Talk:Pious Augustus

Would it be appropriate for this article to be moved into the "Videogame Villains" category? Wyborn 06:45, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't see why not. If fact, as long as I'm here.... CaptHayfever 15:45, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Had to clean up the topic, as much for the sake of keeping the article neat as to keep it cohesive: putting counter-arguments in the section that makes the intiial argument isn't just messy, it's nonsensical. For the record, I left the whole "he may have sensed that another Ancient was freed, unaware that it would be reimprisoned too" thing in oblivion because not only is this impossible (since all Ancients were killed simultaneously) but his Ancient wasn't reimprisoned in the first place, it was obliterated.

Also, to explain why I took out the whole "it might have been Edward's ghost" thing in the last point of the "implications" section - that's just patently untrue. Pious even goes so far as to reveal himself at the end of the cited sequence, just not where Alex can see him.

I don't want to make it seem like I'm being over-protective of the article, but some of the changes were just sloppy. If you want to put down alternative conclusions that can be drawn from the events, make a seperate section for them and keep it neat.Wyborn 08:48, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

opnion is not fact.
I understand your concern over the somewhat sloppy nature of the edits made however I do feel that they raise some valid points, the conclusion that Pious was a servant of manterok is to extreme claim to simply assert that it is fact: it is plausible that he is simply not.

As for rovias/augustous ghost it does seem plausible that their are in fact two rovia ghosts as the ghost acts in contradiction: his attempts to demoralize and intimidate Alex contradict with the concept as pious as an ally, it seems more logical that pious is impersonating the Edward Roivas ghost rather than he is the Edward Roivas ghost.

As with "death is just the begining" with you're assuming that pious is omniscient-he may not be aware of the other ancients being obliterated across dimensions at once. Considering that Ulyaoth and Xel'lotath are unaware of this it seems unlikly that pious would catch on himself. no-one in the game is aware of the degree of Mantoroks machinations except Mantorok itself-the game only reveals it as surprise twist.

I understand your concern to protect the article, however since this is intended as a factual article rather than an essay it is wise not to stray to far from the game 'dogma' and if so it is appropriate to provide alternative arguments, theories and counterpoints so not to push the reader into a somewhat questionable (although fairly pluasable) conclusion.

The sloppiness of the editing is more a byproduct of a lack of time combined with ignorance of JavaScript and I do apologize.-Hermes


 * I'm not going to argue with you on whether or not Pious is the ghost of Edward at all times, nor am I going to argue about whether or not Pious is omniscient (which isn't what I imply at all - if he serves Mantorok on some basic level he would be aware simply by coming closer to death). That isn't important.


 * I'm not trying to protect the article, nor am I trying to protect the implications that are set forth in it - it's not an essay and I don't intend it to be such. That's why the article says that Pious' either unknowing or knowing servitude to Mantorok is implied, which it almost incontravertibly is. By all means post alternative meanings that the events could have held, but please keep it neat and in a place where it doens't disrupt the flow of what's already there. Wyborn 17:45, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

It's quite clear that both the real ghost of Edward and a disguised Pious appeared to Alex. I recall from the game that the Pious-Edward eventually revealed himself in front of Alex, thus proving at least one impostor appearance, and Edward then appears to Alex after Pious's death, thus proving at least one real appearance. CaptHayfever 02:35, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I've been watching this article as a huge fan of ED and thought I'd put my two cents in on what I think is missing from this artucle. Even though there is a lot of opinion when it comes to verifying things such as Pious' loyalty, I think it should merit at least a section on Pious' oddities as the villain of the game. As is, the article makes no mention either of the "betrayal" Xel'lotath and Chat'turgha foresee or of the extremely convenient fact that the only people he directly kills in the game are essence-carriers whose ghost (or corpse) end up passing the essence on to another Chosen that happens to venture by. In fact, he actually confronts a magick-less Lindsey in the game but doesn't kill him when he easily could. The fact that Lindsey takes is one of the people that takes an essence to the gathering of Light only reinforces that for some reason, Pious wanted humanity to gather the essences. In addition, his final line deserves some analysis on the page. I'm not saying theories should be put in as fact, but there should at least be a "speculation" or "observations" section detailing these cryptic bits and the speculation on them. The game gives huge indications that Pious' loyalties don't lie exactly where we might think they do, and I think something needs to be put in on the subject. Discerptor 11:17, 13 August 2006

What you are forgetting is that Lindsey was probably not intended to be the chosen carrier of the Black Heart of Mantorok. The real chosen made the mistake of touching the artifact, and thereby ruining their chance.

Inaccurate Inaccuracy
Supposedly, "Pious wears lorica segmentata that was not available at the time."- according to the Lorica_segmentata page, there were three different types of said armour, one of which (the Kalkriese type, which looks like what Pious is depicted as wearing based on comparison with a bunch of pics I found on the net, at least to my largely untrained eye) was supposedly in use at the time (26 AD in the reign of Augustus)- it came into service around 20 BC and was phased out around 50 AD. Maybe there was some reason for putting that in originally, but if so could someone explain that reason (and elaborate on the comment more clearly in the article, preferably)? Otherwise, shouldn't it be removed?

Also, the article states that "'Pious’ should be spelled ‘Pius’ in Latin." But the subtitles aren't in Latin they are in English.172.188.160.186 01:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)