Confusion about the god (spoilers)

[alone in the town]

That would imply that it was originally Alessa and later changed to be God. As far as I know, this is not true, but even if it was, it's irrelevant (and how would it be a third alternative, anyway?). Silent Hill 3, and official literature, make it clear that the Incubator is really God.

[SilentWren]

Just to clarify, in case someone missed it:

I personally disagree with you in this case, but if something doesn't sit right with you, then you obviously have a good reason for it.

Can we just discuss the games respectfully instead of trying to play "I'm right, everyone else is wrong?"

At the end of the first game, (which was, consequently, prior to the third game) the player has reason to believe the liw is Alessa. We know differently now, but everyone is going to rationalize things however makes sense for them. We're all supposed to be helping each other out, not insulting each other.

[Tillerman]

^You're very right. My personal opinion is that this is something that was retconned around SH3, but who knows. Even that article that someone posted isn't 100% clear cut. I think there's room for different opinions.

[alone in the town]

Giving and explaining correct answers is how we help.

Can we attempt to refrain from mediating every single dispute that arises on these boards? It's very unnecessary, mostly because this board does employ moderators and that's their job.

[SilentWren]

^And neither of us are moderators, so let's stop. That's the perfect idea. Thanks, dear. *cheers*

My personal opinion is that this is something that was retconned around SH3, but who knows. Even that article that someone posted isn't 100% clear cut. I think there's room for different opinions.

Do you have any idea how much I want to tattoo the bolded portion to some people's foreheads?
After 3 came out it's pretty obvious that it was supposed to be God, but with a series that's constantly changing and retconning, who knows what the future holds?
I'll never understand why some people want such set-in-stone ideas applied to a series as symbolic and deep as this. Certain things are obvious, but others aren't. This fandom can be such a migraine sometimes.

[The Adversary]

Why do people keep writing the series is "constantly changing and retconning"? Can someone please back this up for once?

[SilentWren]

Origins retconned, and Homecoming changed things up a bit.
I don't understand the question, because I know you've played all the games.

[The Adversary]

This is about Silent Hill and Silent Hill 3. "Constantly" implies these changes, these retcons, have been occurring consistently throughout the series' life.

[SilentWren]

^I was talking about the series as a whole right there. Sorry about the confusion on my part.
I think Tillerman was saying that 3 could've been a retcon of certain things from the 1st game, though. (The little details like the subject matter of the thread, anyway.)

[Tillerman]

In this particular case it does feel like a retcon to me. I'm sure they didn't originally plan on doing a sequel, so it could have been that at the time that baby wasn't meant to be carrying a god inside it, but later on when they started planning SH3 they had to do a little retconning. Because quite honestly, the idea that the baby from SH1 was carrying another child of God doesn't really make sense to me regardless of whether it was given to Harry by Alessa or God. The idea of the God, who you just killed, whipping a baby out of thin air seems ludicrous. But that's just me.

[Soulless-Shadow]

Let's for a moment assume it was indeed a retcon. That is still pretty shitty writing. As I mentioned, all through SH1 Alessa's only goal is to kill herself and prevent the birth of God. There's nothing in there to even suggest that for one moment she would reconsider and create a baby for her to continue to live, even if there was a chance at a happy life with a decent parent. She doesn't seem to give a damn about Harry at all either, so it's not about feeling bad about taking Cheryl away from him (he could always get a puppy). The few times he sees her she doesn't seem all that interested in him. More preoccupied than anything else. So, why would Alessa change her mind like that, after working so hard to kill herself? There's nothing in game to even suggest such a thing could happen. Not even a well hidden memo. Such a drastic change in character and motivation should be shown, otherwise that's shitty writing. And it couldn't be an oversight because the story would have passed through so many people, someone would've said "hey, that doesn't make sense. It's stupid." I also assume that the writers would have had to have some form of training in story writing/telling/whateverthehell.

[Tillerman]

^Actually, IMO, it's bad writing for their to be a baby *period*, regardless of where it comes from. Well, perhaps it's a little harsh to call it "bad writing," but let's just say it doesn't make sense.

The only reason there's a baby at the end of SH1 at all is because of sentimentality on the writer's part. Clearly they didn't want a downbeat ending so they through the baby in there to add a little bit of hope. But in reality, Alessa is already dead and Harry has just killed the god. There's no place for that baby to logically come from.

But looking at it from the other point of view, story logic, it makes a certain amount of sense for that baby to come from Alessa. The story begins with Alessa splitting herself into two people, so it's a nice bookend to the story to also have it end with Alessa splitting off a piece of her soul. I'm pretty sure this was what was going through the writer's minds when they wrote it.

If you want to call it bad writing, I have no problem with that... I personally think that even though it is a convoluted story with flaws, it's a good story just for being unique and interesting. I think the story is well written overall.

This has probably been brought up before, but I think it's a little odd... how come everyone always asks whether the lady in white is Alessa / God? For the Alessa option, technically shouldn't it be Alessa/Cheryl, since it is a combination of two people with two different sets of memories? Am I missing something, why does that never get brought up?

[The Adversary]

>Clearly they didn't want a downbeat ending so they through the baby in there to add a little bit of hope.<
Bad ending

[Tillerman]

Bad ending

Yes, exactly. They wanted a good ending and a bad ending. They needed something to make the good ending feel more upbeat. Hence: magic baby.

[Soulless-Shadow]

^Actually, IMO, it's bad writing for their to be a baby *period*, regardless of where it comes from. Well, perhaps it's a little harsh to call it "bad writing," but let's just say it doesn't make sense.

Actually, the baby makes sense, given that God created it to ensure it has another chance of being born. If it were Alessa, the only part that would be bad writing is simply changing her actions and motivations with no character development whatsoever.

The only reason there's a baby at the end of SH1 at all is because of sentimentality on the writer's part.

That's a pretty stupid rationalisation.

Clearly they didn't want a downbeat ending so they through the baby in there to add a little bit of hope.

Or they wanted a cliff hanger on the off chance they decided to make a sequel.

But in reality, Alessa is already dead and Harry has just killed the god. There's no place for that baby to logically come from.

Just because the baby didn't pop out of a logical place doesn't mean it's creation isn't logical in the context of the story (well, as "logical" as a reincarnation made from a dying God's powers can be). There are many things in the series that just seemed to pop into existence with even less reason for existing than the baby.

But looking at it from the other point of view, story logic, it makes a certain amount of sense for that baby to come from Alessa.

You know, no-one ever answers when asked why would Alessa do something so out of character, or why such a change of heart isn't touched upon in the game.

The story begins with Alessa splitting herself into two people, so it's a nice bookend to the story to also have it end with Alessa splitting off a piece of her soul. I'm pretty sure this was what was going through the writer's minds when they wrote it.

And yet, if that sort of ending were on their mind at the time of writing, surely they would have also included something to show the player Alessa's change of heart. I do think we were supposed to draw parallels between Cheryl's creation and the baby at the end, but I don't think they ever intended for it to be Alessa creating/giving the baby. Besides, there are a few major differences between Alessa creating Cheryl, and the God creating the baby.

If you want to call it bad writing, I have no problem with that... I personally think that even though it is a convoluted story with flaws, it's a good story just for being unique and interesting. I think the story is well written overall.

I don't think it was bad writing. I think it's just thick fans who have trouble grasping the simple fact that maybe God was just trying to save its own skin by reincarnating Alessa's full soul in order to give itself another chance at being born. It's only bad writing if it were a retcon, but I don't think it was ever supposed to be Alessa at the end. It was merely trickery.

This has probably been brought up before, but I think it's a little odd... how come everyone always asks whether the lady in white is Alessa / God? For the Alessa option, technically shouldn't it be Alessa/Cheryl, since it is a combination of two people with two different sets of memories? Am I missing something, why does that never get brought up?

It's kind of redundant including Cheryl in the question, considering that she has rejoined with Alessa and has ceased to exist by that point in the game.

I know I'm starting to sound like a broken record, but people seem to have a habit of overlooking things already posted, only to just go on with the whole Alessa is the Woman in White thing.

[Tillerman]

Actually, the baby makes sense, given that God created it to ensure it has another chance of being born. If it were Alessa, the only part that would be bad writing is simply changing her actions and motivations with no character development whatsoever.

I disagree. God should be dead at this point, because you just killed him. And even if he's somehow still alive, but dying, he shouldn't have the power to be creating babies. And even if he *does,* then he should logically be transferring his own soul into them, rather than Alessa's. None of it makes sense.

The only reason there's a baby at the end of SH1 at all is because of sentimentality on the writer's part.

That's a pretty stupid rationalisation.

Would you mind being a little less judgemental? You don't see me calling your ideas stupid. And how is it stupid? It makes sense and it's the way I interpret it.

Or they wanted a cliff hanger on the off chance they decided to make a sequel.

That doesn't make sense to me. If they meant it to come across as a cliffhanger, then they should have hinted at the fact that the baby has god inside it and that this will all happen again. But they gave no indication of that whatsoever.

You know, no-one ever answers when asked why would Alessa do something so out of character, or why such a change of heart isn't touched upon in the game.

I never claimed it wasn't a contradiction, so I don't need to answer. And I don't see you answering why the "lady in white is a ploy of god to trick harry into taking the baby" is not touched upon in SH1 either. There is literally no hint to it whatsoever. That's a big reason why it feels like a retcon.

And yet, if that sort of ending were on their mind at the time of writing, surely they would have also included something to show the player Alessa's change of heart.

I disagree. It's easy for me to understand how a detail like that could go overlooked, considering how convoluted the story is. Also, you're overlooking the fact that if they didn't have SH3 in mind, they may have been thinking that this rebirth of Cheryl is NOT carrying a god, in which case there's no contradiction. The contradiction only arises in light of information from SH3, but if we're simply talking about the writer's intentions with SH1, then...

I think it's just thick fans who have trouble grasping the simple fact that maybe God was just trying to save its own skin by reincarnating Alessa's full soul in order to give itself another chance at being born.

So someone is "thick" if they don't agree with your interpretation of the story? Even though I tend to agree with you that that was their intention (eventually), I don't think it's quite as clear cut as you think it is, even with that article someone posted.

It's kind of redundant including Cheryl in the question, considering that she has rejoined with Alessa and has ceased to exist by that point in the game.

Physically, but did her soul and memories cease to exist?

[SilentWren]

^That first point you made always bothered me as well. As much as I LOOOOOVE this series, there were a few things about that which irked me.
Interestingly enough, you're the only other Silent Hill fan I've run into that feels the same way. Weird.

[The Adversary]

God does it in Silent Hill 3, so . . .

[Soulless-Shadow]

I disagree. God should be dead at this point, because you just killed him.

God was dying. Not quite yet dead, but simply dying after having it's arse kicked. We actually see it dying/die. It's still there after Harry fights it, then fades away/dies.

And even if he's somehow still alive, but dying, he shouldn't have the power to be creating babies. And even if he *does,* then he should logically be transferring his own soul into them, rather than Alessa's. None of it makes sense.

I would imagine it would be pretty hard to reincarnate one's own soul while still alive (because they're still using it). The God might have been able to do that at full power, maybe, but it was dying. It had also just been hit with the Aglaophotis. Also, if Alessa was able to create a baby from nothing, even though she would be no-where near as powerful as a God, then I would expect a God would be able to do the same thing with less than full power.
Besides, if it were so easy for the God to create/recreate itself, then why did it need Alessa to birth it in the first place?

Would you mind being a little less judgemental? You don't see me calling your ideas stupid. And how is it stupid? It makes sense and it's the way I interpret it.

I wasn't being judgemental. I simply think it's stupid to assume someone would screw up their story for sentimentality. The only people I have seen do such a thing are people who know little to nothing about story writing. A good author doesn't allow themselves to be blinded by sentimentality.

That doesn't make sense to me. If they meant it to come across as a cliffhanger, then they should have hinted at the fact that the baby has god inside it and that this will all happen again. But they gave no indication of that whatsoever.

They don't need to show every single little possibility in the endings. Yeah, until SH3 there wasn't anything in-game to suggest the God could return, but that doesn't mean the endings weren't made/presented in a way to leave room for a possible sequel. All of SH2's endings could be considered cliffhangers for a possible sequel if Konami were stupid enough to do such a thing. All SH games have endings that allow for some room to move if they were to add something in later games. They could all be considered cliffhangers.

I never claimed it wasn't a contradiction, so I don't need to answer. And I don't see you answering why the "lady in white is a ploy of god to trick harry into taking the baby" is not touched upon in SH1 either. There is literally no hint to it whatsoever. That's a big reason why it feels like a retcon.

As I recall, Dahlia never refers to the Woman in White as Alessa. In fact, in one ending she even says something along the lines of "It's awake!" once the Woman in White appears. Not "Alessa", but "It". By that stage of the game, when Dahlia (who knows everything) no longer sees fit to hide her true intentions, I'm more inclined to take notice of her than the baby-giving Woman in White calling Harry "Daddy".

I disagree. It's easy for me to understand how a detail like that could go overlooked, considering how convoluted the story is. Also, you're overlooking the fact that if they didn't have SH3 in mind, they may have been thinking that this rebirth of Cheryl is NOT carrying a god, in which case there's no contradiction. The contradiction only arises in light of information from SH3, but if we're simply talking about the writer's intentions with SH1, then...

I think that would be a very important detail to include. As I've mentioned before, surely someone in the team would have thought to maybe add something, even a memo. Perhaps a diary page saying that Alessa doesn't really want to die, but sees no other choice. The story may be convoluted, but I sincerely doubt its own creators/writers wouldn't be able to keep track.

So someone is "thick" if they don't agree with your interpretation of the story?

No, someone is thick when they have all their questions already answered in the very thread they're asking their question in. Even worse is when it is answered on the very same page, or they ask it again after they have already been answered. This seems to happen an awful lot.

Physically, but did her soul and memories cease to exist?

*Silent Hill 3 Spoilers*
Heather mentions memories of her kind or sweet or whatever mother. Seeing as Dahlia is anything but kind/sweet/whatever, people assume she is talking about Mrs. Mason. So yeah, Cheryl's memories are there.

[clips]

I kinda thought we settled this issue in another thread,...but i'm in the same boat with Tillerman....when i first played SH and i saw alessa/god give the baby to Harry, i'm sure most folks thought it was Alessa giving Harry the baby, because of how she can split her soul/essence. The game just gave you that impression that it was her.

I'll leave it at that because i already see the responses to Tillerman's views, but honestly, Alessa giving the baby to Harry makes the most sense, not really god giving the baby to Harry. I too believe they changed certain aspects of the story to streamline the story in prt3. Because i'm sure at the time they finished SH1, they weren't thinking that far ahead about SH3.