Role of an Imot’s portents in the Age of Lost Omens

[marv]

Concordance of Rivals p. 9 does a good job of emphasizing that, for the most part, the “vague hints and hidden meanings”, that an Imot is compelled to give mortals about impending doom, will either inspire anxiety or often be figured out “far too late”. This implies there are times when mortals can interpret an Imot’s signs in time to avoid doom.

Given that we are currently in the Age if Lost Omens, where according to PathfinderWiki “no major prophecy comes true”, is this a contradiction if an Imot predicts a major catastrophe that is interpreted and avoided by PCs?

[Archpaladin Zousha]

Imot is a singular psychopomp usher, not a category of regular psychopomps, so they're more like a minor god.

I don't think it's really a contradiction, so much as a manifestation: Imot appears to be the generator of such calamities and provides the clues to prevent it, much like The Riddler in Batman. If the PCs figure it out and stop the problem, then Imot's prophecy failed like the majority of prophecies have. If the prophecy came true, it means the PCs failed to beat Imot's rigged game.

In addition, prophecy (or at least divination) still works on a smaller scale in the Age of Lost Omens. They just can't see as far ahead or be guaranteed to come true. Imot's prophecies COULD come true, but there's still a chance that you could figure out the math or uncover enough of the clues to throw the sequence of events leading up to that outcome off that trajectory, which prompts Imot to arrange for more disastrous outcomes and leave more clues and the cycle continues.

[marv]

Archpaladin Zousha wrote:

Imot is a singular psychopomp usher, not a category of regular psychopomps, so they're more like a minor god.

What you are saying makes a lot of sense. Except it is odd that the pronouns in the description imply that there is more than one Imot. And it is also unclear that the Imot are the ones responsible for the calamities occurring.

[Joana]

Without going back to the original text, Pathfinder Wiki makes it pretty clear.

Quote:

Imot is an agender psychopomp usher born from the guilt and desire for hindsight felt by mortals after a tragedy. It arranges calamities to kill off cultures that overstay their welcome.

Again without looking at the original text, my guess is the book uses they/them as a singular.

[CorvusMask]

Yeah its the singular they as they are a flying pyramid

[marv]

Perhaps singular. There are example sentences Concordance of Rivals with verb choices that suggest this. “Imot was born in the mortal guilt.” “Imot is also the usher of dread.” But the pronouns in Concordance of Rivals are consistently plural. “Imot’s nature makes them the natural patron of mathematicians.” “They have great difficulty expressing themselves verbally and ....”
Perhaps I’m missing the point, and I’m supposed to be confused. LOL

[CorvusMask]

They and them is actually also singular gender-neutral pronoun in English language.

(its one of those things people are surprised that its been a thing for hundreds of years. Yeah its actually been a term since 14th century and is only one century younger than plural they)

[zimmerwald1915]

CorvusMask wrote:

They and them is actually also singular gender-neutral pronoun in English language.

(its one of those things people are surprised that its been a thing for hundreds of years. Yeah its actually been a term since 14th century and is only one century younger than plural they)

Blame recurrent semi-successful attempts at English grammar reform.

We didn't get proper declensions, but we did nearly obliterate a perfectly useful pronoun. Go us.

[marv]

CorvusMask and zimmerwald1915 thank you both for reminding me what I already knew but clearly forgot! Duh!! It just reads so very out of place In the text and could easily have been written in a less confusing way. Thank you both for helping me get out of my way!