anyone else's, and it is wrong to inflict your conscious over theirs.

Anyway, if we are going to seriously claim that because reincarnation murder isn't bad, then this applies to everyone in the LoL roster.

Chromatic EagleMar 31, 20171 votes

Well, over half of the roster are killers. Granted, several are soldiers.

Chromatic EagleMar 31, 20172 votes

Well, the problem here is free will vs. a chance at a better life. What if the child would rather stay with their parents, even if it meant struggling?

If Illaoi at least asked people, while warning them, it would make her look more heroic imo. Forcing people knowing that failure equals death puts her at best in a dark shade of grey.

N KomaedaMar 30, 20172 votes

What if we assume that Illaoi's test "scales" with the raw will of the one "taking" the test? Look at Gangplank. He had quite a harsh test, especially with his state at the time. But what if Nagakabouros is like: You will be tested for your caliber. If you can withstand your caliber, you are worth it.

This would fit in Illaoi's (and for that matter, Nagakabouros') way of thinking, that everyone is in motion. Everyone is in their own motion if you look at it, and their motion should not be interrupted. If your purpose in life is to be a fanatical murderer who quote on quote makes art, but you god damn do it (Looking at you, Jhin), aren't you in motion?

Warlord DienekesMar 30, 20173 votes

So, if I have what you're saying right (and please correct me if I'm wrong) Illaoi's test would be fatal when performed upon someone with potential for greatness, such as Gangplank, or any other champion, really. While if some random peasant named Wat the Dungfarmer should fail the test they would instead, have something less disastrous happen to them. Maybe they feel as though a fatherly hand is smacking them on the back of the head, telling them to make something of their life?

And while that's less evil, I suppose, it doesn't actually solve the problems with Illaoi's test that I think make it an evil act. Primarily, she performs it upon the unwilling. She is taking an active role in putting persons into mortal danger against their will, even if with this new caveat there would likely be less people who would die because of it. And ultimately, it's largely impossible to know what potential a person actually has. Take Gangplank, he could have been born some poor scully rat in Bilgewater, or he could have been born the son of the wealthiest man in town. I don't actually know, probably somewhere in between. If Illaoi's test was given to him before he was Captain Gangplank, most feared pirate in Runeterra, is his potential and danger of the test the same, or is it scaled down because he isn't at his potential yet? It just gets very strange.

It also isn't really represented in the Illaoi story in any way though. The punishment for failure being death seemed pretty firm according to Illaoi's inner monologue.

RiotWAAARGHboboMar 30, 20175 votes

Illaoi (because of her faith) is aware she only has so much time in this life. So she has to work as efficiently as she can. Why would she test some peasant? (esp if he is obviously going to fail) Wouldn't it just be easier to force him to change is life? Or let a lesser priest/priestess deal with it?

You are correct, she is testing Gangplank because he has the potential for greatness-- i.e. His choices have the potential to change a lot of people's lives and the state of the world.

Braum (as our prime example of someone she doesn't even need to test) is an autopass because he is actively seeking to cause change and is aligned with his destiny. Braum is probably not as important for the future of the Freljord as Ashe or Lissy-- but he is following what his heart tells him to do.

Let's look at her job from Illaoi's perspective. Death is inevitable and part of the design of the universe. But life is not the end. Afterlife and reincarnation exist. Also what you think is "you" is actually an illusion and tiny fragment of something larger. (These are her truths-- it's not subjective for her)

Now this "life" was given to you by Nagakabouros to serve (in a small way) its plan. Failure to live your life to its potential is a type of spiritual pain for you, slows the universe's progress, and fails her god. Though killing you hurts your family and loved ones... How important is your life vs your failed potential? (As killing you returns that potential someplace else)

It is a harsh reality she serves. It forces her to make harsh choices.

Warlord DienekesMar 30, 20174 votes

This is the same justification for every violent zealot. Do we give a free pass to Arnaud Amalric or Robespierre for either actively killing or setting people up to die just because their belief system justified it? No. We usually know of Abbot Analric as the cause of a pointless massacre and vile man while Robespierre is blaimed for every innocent during his reign of terror.

Just because your religion (or lack thereof) somehow justifies murder doesn't change the value of the original life. The action is still that a person that was forced against their will into a life or death situation because of a religious zealot. That's evil. Now it's fine if the zealot thinks she's doing good. What kind of zealot would she be if she didn't?

But we are not restricted by her view of the world and look at what she's doing. And what she's doing is straight sickening.

N KomaedaMar 31, 20171 votes

Say, Nagakabouros is the god of the Universe. With power that big, intervening would have... Catastrophic results. This is why Nagakabouros probably has priests and priestesses: To enact her (their? his?) will.

If the way of life according to Nagakabouros is to follow and live up to your potential, wouldn't it make sense for that to be monitored, namely by said priests and priestesses? If, for example, you had the potential to be a professional writer, but you're dozing off and kind of becoming a supermarkt employee, yet others know this potential is in you, they would do anything to show you. In Illaoi's and Nagakabouros' way, that is to show them through the Test of Spirit. I don't think that, for example, Illaoi would need to test Jhin, because he'd be right on his merry way to follow his purpose: Killing. However, what if Dr. Mundo were to be able to be a great scientist, but ended up the way he is now? That would not be according to the scheme of the Universe. Thus, Illaoi needs to smack some sense in him that he might as well die by her hand if he does not live up to his potential.

At least, that's what I think.

Warlord DienekesMar 31, 20175 votes

But the thing is, assuming your point is correct, she would test Jhin, and he would pass. Not because of his inner good or evil, but because he is following his purpose: killing people.

And that's what we see happen in her own story. She is given a freaking terrifying psychopath. A mass murdering torturer, who has held onto power in his city with an iron fist. Everywhere he goes he brings death and destruction. He is damn evil, he makes a great villain.

He passes the test. He is free to go on to be just as evil and vile as he was before. So, from a moral standpoint, the results of the test are neither good nor evil. It's just change.

So with the results being a wash we instead look at the implementations of the test. This is where it fails. Because that supermarket employee who could be a great writer? It's ultimately his choice to be a supermarket employee or not. That's on him. That's his life. Now if he chose to undergo the trial to unlock the conviction to go on to be a great writer. That's something, else. That's him taking the initiative of his life. Good on him.

But that's not how Illaoi works. She forces people to undergo this test. And if that supermarket employee, who has done nothing morally wrong, should fail this test. He dies. The world doesn't gain this great writer, in fact the world is strictly at a loss because after all we do actually need supermarket employees. That's where it's evil.

Now, what Nagakaborous is doing, is saying, according to him, good and evil the concepts do not matter. All that matters is motion. Motion can be positive or negative in outcomes, but that's not in itself good or evil. In the same way a hurricane is the motion of current and wind, and while it can be destructive, it can also bring much needed rain. The hurricane is not good or evil, because it's mindless.

But, if Nagakaborous is not mindless. If Illaoi's actions are all based on the actual will of Nagakaborous, then we, as thinking, feeling, individuals can judge him/her/it/they. We judge him by the standards of our own life, on the precepts of what is good or evil. Now, of course, there are arguments over what constitutes good and evil. Because we are, all of us, individuals with our own opinions.

But, I would look at the methods by which the test is administered, and you can tell me if you think this is in any way moral.

-The test is given without the participants permission or desire. -The test is potentially fatal. -Those that die do not do so because of any grand moral failing, on the contrary mass murderers can pass to go on their merry way mass murdering. It only judges whether you are "in motion" or not. -What is or is not "in motion" is vague and poorly defined.

Those conditions are inexcusable, from a good/evil moral standpoint. Which makes sense. The test is not about good and evil, it is about motion. But just because something is not about good and evil, does not mean it cannot be judged as good or evil.

Since he's already brought up. Jhin. Jhin, much like Illaoi, is dedicated to what he views as his purpose. His purpose is not to promote motion, it is to create art out of dead people. According to Jhin, this is an acceptable thing to do, maybe because he sees his art as beneficial to society. Maybe because he sees his art as a rejection of conventional morality. Maybe he hasn't actually thought of it in any way. Regardless, in his mind people dying for art is his purpose.

So, because this view of life and death and what a person is worth is not tied to the good/evil dichotomy, does this mean we cannot judge him by his methods?

I would say no. We most certainly can. He is a mass-murdering sociopath, whether he thinks his art is more important than the lives of those he kills is irrelevant. He's still killing them.

And whether Illaoi thinks the lives of those who die by the Trial were worthless or not, it doesn't matter. She's still killing them. (Or more precisely, setting them up to die)

N KomaedaMar 31, 20172 votes

[{quoted}](name=Warlord Dienekes,realm=NA,application-id=6kFXY1kR,discussion-id=8XAaiZoF,comment-id=0002000100000000000100000000000000000000,timestamp=2017-03-31T07:52:26.119+0000) He passes the test. He is free to go on to be just as evil and vile as he was before. So, from a moral standpoint, the results of the test are neither good nor evil. It's just change.

Because Jhin passes the test, he is following his potential, he doesn't change. All that happens is that Illaoi confirms for herself, Nagakabouros and for Jhin that he is in his own motion.

Because that supermarket employee who could be a great writer? It's ultimately his choice to be a supermarket employee or not. That's on him. That's his life. Now if he chose to undergo the trial to unlock the conviction to go on to be a great writer. That's something, else. That's him taking the initiative of his life. Good on him.

Remember that Illaoi forces people to take the trial. The complete point of her trial is to show people their potential, if I am correct. The goal of Nagakabouros is for everyone to live his or her life like Nagakabouros intended it to. If they don't... They're basically defying the will of a God, which will not turn out that well.

But that's not how Illaoi works. She forces people to undergo this test. And if that supermarket employee, who has done nothing morally wrong, should fail this test. He dies. The world doesn't gain this great writer, in fact the world is strictly at a loss because after all we do actually need supermarket employees. That's where it's evil.

You remembered! Thanks for doing that, that'll make everything a whole lot easier. And for this statement, it is very much arguable that said employee's death doesn't mean the world lost a writer; We lost a supermarket employee with the potential of becoming one. However, he didn't take this potential for granted, so what's there to lose for the world?

But, I would look at the methods by which the test is administered, and you can tell me if you think this is in any way moral. -The test is given without the participants permission or desire. -The test is potentially fatal. -Those that die do not do so because of any grand moral failing, on the contrary mass murderers can pass to go on their merry way mass murdering. It only judges whether you are "in motion" or not. -What is or is not "in motion" is vague and poorly defined.

I never said the test was moral or immoral. However, it is most certainly an interesting topic to talk about, so I'll definitely respond to it.

The first point is all about will. If someone is not willing to go extra miles to reach his or her potential, it's a waste of life in the eyes of Nagakabouros (At least, that's how I interpret it). The Test of Spirit tests their will to live and reach higher stakes, does it not?
The second point... If you don't have the will to reach higher, what's the point in life for you? People's main goal is to evolve over time, as does any creature. If you're not willing to advance, you can hold others back, which creates a loop that is against the will of evolution, adaptation and advancement. Might as well clear those rotten oranges out, no?
Let us presume motion is potential. If you're in motion, you're living up to your potential, A.k.a. What Nagakabouros wants. If you are not in motion, you're not doing what you can do with your life.
Your last point is interesting, because there is tiny evidence scattered around her quotes. For example, look at who she calls "in motion" or who she likes (probably because they do what they are supposed to do): Ashe, Braum, Gragas, Sejuani, Darius, Gangplank, Graves, Jinx and Vi. All these people do something which they're good at, can enjoy and can still improve at. Darius, for example, is a military soldier who strives for improvement, does he not? Isn't that what potential could also be described as?

Since he's already brought up. Jhin. Jhin, much like Illaoi, is dedicated to what he views as his purpose. His purpose is not to promote motion, it is to create art out of dead people. According to Jhin, this is an acceptable thing to do, maybe because he sees his art as beneficial to society. Maybe because he sees his art as a rejection of conventional morality. Maybe he hasn't actually thought of it in any way. Regardless, in his mind people dying for art is his purpose.

Jhin'd be in motion, because he does what he's supposed to do. He sees this right in his mind. Maybe Nagakabouros was like: "Some humans need to inspire fear in others, to, again, strive for defeating their fears and improving.", and then serial killers, soldiers, tyrants etc came to existence. Fear is a mighty driving, but it's also one of the best things to overcome.

So, because this view of life and death and what a person is worth is not tied to the good/evil dichotomy, does this mean we cannot judge him by his methods? I would say no. We most certainly can. He is a mass-murdering sociopath, whether he thinks his art is more important than the lives of those he kills is irrelevant. He's still killing them. And whether Illaoi thinks the lives of those who die by the Trial were worthless or not, it doesn't matter. She's still killing them. (Or more precisely, setting them up to die)

I'm gonna make a bold statement here (Heheheheheheheh...): Illaoi is not killing them, they are killing themselves in the trial. Why do I say this? It's kinda simple. They are not reaching their potential, striving for huge improvement etc. They are only doing what they could easily do. They are neglecting their potential. To be honest, every human neglects their potential, because if they didn't, we would have had such a greater world, but that's none of my business.

Anyway, the test with Gangplank was still very much doable for him, because when people are at Death's Door, they are capable of doing things greater than ever. Maybe Illaoi wants to show people their potential in the face of death? Wouldn't that be a plausible possibility?

The Anagram KingMar 31, 20173 votes

The second point... If you don't have the will to reach higher, what's the point in life for you? People's main goal is to evolve over time, as does any creature. If you're not willing to advance, you can hold others back, which creates a loop that is against the will of evolution, adaptation and advancement. Might as well clear those rotten oranges out, no?

I mean, define "Higher". Depending on your personality type, the very best possible situation you can visualise being in might consist entirely of you sitting in a dark room with all of your needs taken care of for the rest of your life. In fact - throw in a few fun diversions every month or so. Because even someone who enjoys isolation might get bored.

Pursuing 'potential' doesn't necessarily imply a larger impact on society. Nor is it necessarily in each person's interest. The greatest writer in the modern world may simply not enjoy writing - either in long stints, or altogether. To force them to pursue writing to sate your (or, more to the point, a god's) notions of worth is to bring up the 'free will VS responsibility' argument.

Say I'm the best baskerball player in history. The only missing piece is the 10 years of prerequisite game experience. What if I hate basketball? What if I loathe the people I'm forced to interact with? What if I deal with crushing anxiety and a resentment for myself, struggle to sleep and fail to connect with another human being for the rest of my life? Alternatively, what if I rather enjoy drawing very crummy cartoons featuring jokes and dialogue only a small cluster of friends find entertaining? What if I can doll out a modest living in this way?

What if I would be EXECUTED for wasting my life on drawings instead of spending the last decade of my life (before my inevitable stress-induced suicide) on basketball? :P

RiotWAAARGHboboMar 31, 20173 votes

[{quoted}](name=The Anagram King,realm=NA,application-id=6kFXY1kR,discussion-id=8XAaiZoF,comment-id=000200010000000000010000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2017-03-31T15:57:48.121+0000)

Say I'm the best baskerball player in history. The only missing piece is the 10 years of prerequisite game experience. What if I hate basketball? What if I loathe the people I'm forced to interact with? What if I deal with crushing anxiety and a resentment for myself, struggle to sleep and fail to connect with another human being for the rest of my life?

If it truly is not something you want to do, and you are incapable of acquiring the life skills for this pursuit.... Then how was that potential you had?...

What you described is a person with limited potential-- not someone Illaoi would bother with. (That person is not going to change the world) But this is someone other priests in her faith might help realize they should focus on drawing comics and stop deluding themselves with the idea that they had potential to be a great basketball player. And push this person to instead focus all of their will on taking their art to the limits of their actual ability.

The "test" assumes everyone is eventually drawn towards a pursuit. That could be anything, raising a family, playing basketball, art, or creating a new nation. It assumes you are either chasing that goal or you aren't. If you don't love something-- it probably isn't for you-- and thus not something you should be pursuing. Find something else.

Her faith proposes that you must find something in your life worth pursuing and it states you must overcome fear, lethargy, and self-doubt. They are the enemies of what you love. They are the enemies of a fulfilling life. However small or big, you have a destiny-- and you owe to the universe to find it... and then to chase it.

The Anagram KingApr 1, 20171 votes

Actually - what I described was someone who is quite capable of becoming the best in the world, based on pure potential, but has yet to even scrape their capacity for basketball-ism.

Illaoi (and her god) test people. Those people can fail the test. This implies that niether she nor her god resemble anything akin to omniscience - they don't have to know the basketball player will eventually be driven to suicide, should they pursue their talent.

But, in this instance, they know the basketball player is littered with potential.

And if (s)he doesn't live up to it - if they doubt themselves, or dislike their duty to go 80 miles per hour (motion isn't well defined, but I'm TRYING!), then death is as good a result, as any.

It's a very flawed system - and implies that consequence and motivation are both entirely irrelevant. It is an active pursuit of making others fit Illaoi(or her God)'s view of what constitutes morality.

It's not a grey moral stance, I don't think. Factoring in that reincarnation is awesome and none of this matters, they are - at best - peer pressuring and enabling. At worst - bullying and tormenting.

It'd be easier if there was a success to failure quota, for the people tested. On paper, it just sounds like they're going around messing with people who don't like the things they like. :P

RiotWAAARGHboboApr 1, 20172 votes

[{quoted}](name=The Anagram King,realm=NA,application-id=6kFXY1kR,discussion-id=8XAaiZoF,comment-id=00020001000000000001000000000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2017-04-01T02:04:56.083+0000)

Actually - what I described was someone who is quite capable of becoming the best in the world, based on pure potential, but has yet to even scrape their capacity for basketball-ism.

This is a fundamental difference in our viewpoints.

I don't think the person you are describing has ANY potential in basketball.
--and you made an elliptical argument here-- because you've provided no reason this person has any true potential in this sphere.
Let's assume you meant he's 7'10" with great reflexes. That still means nothing-- he has no inclination to pursue that goal and no interest in what it involves. And thus he is very unlikely to "advance" the game of basketball in any meaningful way. Worse, he was never going to have the motivation to do this-- so it's not wasted potential-- he's just tall.

Your second point ignores the goal for the test and reason for the test.
You assume the test is for Nagakabouros or Illaoi to learn something? Incorrect.
It is for the testee. The right answer is not your potential at a thing-- based on being born 7'10." The test is about your potential to give your own life meaning.

The Anagram KingApr 2, 20172 votes

You can't just flat-out deny a premise. :P

(S)he IS the best basketball player in history. That's the basis for the rest of the hypothetical situation. Thinking otherwise nullifies the basis for the hypothetical situation. People look at the player and think: "WOW! They're amazing!" But the player doesn't care for the game, nor do they care for the people around them. And so, 10 years from now, perhaps they will have changed the world in some way of undefined significance. But they'll be driven to an early grave in the process. After a life of emotional despair.

Illaoi looks at gangplank and considers him broken. A husk.

She would look at this player in the same way.

Illaoi "So what're you gonna do, then?" (Basketball Player): "Iunno. Maybe I'll find some part time job. What does it matter?"

#TENTACLES

Remember, this is a thread about the ethical implications of what she does - or what her God does through her. I'm simply making the case that pressuring people with violence (and the threat of death) is not a morally gray zone. Least of all to the ends that we're shown they lead to.

I'm not making a case for the goals of Illaoi or her god. I don't think I accidentally implied that their goal is to learn, either. I mean, they barely even seem to care about the results of their test. Once it's done, it's done.

(DICLAIMER: I edited this like 7 times, but am done now)

N KomaedaMar 31, 20171 votes

Higher, in this case, is your own potential. If you only see yourself in said dark room, but there is potential, you are not in motion. Of course, I myself as an isolationist can enjoy silence, but that aside, if you are not living up to your potential, you might as well die in the eyes of Nagakabouros. It gave you the gift of life and advancement, and you do jack shit with it. That would never satisfy a god like it.

The Anagram KingApr 1, 20171 votes

Motion includes reaching that dark room. If your life revolves around achieving a state of pure entropy, that is a state of motion. If entropy is the end goal, then entropy, too, could be considered a state of motion. But the second one is less likely to agree with Illaoi's principles, than the first.

I think Ill would support you finding the dark room, but then, subsequently threaten you with fatal tests for staying there. :P

Chromatic EagleMar 31, 20172 votes

Just curious, but what do you think of Viktor? I feel as if their methods and motives are similar.

Warlord DienekesMar 31, 20171 votes

Perfectly honest, I don't really care about magi-tech, just in general. So I haven't even read his new lore, because basically all of Zaun/Piltover is about magi-tech.

My understanding of the character just through osmosis, is that he's a pretty standard well-intentioned extremist. He believes that he is trying to fix the world, personally I think his "glorious revolution" is fundamentally flawed since emotion and free will is the major reason why life is even remotely interesting and worth living. Whether I'd write him off as a good character with a flawed premise or an evil character who believes he's good is whether or not the people he upgrades did so on their own free will and were completely aware of the consequences of their choice.

The Anagram KingMar 31, 20172 votes

Viktor doesn't force people into situations where they'll die, just to prod them into being active. Vik takes on volunteers or the fatally ill, else apparently focuses on inventing new tech or upgrading himself. In relative isolation, I might add.

He's a recluse who makes machines. Not a religious fanatic seeking out confrontation. Though the cult that worships him is another story, entirely.

Umbral RegentMar 31, 20171 votes

You seem to be just as zealous as Illaoi. 'Cept, Illaoi's problem is that her religion requires some extremely harsh stuff - your problem is that you can't seem to see it objectively, and only see it as "murder with religious reinforcement."

Illaoi doesn't just test heroes, she tests any person destined for greatness and power, no matter their alignment; look at Gangplank. Look at Gangplank, seriously. That guy is the definition of a villain - his first color story we saw in the Bilgewater update had him carving scrimshaw in the open leg of a living goddamn person, while he was conscious. And he is the example of a person destined for greatness, that would justify Illaoi calling down the test of Nagakabouros on him.

Is it objectively evil that she forces great but stagnating people to undergo her God's test, especially when not all great people are good people? If you're going to see things exclusively through black and white, would she not actually be doing a good thing by potentially killing such dangerous villains as Gangplank?

Or, are you only restricted to your view of the world, and can't fathom positive aspects of a (in your opinion) overtly negative act?

Warlord DienekesMar 31, 20172 votes

Fortunately my zealotry doesn't get anyone killed. Since we're comparing the two.

Though, personally, I don't see how your argument is actually helping the position that Illaoi isn't evil. Since her test actively persuaded an already evil person, Gangplank, to go become an even more ruthless pirate and try to win back his crown. Notice, there was no moral here. He was not told that, killing people was bad. That carving a scrimshaw out of a living person's leg was generally frowned upon. No, he was told that he grew relaxed in victory and should go back out there and become king of the pirates.

Because, ultimately, the religion presented by Nagakabourus wasn't interested in whether the people were good or evil, they just pushed them to keep going.

Now, do I think good things can come from a bad or evil situation? Of course, it'd be stupid to deny otherwise. If you pardon the internet cliche, would Oskar Schindler have reached his potential in saving people if there was not a Holocaust to save them from? No. Of course he wouldn't. But that doesn't suddenly make the Holocaust not a despicably evil event.

Now as to this:

Is it objectively evil that she forces great but stagnating people to undergo her God's test, especially when not all great people are good people?

Yes. And this is the part where this argument gets so confusing for me. There are a myriad of reasons why forcing people, great or small, good or evil, to undergo a potentially life threatening event because your religion told you it was good to do it.

Just read that line. From a moral standpoint that is blatantly horrifying. Can something good come from it? Sure. People react to psychological trauma in various ways, some use that motivation to do great things. To use a personal example (I know, I know, you really shouldn't), I happen to know a woman who was raped. She now dedicates a large portion of her time and energy to helping rape victims. I can pretty firmly say, she has done more good for the world after her suffering. That does not somehow make the actions of the rapist any less than the vile actions they are.

And that's what Illaoi's doing. It's not as blatantly obvious as a rapist, of course. But she is taking people, against their will, and forcing them to undergo a potentially fatal trial. During this trial they are not judged by if they are a good person, or a bad person. It is not somehow designed to make the world a better, more noble place. The only criteria is if you will be "in motion." Whatever that may be. It can push that one scientist to discover the cure for cancer. Or, as we see, it can push that one former tyrant to go back and become an even bigger and more dangerous tyrant. It makes no difference to the test.

So, not only is the process itself vile, but it does not even push toward a better world. I don't see how there is ambiguity in this, that's pretty evil.

Umbral RegentMar 31, 20171 votes

The ambiguity is that there's no way to make the world better, and no way to make the world worse. There'll be heroes, there'll be villains, there'll be people who want to watch everything fall to cinders, or people who want to uplift the downtrodden - but they don't make the world a better or worse place. They are facts of life, and that brutal nature of it is exactly the core of Illaoi's test.

It's like a crude distillation of "everything happens for a reason, it is all in God's plan". The most cutthroat people like Gangplank are meant to be cutthroat - hell, look at Bilgewater during the Harrowing soon after Miss Fortune took over. Gangplank held the entire city in check through fear, and now that the Pirate King is dead, the whole bottle of bullshit that was Bilgewater is uncorked. (which, also makes me technically wrong in saying Gangplank is a villain - he's more of a very, very evil antihero, in this respect.)

There's a good and a bad side to everything, and even if Illaoi's Tests do go against a person's free will - it's not objectively bad. Heroes and villains alike could die, but their feats become ever-more amazing should they survive. And, true enough to relate it to a rape victim helping other victims - but, that just reinforces the distillation of Nagakabouros' "plan" mentioned above - from the terrible person who gave into his baser urges to the woman who helps those who suffer the same pain, in the most brutal, painful core of it: They both exist for a reason beyond our knowledge.

To try and make the world a better, more noble place would be a fool's errand, and Illaoi knows it. There cannot be the order of Ionia or Demacia without the chaos of the Freljord or Bilgewater. Her job is simply to ensure that paragons of either side are always sowing their brand of either.

I suppose I'm either more accepting of the worst of human nature, or - and this is probably the biggest thing for me on this subject - this is religious lore for a character in a game about powerful people in a fictional world brawling each other. I'm likely keeping it detached from my own worldviews.

Warlord DienekesMar 31, 20171 votes

But to try and make the world better, even though it's a fool's errand. Even though the task will ultimately be futile, even though a thousand things can go wrong. That is being good. That is the very concept of goodness.

But she doesn't do that. She is as you say, just set on keeping the world in motion, on ensuring that the cogs of heroes and villains keep turning. On that score, she'd be neutral, if that was all she did.

But, it's not all she does. And in her process to keep the endless motion, she kills people. Potentially innocent people. That's evil. It's evil, in order to attempt to enforce an universal average neutrality. Which as far as evil characters go, I gotta say, that's unique. Honestly, I know it doesn't sound like it because I keep pointing out how Illaoi is evil. But I actually like Illaoi as a character. She is fascinating. I have never seen evil dealt out with this motivation before. Really, A+ work there, Riot.

That doesn't change that she's performing evil actions though. That doesn't erase her murders, just because she is very interesting.

N KomaedaMar 31, 20171 votes

You summed up what I had in thought really well, thanks!

So basically, Illaoi is there to test if someone lives as they were intended to live by Nagakabouros, mostly in motion. I am, however, extremely curious about one little thing; How did Illaoi and Nagakabouros fit so well? I mean, in this perspective, it was her goal from the second she was born. But... What would have happened if Illaoi, the current one to test one's will and spirit, didn't live up to her potential as a Priestess?

Also, one more question; Is Illaoi the only Kraken Priestess from her caliber or are there same or higher priest(ess)' in class? You confirmed that there are lesser ones, but is she the head of the "Church of ~~the Flying Spaghetti Monster~~ Nagakabouros"?

LordHippomanMar 28, 20178 votes

Nagakabouros and Illaoi are both not really necessarily good.

All she gives a damn about is "Motion", things must constantly be changing and evolving. That's why she liked Gangplank when he was climbing his way to the top of Bilgewater, but didn't care about him when he became the Pirate King and got settled in it. He stopped creating "motion", and may have even hindered it. In her color text, when he comes back to ask for her help after being destroyed by MF's plots, she sees that he's back into it and allies herself with him once again.

The Test of Nagakabouros isn't really spreading her religion either. It's her way of testing if someone is capable of "motion". If their soul is strong enough to survive it, they're likely to cause it, regardless of if they're worshippers or not. If they aren't, well, they weren't going to do anything anyway, it's not a huge loss. She's a hedonist, valuing pleasure and ambition. Morality is pretty secondary.

At least, that's what she SHOULD be according to Nagakabouros. You can see a little of her sympathetic side when she worries if Gangplank will survive the test. She's still human, and seems like she has good intentions most of the time.

moogle890Mar 30, 20175 votes

Illaoi : "Good? Evil? Why should we care for such things?"

Chembaron YamadaMar 28, 20174 votes

There is the quote from aurelion sol for her saying "You do not understand your god, Illaoi". Always had the vibe for me that illaoi thinks nagakaborous is about life and passion... but that is actually not true.

the crystal gemsMar 30, 20171 votes

I remember on a thread where one of the rioters who worked on Illoai's lore responded to that quote from him saying(something along these lines):

"He's the beetle calling the ant small"

which implies he doesn't really know all that much more than she does lol

KotexApr 2, 20172 votes

Illaoi is someone that i've also thought about in that her philosophy makes sense to me. The actions of one should create a reaction in all--be it a good action or an evil one. Judging a person by the karma of their actions doesn't matter if those actions are negligible. Things and people are to simply means to an end to realize your goal. Just like her Eye of God. Stepping on it and hitting people with it might appear disrespectful, but it is nothing more than a tool to be used. If she has to step on it, or hit people with it to make a statement, it is serving it's purpose. The same is for good and evil actions. They are tools to use for what you want and what you dont. Motion is not good or evil, it is change, action and and desire. I really like how Hippoman put it saying if you are strong enough to survive motion, you are strong enough to cause it. Illaoi "Without change, something sleeps inside us, and seldom awakens"

If a good man survives an evil mans actions, that will (or should) strengthen him to change them, like a good man's actions will require an evil man to be strong enough to disrupt them. It is a cycle that keeps the world moving, changing, growing and thats what's truly important to her religion and the betterment of the world as a whole.

Even if people view her to be an evil entity, what matters is what they do about it. If they don't like her or her views it would be their motion to destroy her. As it would be her motion to defend her convictions and destroy them. Both actions keep her strong, and require those who wish to oppose her to grow strong enough to be able to. It reminds me alot of the Closed Fist philosophy from the xbox game Jade Empire. That philosophy was if you want something, earn it, or take it using your strength and disregard for those who are not strong enough to help you or themselves. She talks about using your strength to take what you want and destroy would you detest, not out of good or evil, but simply because doing so will create motion and move people to comply or resist, but they can only truly make a stand in compliance or resistance if they are both physically and mentally strong enough to do so.

As for Nagakaborous specifically she also talks about what her god truly stands for. Illaoi "My god is not love, it is a kick in the pants." "Many gods ask for worship. They are weak gods." "There are kind and gentle gods..... Mine isn't one of those." To highlight a few instances where she mentions how Nagakaborous operates. They are not a good entity but they aren't one of evil, but that still leaves their actions and influence up to perception and interpretation to those they affect. If nagakaborous affected someone in a negative way, theyll perceive it to be an evil god. If nagakaborous affected them positively then theyll be thought of as good. Nagakaborous is neither and it's purpose is not to BE either. It's purpose is to make you move. If it needs to be perceived as good or evil in order to move people thats just a benefit.

Illaoi "Names don't matter. Action does."