Hint on who is guilty?

Check here to discuss Torment's gameplay topics. Please avoid spoilers in thread titles.

Moderator: Memovira Goons

Kaeam
Initiate
Posts: 3
Joined: February 18th, 2015, 7:17 am

Re: Hint on who is guilty?

Post by Kaeam » June 17th, 2016, 1:35 pm

Aha, seems like Prata at Circus Minor has some information!

GavinJF
Acolyte
Posts: 78
Joined: November 19th, 2015, 12:12 pm
Contact:

Re: Hint on who is guilty?

Post by GavinJF » June 17th, 2016, 1:44 pm

Kaeam wrote:Aha, seems like Prata at Circus Minor has some information!
Ha! Excellent.

tshipman
Initiate
Posts: 3
Joined: June 16th, 2016, 8:29 pm

Re: Hint on who is guilty?

Post by tshipman » June 17th, 2016, 6:13 pm

@GavinJF:

Yeah, I found that, but it was super random. There really needs to be something pointing to her. Otherwise you have no reason to think that character would know anything about it.

I think in general other Dendra O'Hur would be a good source for leads.

GavinJF
Acolyte
Posts: 78
Joined: November 19th, 2015, 12:12 pm
Contact:

Re: Hint on who is guilty?

Post by GavinJF » June 17th, 2016, 9:43 pm

tshipman wrote:@GavinJF:

Yeah, I found that, but it was super random. There really needs to be something pointing to her. Otherwise you have no reason to think that character would know anything about it.

I think in general other Dendra O'Hur would be a good source for leads.
The weird thing is that there WAS. I think the game might be haunted.

::spooky wind noise::

Rink
Acolyte
Posts: 61
Joined: April 9th, 2012, 11:40 am

Re: Hint on who is guilty?

Post by Rink » June 18th, 2016, 6:02 am

I searched around the entrance of the bloom (someone said something about circles appearing a long time ago outside the bloom, in retrospect I understand why I didn't find anything :D) and found nothing and the underbelly. And found one alibi at the master foreman that probably everyone else has found already
Must also have missed that reference pointing to the other clue.
--------------------------------------------------------
You can't stay young - but you can refuse to grow old.

retroquark
Novice
Posts: 38
Joined: June 22nd, 2016, 1:46 pm

Re: Hint on who is guilty?

Post by retroquark » June 28th, 2016, 7:35 am

Hm. So my reasoning was that G'zai admits she knows about the Endless Corridor, but seems to despise the practice of not honoring the victim. Yet she's unclear when talking about the last time she saw the symbol, and what may have happened to the cultist. Meaning, like all the other suspects, she could have had some sort of lapse because of the memories they gain when eating the dead. But her behaviour seems to suggest that dishonoring the dead is unspeakable, so that this is what should be what she keeps at the top of her head (and she doesn't seem to be a character that lapses from that conviction when you press her on what her word for murder is). It doesn't seem to be anything obvious I could do to track her movements to confirm where she was, or if she's being dishonest about her non-sanctioned eating, though.

Mallet is a killer, he admits it, maybe with some shame. He's having troubles with the memories he's aquiring. And he also puts you on the trail of what I think is what we're really looking for - an Endless Hallway cultist who has been in the town before, who died, and then passed on his memories, that then likely causes one of the cultists to continue the ritualistic murders - maybe in some way they're not actually aware of. Or, we're looking for the suspect that has some sort of memory of the cult, but who can't place where that memory comes from from their own conscious story. There's also no obvious way to track his movements, or to find out what Tybir refers to when he says he's killed someone over 2 shins, etc.

Kiyatawa immediately seems to be the type of character we're looking for, she's nervous about something (you can see it when you talk to her, Mallet says the same - although for some reason Mallet won't volunteer why he exactly he suspects her. You also can't confirm that he suspects she is overwhelmed by some other memory in the way Mallet is struggling - you could infer that that is what he's referring to, that she perhaps talks about things she hasn't experienced, or that she's changed somehow recently). And critically, she volunteers some detail in the first conversation about the Endless Tube that she then denies having any knowledge of later. So she should be our prime suspect from just the conversation earlier. She also seems to have partaken in unsanctioned meals, but isn't a killer - this is in other words what fits with the scenario that she ate the cultist, got overwhelmed by the memories, and started having lapses to that second personality.

So I scoured the map for some clues about the previous murder. And this is where things get complicated. Because: In the market, one of the merchants remembers the symbol(I think?) and someone, a woman, scuttering around. I think this is right around when the non-sanctioned eating we're looking for happened. You can then ask Kiyatawa about it, she admits perhaps being there, and says maybe she was drunk. It all fits with that she is the killer, but has no conscious recollection of it, that she prowls in the early hours in a daze.

But, you're never able to (or I wasn't able to find the right person to talk to) follow the trail of the original cultist, and for example confirm that this cultist was a man. And then confirm that what witnesses may have seen from that "some time ago" was the original cultist. And that any witnesses saying it's a guy would have been referring to the original cultist. We're also not able to find out why the victims are chosen - you could infer that both Fulsome's helper and the second victim (that happened because I didn't want to close the case) were weak and timid (the smiling outcast is small, though). But you can't confirm that Fulsome's assistant is tiny, or that either of them have some sort of connection to any of the cultists, or when the victims would have been picked, or why. In addition, Kiyatawa is described as tall, so there's no real reason to simply say that she is deliberately picking weak targets no one will miss, for example.

So there's really no obvious pattern to the victims that you then maybe could have cross-referenced with the original cultist's targets, or the cult's general targets. That piece of evidence is inconclusive as well. In addition, no one seems to have seen anything, in spite of how people will miss the second victim's smile, etc. We only have Kiyatawa's unexplained ire with the cult leader, that may have a connection to his unshakeable Fulsome alibi.

On top of that, we're also not really told how the corpse eaters work, or what happens when they join, or how they get their ability to absorb the victim's memories. We can't rule out from what we're told that someone else may have been initiated. That someone from the Endless Cave would turn up in town as well, and that they may very well exist outside the city puts a question mark on the initial assumption. So from the beginning, we might have been looking for someone else entirely, and Kiyatawa simply /thought/ that she was the killer. We are not able to establish any of that before having to close the case. It's also not clear what sort of requirement is necessary to get Kiyatawa to talk about what is troubling her.

And that she even volunteers that something is bothering her may suggest that she is in fact worried about this exact problem. That she has seen these memories, suppressed them for a long time, and that then she actually believes she failed to suppress them /because/ the murders started happening. While in reality she is not the killer at all, she merely suspects that she is from the second she hears about the murders. From the start, we also have no motive for her to actually be eating the cultist out in the streets - we would need to have the original cultist placed on the slab for sanctioned eating rather than randomly having disappeared to create a likely scenario where she eats that cultist.

Because like explained, she is maybe the one suspect that does not have a previous history, before the recent cultist murders happened, of unsanctioned eating.

In the same way, G'zai could also be placed at the original cultist eating if she saw the cultist, whom she hates for not respecting the dead enough. Which would explain the motive to murder the cultist. And also explain why she is still so violently opposed to it, or why the hatred for the cult is so fresh in her mind. It also fits with why she would admit to knowing about the symbol from "some time ago", rather than being able to place it specifically from her own experience. So she is really the most likely suspect from what we are told.

Mallet also has that same motive - he has had a run-in with someone he killed over 2 shins that he doesn't explain why he murdered. It could fit with how the last person he killed may actually have been that cultist, and that the reason he stopped was that he acquired his memories. That that is actually what he's referring to when he opens up the idea that acquired memories can be overwhelming. But we're never told that for example the eaters may receive the last memories of the eaten stronger if they do not die naturally, or that if the last memories for example was that specific ritual killing.

Because if it was, and we could place the Endless Doorway cultist as having being eaten right after he was murdered, Mallet would be the prime suspect. After all, the idea that Kiyatawa would stumble over the cultist for some reason after he had died in the street (like the merchant testimony suggests) seems problematic. It would be less so if we knew the (say, male) Endless Detention Hall cultist had been skulking around, got caught trying to snack on someone, and then bled to death in the streets. That his corpse had mysteriously disappeared (the inspector in government square should have been able to track that and recall at least partially the events with the drones) would also have placed our "not a killer" suspect right on the spot.

Conversely, if that cultist had been murdered, we might have been able to place either of the two others on the scene.

Instead we're really left with just one suggestive clue about the recent murders: that Kiyatawa may have followed the leader and Fulsome to whatever they were doing together. That this activity we don't know what is is what is fueling her ire with the leader. And that this is the connection that suggests why Fulsome's assistant was picked (after all, there's nothing else). It doesn't fit with the explanation that Kiyatawa is unaware of the memories taking over, but it fits with her skulking around and not being completely conscious of what she's doing. There's also the testimony in the market. So from an isolated point of view that just looks at the missing Endless Drain cultist's memories, we have two suspects who are obviously troubled by the acquired memories. And it has to be a woman, i.e., Kiyatawa.

But as it was, it seems that we are unable to either:
1. positively eliminate two of the suspects (and even narrow down the suspects to the eaters we know about).
2. identify gaps in their stories that can't be accounted for (like the consumer of sins talks about).
3. sufficiently map the origin and demise of the original Endless Sewer cultist to place either of the three suspects as the one who acquired the memory of the symbol.
4. explain why the hand is left behind.
5. determine how either the original cultist or the current eater choose their targets.
6. suggest what the killer actually looks like. After all, the merchant may very well have just seen the original cultist.

So this probably needs some work :p Really like the approach here, though - that you're not going to be able to find an obvious "beat this check and find the killer". But think you should maybe be able to push for leads that may actually be misleading. That then could lead you to find more evidence. Or if that was available and I just didn't find it, that we should maybe be led along a little bit more towards those hints. That then could allow you to eliminate a scenario that would have made someone a prime suspect. Like managing in the end to figure out that the cultist was murdered and brought to the slab. Not conclusive alone, but very suggestive, and might lead us to finally explain for example that..... drumroll.. everyone ate the cultist! :p

That then in the end might lead us to figure out who killed which victim, etc.

lo0p
Initiate
Posts: 3
Joined: June 20th, 2016, 8:59 pm

Re: Hint on who is guilty?

Post by lo0p » June 29th, 2016, 2:18 pm

I finished the quest and accused Kiyatawa.
Some time later I was in government square and talked to the NPC that trades secrets.
And I only had the option to tell her that Mallet was guilty.

I'm not sure whether that's a mistake/typo or if we should read more into it.

GavinJF
Acolyte
Posts: 78
Joined: November 19th, 2015, 12:12 pm
Contact:

Re: Hint on who is guilty?

Post by GavinJF » June 29th, 2016, 2:32 pm

lo0p wrote:I finished the quest and accused Kiyatawa.
Some time later I was in government square and talked to the NPC that trades secrets.
And I only had the option to tell her that Mallet was guilty.

I'm not sure whether that's a mistake/typo or if we should read more into it.
This one is based on Kiyatawa telling you that Mallet killed and ate someone who stole from him, not the Circles in Red victims.. I agree with you that this was kind of confusing, and clarified the text. Thanks for the feedback!

lo0p
Initiate
Posts: 3
Joined: June 20th, 2016, 8:59 pm

Re: Hint on who is guilty?

Post by lo0p » June 29th, 2016, 2:39 pm

This one is based on Kiyatawa telling you that Mallet killed and ate someone who stole from him, not the Circles in Red victims.. I agree with you that this was kind of confusing, and clarified the text. Thanks for the feedback!
Ah, that makes sense, thanks for clarifying.

GavinJF
Acolyte
Posts: 78
Joined: November 19th, 2015, 12:12 pm
Contact:

Re: Hint on who is guilty?

Post by GavinJF » June 29th, 2016, 2:46 pm

retroquark wrote:Like managing in the end to figure out that the cultist was murdered and brought to the slab. Not conclusive alone, but very suggestive, and might lead us to finally explain for example that..... drumroll.. everyone ate the cultist! :p.
I like this alternate ending a lot, but that would probably lead to changes that would make our producers burst into grieving flames.

Thanks for all the notes, retroquark. We'll talk 'em over.

retroquark
Novice
Posts: 38
Joined: June 22nd, 2016, 1:46 pm

Re: Hint on who is guilty?

Post by retroquark » June 30th, 2016, 5:36 am

GavinJF wrote:
retroquark wrote:Like managing in the end to figure out that the cultist was murdered and brought to the slab. Not conclusive alone, but very suggestive, and might lead us to finally explain for example that..... drumroll.. everyone ate the cultist! :p.
I like this alternate ending a lot, but that would probably lead to changes that would make our producers burst into grieving flames.
:lol: yeah, understand rewriting existing threads would be a lot of work.

..I suppose the "light" version would be to make the murders continue a bit, even if you close the case and point out the "correct" murderer. Or depending on the ones who are left, have alternative outcomes. Kiyatawa would probably be frightened into stopping (and eventually slip up in some other way, instead of picking new victims), Mallet might have learned a lesson about obsessing over retained knowledge(and change personality in a satisfying way) - G'zai might continue the murders in place of the other killer, because she would see the hidden personality's ritualistic killings so strongly justify the "honoring" of the victim, by that being so much less abhorrent (to her) than the cultist's murder. The devourerer might have second thoughts about how much justice the eaters really represent (if you choose the right killer and he devours their sins), etc.

I guess I'm missing some sort of narrative sense of time-flow and urgency in the quest, and then some closure. For example, if you figure out how the cultist passed on their memories early on, you could invent a way to have the eaters stop consuming the killer (or brave it in some way). And if you discover how the original cultist was murdered, you could have the leader of the eaters let you pilfer through those memories, or compel Kiyatawa to speak about it. At any point you could trigger opening up the symbol cultist lore, and then remove it from the other paths. Etc. So that would not affect the quest, but add another layer to it that comes from the approach you chose to attack it early on.

I.e., map the way the killer moves, be technical, open up a way to confront the cult leader about how memories are passed on, maybe corner Mallet and Kiyatawa. Find out indirectly from behaviour who have the memories and who can't control them, open up a way to disappear them with Fulsome's measures. Find a way to pick apart one of the cultists' stories, and open up a way to let them solve it all internally.

And in any case let the devourerer retain either the murderer's surprise about being caught. Or the realization that what they thought they were doing was actually not just. Or have him retain the way the cultist will delight in freeing the victim, so the devourer starts having this edge to his conviction he didn't have before, etc. Depending on what path you picked towards solving the quest.

...I don't mean to criticize the way things have been written so far, because it's very good. But threads like that should probably sort of be part of the quest design. In the way that you.. say.. discover the Sticha at Cliffside and decide to teach the villagers a lesson about authoritarian leadership, for example. Now you'd need to have a way to continue ambiguously through the dialogues in the escape path - until you get the opportunity to trigger the Sticha by careful argument or by compelling it with the tides, to kill the guy who abducted him and actually go on a rampage, for example. But you should be able to angle for that from the beginning of the quest. And then be given an opportunity to solve the quest this way, and receive some alignment change that reflects your approach, while being given a bitter lesson about the consequences of taking action. As well as the other way around - that there is nothing merciful about removing the threat silently and dispersing the crowd, etc. Or perhaps there was a way to march the Sticha up to the crowd and prove how it wasn't dangerous? Make the chief lose face, have everyone go about their business.

In the same way, if you wanted to have the Sticha escape, you should be pushed to deceive people along the way, and lie blatantly. And then have an ambiguous ending where a true altruist would perhaps only slightly doubt the word of the other Sticha when they thank you for bringing him back, and that they'll put him to good use (as a lightning rod or a doorstopper), etc. A more anarchistic Changing God might want to just toss the Sticha out in the wastes with a new arm and a way to survive that would be of no use to the Sticha collective. But you would be confronted on the way the Sticha actually wants to go back and long for the hive. Etc., etc.

So my opinion is that you really should attempt to smuggle in something like this (a counterpoint to resolution) in some of the quests, even if it's a lot of work on the post-post production. ..which I can say, because I don't have to put in the lines in the fifty different instances of dialogue threads :p Still, having just one or two of those types of quests in there once in a while would probably make the other quests easier to imagine having those aspects (even if they're not specifically written in - I know that was a big factor for the immersion in Planescape Torment).

DanceCommanda
Initiate
Posts: 5
Joined: February 11th, 2017, 7:15 pm

Re: Hint on who is guilty?

Post by DanceCommanda » February 15th, 2017, 4:02 pm

Well, this is all long-since set in stone now, but, I have 2 cents I'd like to throw in...

The "find the projection" puzzle taught me that there will be puzzles where I will have to pick an answer, rather than just *finding* it...

...but the fact that the dialogue option to "turn in" this quest is "I KNOW who the murderer is" [emphasis mine] implied really strongly to me that there was a way to be certain, and unless I'm missing a point of logic here, the evidence is all circumstantial. Easily enough to choose which suspect to prosecute, but...a fair sight short of what I'd require, if I were a juror, to convict.

GavinJF
Acolyte
Posts: 78
Joined: November 19th, 2015, 12:12 pm
Contact:

Re: Hint on who is guilty?

Post by GavinJF » February 15th, 2017, 4:20 pm

DanceCommanda wrote:Well, this is all long-since set in stone now, but, I have 2 cents I'd like to throw in...

The "find the projection" puzzle taught me that there will be puzzles where I will have to pick an answer, rather than just *finding* it...

...but the fact that the dialogue option to "turn in" this quest is "I KNOW who the murderer is" [emphasis mine] implied really strongly to me that there was a way to be certain, and unless I'm missing a point of logic here, the evidence is all circumstantial. Easily enough to choose which suspect to prosecute, but...a fair sight short of what I'd require, if I were a juror, to convict.
Interesting point, and if we weren't locked down on text, I'd probably consider different phrasing. Still not sure if I'd change it, though. The conditions that activate this line are pretty low, so that's always suggested to me that you haven't necessarily figured it out, but that you're telling Fulsome you have, if that makes sense. It's a node that covers "I've eliminated suspects and/or found some damning evidence" AS WELL AS "I've investigated this nonsense enough and I REALLY don't like Cultist A."

User avatar
Therlun
Initiate
Posts: 3
Joined: February 13th, 2016, 3:23 am

Re: Hint on who is guilty?

Post by Therlun » February 26th, 2017, 12:10 am

Slightly related: There still is a minor bug (which I reported over a year ago through the ingame feedback option :P) in the current EA version.
When you speak to Manth Pa and ask him about the people in the Underbelly he lists them and then ends with "and with Crooked Queek now dead too that's everyone" even if Crooked Queek is still alive.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests