Confusion about the god (spoilers)

[alone in the town]

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

Someone is "thick" when official literature states that Incubator is a form of God, explains why Incubator is a form of God and why it takes on the appearance it does, and a person essentially says "fuck what those stupid creators of the game think, I'm a special snowflake and I have the right to my own own opinions!!!!"

Even if that involved changing something in order to make it fit the third game, that does nothing to make what is canon anything but canon. If, at any point, the developers really did intend for it to be Alessa handing out free clones of herself because of a sudden case of the smiles (and there's no indication that this was their intent), Silent Hill 3 unequivocally invalidates this concept.

You guys are just disagreeing to disagree, I think. It's like someone defeated DamienPales in combat and his response was to get revenge on everybody by cloning himself.

[Soulless-Shadow]

I kinda thought we settled this issue in another thread,...but i'm in the same boat with Tillerman....

It was. I think it was the thread about what Heather saw at the end of SH3.

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 used to think the same thing, but then what has already been posted was explained to me. I gave it some thought, and realized that it really did make the most sense for it to have all been trickery.

[Tillerman]

I would imagine it would be pretty hard to reincarnate one's own soul while still alive (because they're still using it).

Why would you imagine that? There's no reason to think it would be easy or hard. It depends on the rules of whatever piece of fiction we are reading, for example if this was "The Hidden" god could be jumping between bodies repeatedly. Of course Silent Hill isn't The Hidden, but it is a story where Alessa can split her own soul and put it inside someone else. And you find it hard to believe that god couldn't do something similar, but yet find it easy to believe that he can reincarnate someone from the dead while he himself is dying?

Actually, it's pretty ridiculous to think that he would still have the power to reincarnate someone while dying... if he still has that much power over life and death, then why in the world is he dying from gunshot wounds? How can that possibly make sense?

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.

Quite frankly, it doesn't make sense for either of them to do it.

I wasn't being judgemental. I simply think it's stupid to assume someone would screw up their story for sentimentality.

It's your point of view that they were "screwing up the story." It's presumptuous of you to assume that they share your point of view. Furthermore, if I am right that it's a ret-con, and that the original intention was that that baby was *not* another vessel of god, then they aren't even "screwing up the story" in the way you say they are.

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.

The story is neatly wrapped up at the end of the game, so by definition it is not a cliffhanger. Cliffhanger doesn not mean "room left open for a sequel."

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"

That seems pretty flimsy to me. Maybe that's a clue as to what the game's writers were thinking, maybe not. Hard to say.

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.

I disagree. Why would they leave a memo explaining the obvious? The game quite clearly portrays it as though Alessa is giving you the baby, it's the alternate explanation that needed a memo.

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.

Well, first of all I'm not asking those questions. In fact, I'm on the same page with you that the developers *seem* to agree that it was god and not Alessa who gave Harry the baby. What *I'm* saying is that explanation doesn't make sense either, regardless of their intentions, and furthermore that I think they originally intended for it to be Alessa and then retconned it later.

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.

Okay, then in the "Alessa" theory, it's not actually just Alessa giving that baby to Harry, it is the Alessa/Cheryl combo. So an interesting question is, even if the action of Alessa giving the baby to Harry is a conflict with her motivations, is it also a conflict of Cheryl's? Could Cheryl's sentimentality for her Dad be taking over here? Or, is it just Cheryl's will that she be given back to Harry? Because actually now that I think about it, when I first saw that scene I always got the impression that it was the Cheryl side who was giving the baby to Harry, even if it did look like Alessa.

Someone is "thick" when official literature states that Incubator is a form of God, explains why Incubator is a form of God and why it takes on the appearance it does, and a person essentially says "fuck what those stupid creators of the game think, I'm a special snowflake and I have the right to my own own opinions!!!!"

I don't think so. It's not like the literature comes out and says point blank "it was god who gave that baby to harry." It seems to strongly imply it, which is why I tend to agree with you about the god theory, but to flatly say "it's canon" is going too far, I think.

[alone in the town]

I don't think so. It's not like the literature comes out and says point blank "it was god who gave that baby to harry." It seems to strongly imply it, which is why I tend to agree with you about the god theory, but to flatly say "it's canon" is going too far, I think.

It says the woman in white gave the baby to Harry in the analysis of the Good ending, and it says that the woman in white is a form of God. To flatly say "it's canon" is to basically point out these two facts.

[Tillerman]

It says the woman in white gave the baby to Harry in the analysis of the Good ending, and it says that the woman in white is a form of God. To flatly say "it's canon" is to basically point out these two facts.

That's true, but since this is all hanging by such a strict definition of terms, I'm worried about possible translation deficiencies. And also, does it specifically say somewhere that "form of god" and Alessa/Cheryl are mutually exclusive?

[alone in the town]

All over the place. Alessa is the mother of God. Mothers give birth to daughters, as opposed to transforming into daughters.

[Tillerman]

All over the place. Alessa is the mother of God. Mothers give birth to daughters, as opposed to transforming into daughters.

Granted that makes a certain kind of sense, but that type of evidence is a little too semantic for me. Also, I don't think that article rules out the possibility that Alessa/Cheryl was borrowing god's form to communicate to Harry with, since after all that form is Alessa's idea of what god looks like. I'm not saying I necessarily believe that's true, but I don't see how it can be ruled out either.

[Soulless-Shadow]

I would imagine it would be pretty hard to reincarnate one's own soul while still alive (because they're still using it).

Why would you imagine that? There's no reason to think it would be easy or hard. It depends on the rules of whatever piece of fiction we are reading, for example if this was "The Hidden" god could be jumping between bodies repeatedly. Of course Silent Hill isn't The Hidden, but it is a story where Alessa can split her own soul and put it inside someone else. And you find it hard to believe that god couldn't do something similar, but yet find it easy to believe that he can reincarnate someone from the dead while he himself is dying? Actually, it's pretty ridiculous to think that he would still have the power to reincarnate someone while dying... if he still has that much power over life and death, then why in the world is he dying from gunshot wounds? How can that possibly make sense?

Well, seeing as you brought it up, the rules of this particular piece of fiction tell us that God is unable to survive being shot, but is able to reincarnate its mother before dying. It is also a being who can't bring itself into this world. It requires a special ceremony to be performed on a special woman/girl before it can be born. I'm think it's suggested in another game somewhere that it's just a more powerful monster anyway. Not an actual god. I'm not 100% sure on that, but I vaguely recall reading something.

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.

Quite frankly, it doesn't make sense for either of them to do it.

Quite frankly, it does. Alessa split her soul to create Cheryl in order to prevent/stall the birth of God. Makes heaps of sense when you consider it was the only thing she could do at the time to prevent the birth of a being that would only end up destroying the world. Also, regardless of whether or not you think it was a retcon, it makes far more sense for it to be a safety measure for the God to potentially be reborn at a later date than it does for Alessa to get sappy.

I wasn't being judgemental. I simply think it's stupid to assume someone would screw up their story for sentimentality.

It's your point of view that they were "screwing up the story." It's presumptuous of you to assume that they share your point of view. Furthermore, if I am right that it's a ret-con, and that the original intention was that that baby was *not* another vessel of god, then they aren't even "screwing up the story" in the way you say they are.

And it's presumptuous of you to assume they were motivated by sentimentality. A good story teller has good reason for what they choose to do. Sentimentality isn't a good reason.

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.

The story is neatly wrapped up at the end of the game, so by definition it is not a cliffhanger. Cliffhanger doesn not mean "room left open for a sequel."

You're right, I used the wrong term. "Open ending" would be more suitable.

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"

That seems pretty flimsy to me. Maybe that's a clue as to what the game's writers were thinking, maybe not. Hard to say.

Which is the clue? Dahlia not referring to the Woman in White as Alessa? Or the Woman in White calling Harry "daddy"?

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.

I disagree. Why would they leave a memo explaining the obvious? The game quite clearly portrays it as though Alessa is giving you the baby, it's the alternate explanation that needed a memo.

Because, as I've stated numerous times, Alessa giving the baby to Harry is against her motivations and character. She wanted her entire being (that includes Cheryl) to die. Making a baby and handing it to Harry still goes against her character and motivations, even if it's just a small part of her, even if there was never going to be a sequel. The change in motivation is the part that needs proof/a memo/something/anything.

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.

Well, first of all I'm not asking those questions. In fact, I'm on the same page with you that the developers *seem* to agree that it was god and not Alessa who gave Harry the baby. What *I'm* saying is that explanation doesn't make sense either, regardless of their intentions, and furthermore that I think they originally intended for it to be Alessa and then retconned it later.

To me your questions are similar. You're also asking why it wasn't Alessa, regardless of whether or not it was retcon.

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.

Okay, then in the "Alessa" theory, it's not actually just Alessa giving that baby to Harry, it is the Alessa/Cheryl combo. So an interesting question is, even if the action of Alessa giving the baby to Harry is a conflict with her motivations, is it also a conflict of Cheryl's? Could Cheryl's sentimentality for her Dad be taking over here? Or, is it just Cheryl's will that she be given back to Harry? Because actually now that I think about it, when I first saw that scene I always got the impression that it was the Cheryl side who was giving the baby to Harry, even if it did look like Alessa.

I'll admit I like to think there was a part of Cheryl left that at times reached out to Harry. How else could one explain the "To School" note, the phone call, and the Mall tv image? (I know people have said it was Alessa messing with Harry, but that makes less sense. As I've said, Alessa doesn't seem to give a damn about him, so why waste her time with such nonsense? She also didn't see him as a threat, otherwise he wouldn't have got so close to her with the Flauros)
However, there's a big different between reaching out and taking control of the Woman in White just to give Harry a new baby.

[stopped_clock]

All I really have to add is a fairly simple observation. If the game devs wanted it to appear as Alessa handing Harry a baby then why not return to using the image of Alessa that we see throughout the game rather than the image of the God with whom we have just had to fight?

Alessa is dead already, how can it make more sense to anyone for a dead human to be able to spontaneously create new life than for a dying god to do the same thing?

[Wigeke]

And even if Alessa was alive after giving birth to god I don't think she would be able to use her powers properly after the flauros was used.

[The Adversary]

>Dahlia never refers to the Woman in White as Alessa.<
You're right. She does, however, refer to the Woman in White as god. So . . . that should shut everyone up.

[Tillerman]

Well, seeing as you brought it up, the rules of this particular piece of fiction tell us that God is unable to survive being shot, but is able to reincarnate its mother before dying.

It doesn't actually say that, that's your interpretation.

Quite frankly, it does. Alessa split her soul to create Cheryl in order to prevent/stall the birth of God. Makes heaps of sense when you consider it was the only thing she could do at the time to prevent the birth of a being that would only end up destroying the world. Also, regardless of whether or not you think it was a retcon, it makes far more sense for it to be a safety measure for the God to potentially be reborn at a later date than it does for Alessa to get sappy.

That's not a good answer to my point, I wasn't talking about character motivations. I was talking about the credibility of either of them being able to do it. I think it's ridiculous for a half-dead Alessa/Cheryl or god to be able to reincarnate some from the dead *while* they are dying. It doesn't make one bit of difference what their motivation is, it doesn't make any sense at all for either of them to be able to do it.

And it's presumptuous of you to assume they were motivated by sentimentality. A good story teller has good reason for what they choose to do. Sentimentality isn't a good reason.

I'm not presuming anything, it was a guess. I'm not suggesting to you that I have the power to read the writer's mind. If it came across that way to you, I'm sorry.

Because, as I've stated numerous times, Alessa giving the baby to Harry is against her motivations and character.

Well, you should be happy to know that I agree with you on this point, so there's no need to state it again to me. Here's where I disagree with you, however. This is not an obvious point unless you stop to think about it. Therefore, if SH1's writers meant for the lady in white to *not* be Alessa/Cheryl but a trick of god, they should have included some clue within the game. If they didn't, a memo is hardly necessary, because the game already goes out of it's way to make the player feel like it's the will of Alessa/Cheryl that Harry gets that baby.

I'll admit I like to think there was a part of Cheryl left that at times reached out to Harry. How else could one explain the "To School" note, the phone call, and the Mall tv image? (I know people have said it was Alessa messing with Harry, but that makes less sense. As I've said, Alessa doesn't seem to give a damn about him, so why waste her time with such nonsense? She also didn't see him as a threat, otherwise he wouldn't have got so close to her with the Flauros) However, there's a big different between reaching out and taking control of the Woman in White just to give Harry a new baby.

Very good point about those images. I've always assumed those were Cheryl's will as well. It makes total sense to assume that Cheryl's will is still kicking around inside Alessa.

Yeah, maybe Cheryl controlling the woman in white is hard to swallow, but no more so than anyone creating a baby out of thin air, especially a god you just killed with a rifle. It also makes sense from a character motivation point of view as well. I'm not saying that's what happened, maybe they did retcon it later to make it god who gives Harry the baby, but it certainly feels to me like the player was meant to feel like Cheryl is the one giving you the baby when you play SH1.

I mean, if you want to disagree with me and think that was their plan all along, I'm not trying to stop you. Please go ahead and think whatever you want. But from my perspective, it makes more sense to think that they planned it one way in SH1, then retconned it so they could take it another way in SH3.

[The Adversary]

>it doesn't make any sense at all for either of them to be able to do it.<
That's not really up to you to decide, because, after all, one of them did do it.

And, still, Dahlia calls the Woman in White "god." So . . . now that that's over with.

[Tillerman]

That's not really up to you to decide, because, after all, one of them did do it.

No they didn't. It's a fictional story. It's up to me to decide whether I find the actions of the characters credible.

And, still, Dahlia calls the Woman in White "god." So . . . now that that's over with.

Nobody calls it "god" while it's giving the baby to Harry. What makes you so sure that woman in white is exactly the same as the other one?

(For that matter, what scene does Dahlia call the Woman in White "god," I don't remember that. I remember "mother of god," but isn't Dahlia dead before you even see the woman in white? Or am I wrong?)

[AuraTwilight]

Nobody calls it "god" while it's giving the baby to Harry. What makes you so sure that woman in white is exactly the same as the other one?

The Harry model dead in the car in the worst ending is never explicitly called Harry, maybe it's his twin brother so Harry is actually okay!!!

This is retarded.

[Tillerman]

The Harry model dead in the car in the worst ending is never explicitly called Harry, maybe it's his twin brother so Harry is actually okay!!!

This is retarded.

That's a very condescending post, would you mind not being so unpleasant? I would appreciate it, thanks.

And I don't think your point is apt. There's no reason to suspect that Harry isn't Harry, but the Lady in White is portrayed inconsistently, in one scene she is a boss you need to kill, in another she is protecting you and giving you a baby. So it's a valid point that they might not be the exact same entity. The game certainly doesn't seem to treat it like you are getting the baby from the thing you just killed.

[alone in the town]

What should make the obvious even more so is what happens after Harry defeats Incubus. It doesn't leave behind a corpse. It falls to the ground and is enveloped in white--and becomes the very vessel Incubus destroyed as it emerged.

Notable is that when Incubus falls to the floor, bathed in light, it says "Daddy"... while still in the form of Incubus. This is made clear as its wings sweep forward after the word is spoken. "Daddy" is spoken before the Woman in White even appears. That's to say nothing of it transforming into a form that was seen to be torn apart into bloody chunks moments ago. So, how Alessa Gillespie factors into any of this defies logic and ignores what we see, what we hear, and what we later learn.

And, I seriously think that the developers intended, from the very beginning, that it was God deceiving Harry, even before there was a Silent Hill 3. It makes perfect sense even without the sequel.

The first Silent Hill, when it was a single game and before it was a series, is designed to give you the impression that the events repeat for Harry, over and over again. The concept of cycle and repetition is strong (and was to expand into a vital element in much of Silent Hill 3's mythos as well). You beat the game, and you are immediately shunted back to New Fear to do it all over again, with Harry waking up in the cafe as if out of a nightmare. The game itself never explains whether or not this is true. Did he just have a nightmare he is now going to have to experience? Again? Or, did he actually make it out of town with an infant which would grow up to become Cheryl (possibly being unaware of anything that happened) and lead to events repeating again, ad infinitum? Do either of the Good endings only mean Harry has to keep on doing this over and over until he breaks the loop with one of the Bad endings? If ever?

Silent Hill 3 chose one of those four endings and resolved the concept of an infinite time loop for Harry. But, before that, there is the idea that every time Harry defeats God, God is going to give Harry a ticking time bomb in the form of an infant which can grow to one day serve as its vessel for rebirth as events repeat themselves, and will do so every time it is defeated, over and over, forever if necessary, until it finally succeeds.

There's still no need, at all, for a suddenly sentimental Alessa to be involved in any way.

There's no reason to suspect that Harry isn't Harry, but the Lady in White is portrayed inconsistently, in one scene she is a boss you need to kill, in another she is protecting you and giving you a baby.

Dahlia is also portrayed inconsistently. One minute, she's telling you that you need to save the world from a demon in child's form, the next, she's all LOL I LIED NOW LET'S SUMMON US SOME GOD.

In spite of this complete change in behavior towards Harry, I'm fairly certain that we don't have two Dahlias in this game.

[Tillerman]

Notable is that when Incubus falls to the floor, bathed in light, it says "Daddy"... while still in the form of Incubus.

Is it the Incubus saying that, or is that the voice of Cheryl coming from inside it?

This is made clear as its wings sweep forward after the word is spoken. "Daddy" is spoken before the Woman in White even appears.

It could be meant as a sign that she is coming.

That's to say nothing of it transforming into a form that was seen to be torn apart into bloody chunks moments ago. So, how Alessa Gillespie factors into any of this defies logic and ignores what we see, what we hear, and what we later learn.

Is it "transforming" into that form, or is that form being released?

And, I seriously think that the developers intended, from the very beginning, that it was God deceiving Harry, even before there was a Silent Hill 3. It makes perfect sense even without the sequel.

I still don't see any evidence of that in the first game.

The first Silent Hill, when it was a single game and before it was a series, is designed to give you the impression that the events repeat for Harry, over and over again. The concept of cycle and repetition is strong (and was to expand into a vital element in much of Silent Hill 3's mythos as well). You beat the game, and you are immediately shunted back to New Fear to do it all over again, with Harry waking up in the cafe as if out of a nightmare. The game itself never explains whether or not this is true. Did he just have a nightmare he is now going to have to experience? Again? Or, did he actually make it out of town with an infant which would grow up to become Cheryl (possibly being unaware of anything that happened) and lead to events repeating again, ad infinitum? Do either of the Good endings only mean Harry has to keep on doing this over and over until he breaks the loop with one of the Bad endings? If ever?

Nice point. When you start a new fear and wake up in the diner again, I always got that impression as well, like Harry is stuck perpetually in Silent Hill. But I think you're reaching a bit when you claim that logic also applies to the baby being another vessel for God.

There's still no need, at all, for a suddenly sentimental Alessa to be involved in any way.

I agree. Though I'm now thinking that if the lady in white isn't god, it is more likely meant to be Cheryl than Alessa.

Dahlia is also portrayed inconsistently. One minute, she's telling you that you need to save the world from a demon in child's form, the next, she's all LOL I LIED NOW LET'S SUMMON US SOME GOD.

I don't agree. I think it's pretty obvious from the beginning she isn't trustworthy, which is then confirmed by the ending. It's something which is eventually explained. On the other hand, the difference in behaviors between the different versions of the lady in white is never explained, at least not in SH1. (if ever)

[alone in the town]

Is it the Incubus saying that, or is that the voice of Cheryl coming from inside it?

Dahlia tells Harry quite some time before this to "give it up, that person no longer exists." So, it's pretty clear that it isn't Cheryl.

Also, Silent Hill 3 makes it obvious that whoever births God does not survive the process. Alessa and Cheryl are very much dead by this point.

It could be meant as a sign that she is coming.

Coming from what?

Is it "transforming" into that form, or is that form being released?

If the original form was being released, it should look like exploded ground chuck, because it sure looked like that the last time we saw it.

I still don't see any evidence of that in the first game.

You can't see my face, but I guarantee you, it's a mask of complete shock.

Nice point. When you start a new fear and wake up in the diner again, I always got that impression as well, like Harry is stuck perpetually in Silent Hill. But I think you're reaching a bit when you claim that logic also applies to the baby being another vessel for God.

If it's Alessa handing out congratulatory babies as YOU WIN THE GAME prizes, why would events repeat themselves? It would mean that the loop is a pointless, accidental thing that can never be broken even if God triumphs, meaning that no matter what happens, it's going to repeat, and therefore, none of the outcomes matter at all.

If God becomes the catalyst, the cycle has a purpose and a credible causative factor. If not, it's just random and meaningless.

I agree. Though I'm now thinking that if the lady in white isn't god, it is more likely meant to be Cheryl than Alessa.

Cheryl is definitely, totally gone by this point.

I don't agree. I think it's pretty obvious from the beginning she isn't trustworthy, which is then confirmed by the ending. It's something which is eventually explained. On the other hand, the difference in behaviors between the different versions of the lady in white is never explained, at least not in SH1. (if ever)

The fact that Dahlia is untrustworthy is not even slightly obvious. At all. If it were, we wouldn't have had to spend so many years correcting people who thought she was telling the truth about Samael. Most people still don't figure that out by themselves.

[Tillerman]

Dahlia tells Harry quite some time before this to "give it up, that person no longer exists." So, it's pretty clear that it isn't Cheryl.

I don't think I agree with that interpretation. I think when Dahlia says "that person no longer exists," she may simply just mean that Cheryl no longer *physically* exists in her old form. In fact I am almost certain that's what she means, given that we hear a "Daddy" later and it strongly seems like the game's writer is suggesting that Cheryl's soul still exists in some form.

Also, Silent Hill 3 makes it obvious that whoever births God does not survive the process. Alessa and Cheryl are very much dead by this point.

True, but that's not really relevant, because we're talking about what was the writer's intention with SH1. Although again, it is one thing to physically survive and another for your soul to survive.

Coming from what?

Well, one way to look at it is that she was absorbed into the god when he was born, and killing the god releases her. In fact, I feel almost certain that hearing "Daddy" is meant to be a sign that Cheryl's soul has been released.

If the original form was being released, it should look like exploded ground chuck, because it sure looked like that the last time we saw it.

No, you're being too literal. Is it even a physical form? Or the form someone's soul is taking?

You can't see my face, but I guarantee you, it's a mask of complete shock.

Well, I guess there must be some error of communication somewhere. Because the "reasons" for thinking that the god deception theory was planned in the first game seem far-fetched and strange to me. But hey, maybe it's my problem, maybe I'm just not getting something obvious. If you want to just leave it at that, I'm fine... after all I'm not trying to convince you of anything, I'm just explaining what I think and defending myself.

If it's Alessa handing out congratulatory babies as YOU WIN THE GAME prizes,

I'm not claiming that it is. If the god theory isn't true, the only alternative theory that makes sense to me is that it's Cheryl handing out babies.

Cheryl is definitely, totally gone by this point.

So her soul is destroyed? Do they specifically say that her *soul* is gone, or are they just talking about her old physical body? Because I think the latter.

The fact that Dahlia is untrustworthy is not even slightly obvious. At all.

Now I have a mask of complete shock! Just kidding. This isn't something I can convince you of with evidence, but let's just say she never came across to me as a "trustworthy" person. YMMV.