What is the Supreme Death I speak of Ex-Deaths: The End of Being

Ex-Mortes

It took me years to understand that the challenge was never "explaining what I was thinking." The problem was simpler, more irritating, and, to be honest, more humiliating: there were no words.

And when there are no words, thot becomes incapable.

I remember exactly what troubled me. I was studying theology and philosophy and absorbing these ideas about death, the soul, the end of existence... and everything always seemed disjointed. "Annihilation" came close, but it was still not enough. "Niilismo" was excessively psychological. "Death" is a weak, domestic word, worn out by misuse.

Nothing could convey the brutality of what I was trying to describe.

Because it wasn't about dying. It was more serious.

It was to stop being.

And this actually started to bother me in the past, still in my adolescence, when I delved into these somewhat chaotic readings—ancient philosophy on one side, theology on the other, a bit of Kabbalah here, some eschatological interpretations there—all somewhat raw, somewhat disorganized, but with a very clear intuition: there was a kind of "end" that didn't fit into any of those ready-made words.

In Kabbalah, for example, there are concepts that come dangerously close to that. Not in the popular or superficial sense, but in that deep and difficult one, where it speaks of extirpation, of a radical severing of the source, of a soul that not only suffers but loses the very sustenance of its being. It turns out that, even there, there was no term that could resolve the situation.

There was always some residue left over. There was always something that went unnoticed.

And it was at that moment that something happened which, when it happened, no one took seriously, but later you realized it stayed.

A match.

It's not a treatise, nor a classic book, nor a lecture. A game.

Exmortis.

One of those old indie games, with somewhat crude graphics, but with an atmosphere that sticks in your mind. You wake up without memory, enter a house, and everything seems strange, dense, as if the world were incomplete not just in terms of information, but in its very structure. As if reality were a bit... deteriorated.

And that affected me in a specific way.

Not for the terror itself, but for the sensation it provokes. That impression that not only are you lost, but that the world itself cannot maintain its balance. As if something had been forcibly removed and the rest were just pretending to still make sense.

It was at that point that two things crossed paths.

The research and the perception.

The philosophical concept of total extinction... and the esthetic experience of a world with gaps.

And then the name came up.

Not as someone who "creates an academic concept," but as someone who needs to solve an issue.

Ex-Mortes.

At that moment, I wasn't concerned with a perfect etymology or scholastic rigor. I just knew that it worked. It worked better than any other term I had ever seen.

Because he was doing something simple, yet violent: he was removing death from its usual context.

In common usage, death still implies something. A body, a soul, a memory, a trace. Even when using the term "annihilation," the notion that something was destroyed still persists, that is, something remains in the narrative as having existed.

The Ex-Mortes does that.

He does not represent death.

He is the escape from death.

And that changes everything.

Because, all of a sudden, you stopped talking about transition, punishment, and transformation. You are mentioning removal. Not something that ends, but something that is removed from the very record of reality.

And, as I was perfecting this, even without realizing that I was "formalizing" something, the implications began to structure themselves on their own.

At the most fundamental level, the Ex-Mortes does not manifest as a biological or spiritual event in the traditional sense. It is of an ontological nature. He reaches the individual as a being. No body remains, no soul remains, no memory remains as a maintained entity.

And here comes the point that almost no one likes to face: there's not even a trace of the past left.

This happens because, if the being is removed from the structure that supports the real, what depended on it loses its foundation. And when it loses its foundation, it becomes... a logical void. Something the world needs to "fix" to keep operating.

Therefore, the idea of Ex-Deaths always brings with it a peculiar consequence: the world moves on, but with a sense of silent error.

It's not a visible hole. It's more serious.

It's a void that no one can identify.

And then you start to understand why no conventional term addressed this. This happens because most traditions, even the most rigid ones, maintain some kind of continuity — whether it's hell, reincarnation, dissolution, divine memory, or anything else.

The Ex-Mortes doesn't even allow that.

He is, ultimately, a form of de-creation.

And when this is applied to the theological field, the situation becomes even more uncomfortable.

Because in this case, it is not just a philosophical hypothesis. It becomes a question related to God, justice, creation, and purpose. The question arises that no one wants to formulate correctly: is there a moment when existence itself can be removed as if it had never been granted?

And, above all: would this be punishment... or purification?

It was at that point that I realized the term was not just useful, but essential.

For he structures an idea that has always been dispersed: the notion that absolute evil cannot simply "remain eternally" without altering reality itself in a constant moral absurdity.

The Ex-Mortes resolves this in an extremely radical way.

Not condemning forever.

However, concluding definitively.

And this, whether you like it or not, completely changes the way we think about the end of things. Because the opposite of life is no longer death.

It becomes non-existence.

And then you understand why I emphasized this so much.

It wasn't to invent a pretty term. It was because, without it, many of these discussions become lame, revolving around words that seem profound but do not get to the heart of the matter.

The Ex-Mortes is coming.

And, when it arrives, it doesn't offer much room for comfort.

Just to clarify.

For, upon accepting this point, you are compelled to restructure many aspects that religious and philosophical language tends to address superficially. The first is the distinction between end, punishment, and permanence. Many people speak as if these three things were almost synonymous, but they are not. A being can end without being punished. Can be punished without ceasing to exist. It can persist without any expectation of recovery. The Ex-Deaths emerge precisely at the points where these conventional categories begin to fail, as it does not merely describe suffering, cessation, or judgment. It depicts a complete exclusion from the circuit of being.

From a metaphysical perspective, this is monstrous. And I say monstrous not in the adolescent sense of the word, but in the classical sense: a rupture so profound that the intellect instinctively tries to reject it. The mind more easily accepts the idea of an eternal hell than the notion of total annihilation of existence, for, no matter how morally absurd it may be in many conceptions, eternal hell still maintains something that the intellect understands: continuity. There is still a subject, there is still a relationship, there is still punishment, there is still duration. The Ex-Mortes even manages to tear that away. He does not grant evil the honor of a negative eternity. He discredits it ontologically.

For this reason, from the beginning, the term seemed more accurate to me than pure and simple annihilation. "Annihilation" is generally understood as the destruction of something that already existed, almost like a final collapse. The Ex-Mortes is not just about collapse. It has a more precise ontological charge of expulsion. It's not just about something being destroyed. It is something that was designed beyond what we could consider the realm of death. Death remains a way of having existed. The Ex-Mortes is the revocation of even that right.

And that explains why the name continued to be useful to me over so many years. It wasn't an adolescent phase that I kept a nostalgic memory of, like someone who keeps an old notebook because they find their own exaggeration beautiful. The opposite happened. The term endured precisely because it met a real need. Things created on impulse usually rot quickly. It loses its usefulness, seems artificial, and gives the impression of being a pose. When the word persists after years, readings, and confrontations with diverse traditions, it is because it met a demand. It did not arise merely from imagination; it originated from a concrete need.

And this was the absence: we have an abundant vocabulary for forms of survival, but insufficient for forms of absolute disappearance. We have terms like redemption, resurrection, transmigration, condemnation, purification, purgatory, samsara, dissolution, reabsorption, extinction, fall, soul's sleep, and second death. However, when it comes to the total erasure of the being as a being, almost everything starts to depend on loose metaphor. Language gets stuck. Or it becomes sentimental, or it is reduced to simplifications, or it turns into pseudo-erudite smoke.

I wanted a harsh word.

And the interesting thing is that it needed to have a sound that was both harsh and final at the same time. Ex-Mortes didn't serve me just for its meaning. It served for the effect. The word ends abruptly. It has a pleasant roughness, without being overly perfumed. It doesn't sound like a concept name created by someone who wants to impress others in a superficial occult circle. It seems something different. It sounds like a condemnation. It resembles traces of Latin found in the margins of a forbidden manuscript. And this is relevant for a term of this kind. The philosophical word also has form. It also has phonetic relevance. It also needs to resonate like what it seeks to reflect.

Subsequently, as I matured the idea, I realized that the Ex-Mortes had at least four layers that integrated in a non-contradictory manner. The first is of an ontological nature. In it, the term refers to the total elimination of the existence of any entity, whether human, angelic, spiritual, material, symbolic, or even conceptual. It is not limited to the interruption of an organism, the punishment of a soul, or the destruction of an object. It refers to the complete elimination of the conditions that allow the permanence of that entity in reality. It is about the being being removed not only from the context but also from the chance of persisting as something in any dimension.

Logic constitutes the second layer. And here the situation becomes interesting, as it begins to disturb those who like to use words without considering the consequences. If a being experiences Ex-Deaths, it is not dead in the same way that a dead person can still be predicated. It is still possible to say: "he lived," "he died," "he was buried," "he will be remembered." The common deceased is also part of the discourse. The Ex-Mortes does not. It creates a rupture between language and the referent. The name is still possible only as an external residue, but the named entity loses its support. In this context, a kind of logical mourning arises: the phrase tries to indicate something that the structure of the real no longer accepts.

It's as if the verb lost its meaning.

The third layer is the theological layer. And it was at this point that the term haunted me the most, for it is both the most risky and the most productive. If everything that exists depends, in some way, on the sustenance of the First Being, then Ex-Mortes can only occur in three ways: as a limit-hypothesis of divine uncreation, as a complete cessation of the entity's participation in the source of being, or as an extreme image to describe a judgment in which permanence is not granted. In any of these interpretations, the term is more intense than "punishment." Punishment implies the existence of the punished. The Ex-Mortes implies that the very chance of the condemned remaining subject to the penalty has been eliminated.

This makes it a horrible idea. Moreover, it is intellectually cleaner than the sentimental theology that claims to uphold justice but, in reality, perpetuates an eternally divided universe to maintain an infinite theater of punishment. There are religious beliefs that turn eternity into an endless cosmic sequence. Evil persists, whether in action or in suffering, but it remains. The rebel persists. Hell persists. The refusal persists. And then you need to pretend that the final victory of good is complete, when in fact it is not. It's a victory with an eternal basement. Beautiful for painting, but terrible for metaphysics.

On the other hand, the Ex-Mortes seriously considers the possibility of a victory without any rebel remnants. And I understand that this can be frightening, as it immediately raises another question: wouldn't it be worse to erase than to punish? In a way, yes. In one case, yes; in another, no. It depends on what is considered more radical: indefinitely maintaining the deprivation or putting an end once and for all to the possibility of the continuation of what has completely detached itself from the order of being. The term does not magically resolve this moral dilemma, but at least it avoids a superficial discussion. It requires putting everything on the table.

The fourth layer is representative. And this one may be the most literary, but no less serious. The Ex-Mortes acts as a symbol of the moment when reality refuses to metabolize something. Everyone has experienced, on a smaller scale, experiences that resemble this: a relationship so ruined that it results in neither hatred, just a dry silence; an idea so misguided that it doesn't deserve an endless refutation, just abandonment; a phase of life so dead that it is not remembered as the past, but as something that was removed from its internal axis. It is evident that this does not refer to Ex-Mortes in the literal sense. However, it helps to understand why the image is powerful. There are things that come to an end. There are things that deteriorate. Moreover, there are elements that seem to have been removed from the context in which they could maintain their meaning.

For that reason, I never wanted to limit the term to angels or spirits. This restriction would diminish its own philosophical utility. If the Ex-Mortes were used only for spiritual entities, it would become a collector's item, a concept of specialized eschatology, almost like a toy for religious discussions. And that's not what it's about. From the beginning, what attracted me was precisely its universal applicability. The concept needed to encompass any entity whose permanence could be considered—and, consequently, whose total removal could also be imagined.

Human, angel, demon, soul, object, connection, denomination, memory, creation, symbol, form. Anything, in principle.

This, of course, requires caution, as otherwise, someone might take the word and use it as a figure of speech for any trivial loss. Then it complicates everything. It's not because you don't remember a face that he went thru Ex-Mortes. It's not because an empire fell that it went thru Ex-Mortem. One cannot claim that there were Ex-Mortes just because a library was burned. These are still internal tragedies. The Ex-Mortes is deeper. It demands the complete elimination of ontological continuity, and not just empirical destruction. The term is only valid when used with discipline. A good word is quickly lost in the hands of theatrical people.

Therefore, when considering the inclusion of something on a website, entry, or public structure, the first thing that concerns me is ensuring that the concept is not vague. No definitions that resemble a mystical slogan or a fandom text trying to sound profound. That would be an absurd betrayal of the very effort that originated the term. The Ex-Mortes must be presented clearly: as a metaphysical idea of total non-existence, which can be applied to any being, and which is different from death, destruction, common annihilation, eternal condemnation, or simple oblivion.

If I had to summarize it to the essentials, this core would need to be maintained: Ex-Mortes is the total elimination of a being from all levels of permanence, manifestation, and ontological memory, so that not only does its existence cease, but also its continuity in being as a subsistent trace is broken.

From that point on, the rest falls into place.

Because, in this way, the necessary distinctions become evident. Common death: end of biological life or separation of principles. Destruction: disintegration of form, substance, organization, or function. Annihilation: complete eradication of something in a given context. Perpetual condemnation: constant suffering under deprivation or punishment. Ex-Deaths: total expulsion of the being, including the chance of remaining as a subsistent in any order of the real.

This is not a matter of terminology. This is called the architecture of thought.

And what intrigues me the most is that the word emerged, like many truly living things do, in a place that purists abhor: in the mix. It was not the result of a library free from contamination. It was a combination of adolescence, dedication to studies, metaphysical intuition, dark pop culture, religious tradition, discomfort with inherited vocabulary, and the frustration of someone who knows that the available language has not yet managed to express the object. Many people believe that concepts only emerge in a controlled environment. False. Sometimes, it arises precisely at the point where the soul and intelligence meet with a concrete void.

And that's exactly what happened.

I didn't "want to have a term." I needed it.

And when I needed it, I ended up realizing something that still seems true to me: when an era lacks a word for a crucial experience, it generally also lacks the courage to reflect on that experience to the end. The poverty of vocabulary is not a casual phenomenon. Often, it is a form of defense. You avoid naming because, when you name, you will have to look.

Ex-Mortes forced me to look.

Consider the possibility that existing is not a guarantyd right, but a continuous participation. Consider the idea that death may not be the ultimate conceivable limit. Consider the possibility that radical evil may not even deserve the grim honor of existing forever. And, above all, face this almost shocking truth: reality can be harsher than our contemporary sensibilities can bear, but it is precisely for this reason that it can also be more coherent.

It is at this point that the word demonstrates its value.

She is not present just to beautify a text. It serves to cut thru the fog.

And when the fog begins to lift, a question arises that few face with sincerity: our emotional attachment to life is immaturely possessive. Life is spoken of as if it were a guarantyd right, as if mere existence ensured some form of permanence, even if it is in the form of memory, pain, or vestige. The Ex-Deaths precisely dispels that illusion. He not only asserts that you can stop living; he also says that you can stop being in a way that no common category can accept without discomfort.

And that's annoying.

It irritates because it shakes the silent confidence that everyone has that, in the end, "something remains." Even if it is pain, even if it is memory, even if it is historical documentation, even if it is perpetual punishment. The Ex-Mortes does not make deals with that possibility. He does not ensure a negative legacy, does not guaranty permanence as an example, nor the persistence of the mistake as a warning. He simply removes the piece from the board and, worse, rearranges the board as if that piece had never belonged to him.

This has a direct philosophical consequence: it dismantles metaphysical vanity.

Because, deep down, many people are not so afraid of hell as they are afraid of being irrelevant. The notion of suffering eternally maintains a form of distorted relevance, as you are still someone, even if condemned. The Ex-Deaths even take that away. He states: you not only did not win, you not only lost, you are no longer part of the very story of reality. And, if taken seriously, it is more destructive than any representation of eternal fire.

However, at the same time, and this is where the concept begins to reveal its other side, it also avoids something that few notice: the condemnation of a universe that eternally carries evil as an inevitable ontological scar. For, if evil persists eternally as an entity, even while suffering, reality never truly closes. It remains constantly divided. The victory of good turns into a partial victory. Attractive in speech, but fragile in structure.

The Ex-Mortes, as severe as it may be, resolves this tension.

He does not grant evil the ability to be eternal.

And here arises an aspect that might go unnoticed if you don't pay attention: this is not nihilism. It's the opposite. Nihilism denies foundation and, therefore, dissolves everything, including good. The Ex-Mortes only makes sense if there is a foundation. It starts from the principle that there is something that sustains being and that this something can, ultimately, withdraw that sustenance from those who have completely severed their connection to that origin. Without this structure, the concept does not hold. It is not a praise of nothingness; it is a blunt statement that nothingness is not allowed to exist as a parasite of being.

And this, whether one likes it or not, places the concept within a metaphysical tradition much more classical than it appears at first glance. It is not a chaotic invention. It is an almost extreme consequence of a participatory ontology taken to the extreme. If everything is part of being, the complete loss of that participation cannot just be another state within being. It needs to be something different. And it is at this point that Ex-Mortes emerges: as that limit where language begins to fail, but the need to name persists.

That's why it also adapts well when you relate it to older religious traditions. Not because these traditions use the term—they do not—but because, at certain moments, they address the issue. When extirpation, severance, second death in a profound sense, disappearance of the wicked, final dissolution of unsustainable structures are mentioned, there is always a present discomfort. An attempt to express something that does not adequately fit into the usual categories of punishment or continuity. The precise word is not present. Everything ends up being somewhat symbolic and scattered.

The Ex-Mortes doesn't solve the mystery, but at least it organizes the field.

This even changes the way we read some images that have been trivialized. For example, the lake of fire is often seen in a simplistic way, as a place where people are condemned to burn eternally, as if God had created an endless torture device. This caters to a vengeful imagination, but it is theologically superficial and philosophically lazy. If you interpret this in light of a concept like Ex-Mortes, the situation transforms. The "fire" ceases to be a means to prolong suffering and becomes an element of total incompatibility between what is and what can no longer be maintained.

It's not an oven.

It's a limit.

And crossing that line does not mean entering a worse place. It means losing the place.

It's a significant difference.

And that's why, when you consider it seriously, the approach changes completely. Out goes the spectacle, in comes the silence. There isn't much to dramatize when the very protagonist of the drama can no longer hold the scene. The Ex-Mortes does not generate an eternal scream. It produces permanent absence. And this absence is so profound that it doesn't even provoke the type of memory that sustains tragic narratives.

She only allows... a change in the real.

Almost as if the world had been reset again.

And here arises an effect that I have always considered intriguing: the concept of "grief without an object." That's because, if you reflect to the end, the complete removal of a being cannot be entirely neutral for the rest of reality. Something transforms. However, it does not change in the way we are used to perceiving. There is no clear memory, there is no preserved history, there is no monument. There is a slight dissonance, an impression that something doesn't fit perfectly, but without a clear reference to identify what is missing.

This should not turn into a superficial psychological theory. It is just a logical consequence: if there was involvement and it was removed, the system needs to readjust. And rebalancing is not a magical erasure without consequence. It is a reorganization. Just reorganization without conscious memory.

And then you begin to understand why the concept, although complex, has great utility beyond any specific religious debate. It acts as a diagnostic tool. It makes you question, in any area: is this being eliminated... or is it being removed from the context where it could still be relevant? Is this the end... or the expulsion of meaning? Does this still have relevance or has it become just something that persists out of conceptual inertia?

Few people ask these questions because they generate discomfort.

However, they are essential.

And it is at this point that Ex-Mortes stops being just a curious expression and becomes a tool for understanding reality. Not as a definitive answer, but as a conceptual limit. Like that which prevents you from facing any disappearance as if it were the same as all the others. Not everything that ends reaches its end in the same way. Not everything that disappears does so in the same way. And not all destruction is just destruction.

Some are... exceptions.

And, upon becoming aware of this, the language itself begins to acquire more precision. You stop calling everything death. Stop calling everything an end. Stop using complex words to disguise the lack of clarity. Start organizing things better. And this, which may seem like a technical detail, completely alters the type of thinking you are capable of generating.

In the end, that's what that term from 2016 ended up doing to me.

He didn't just name an idea.

He adjusted his way of thinking.

And maybe that's why it's still useful. Not because it is "mine," not because it has a fascinating story behind it, nor because it emerged from an unexpected combination of study and pop culture. However, it still functions as what every good philosophical term should be: a more effective tool than the previous ones.

And when you discover a tool like this, you don't abandon it.

You employ.

And see how far she is capable of going.

And it is precisely at this point that things start to become really dangerous, not in the emotional sense, but in the logical sense, which is much more serious, because one cannot escape with emotion.

Because yes, the Ex-Mortes is a logical fallacy.

And that is exactly the proposal.

It's not an accident. It's not a flaw that needs to be adjusted for the concept to "work" better. It is the moment when the idea works precisely because it challenges conventional logic. If you try to make it comfortable, overly coherent, and perfectly aligned with classical categories, you compromise what is most authentic about it.

He exists to challenge the limit, not to conform to it.

And the first aspect in which this manifests is in the question of truth.

Well, if you are completely honest, you will have to acknowledge the following: when something undergoes Ex-Deaths, it not only ceases to exist, but the truth about it loses its foundation. And here there is no way to soften it. Either you agree with this, or the concept falls apart.

Because, if there is still a proven factual truth about it — "he was," "he existed," "he did" — then some type of subsistence still persists, even if minimal, even if as a logical vestige. And if there are traces, the Complete Ex-Deaths did not occur.

Therefore, you find yourself faced with a decision that most philosophies subtly sidestep: either preserve the structure of truth and renounce the concept, or accept the concept in its entirety and admit that there are situations where factual truth radically loses its referent.

This is not about relativism. It's more serious.

It is a form of ontological cancelation of the referent of truth.

And this is explosive because it undermines a fundamental trust that almost all philosophy upholds: that the past, once it has happened, is assured as true. The Ex-Mortes presents the possibility that this guaranty may not be unconditional if the very ontological foundation of what was is removed.

You are not claiming that it "turns into a lie." You are asserting that the foundation that supported the truth has been removed.

And this is a logical error, however, it is a necessary error to designate something that is beyond conventional logic.

The same happens with memory, but on an even deeper level.

Because, in this case, the problem is not of a psychological nature. It's not about "people forgetting." That's simple. The question is: does memory belong to the being or not?

If it is involved and everything suggests so, because memory is not just a subjective record, it is a connection with something that happened, so by removing the being, it is not possible to simply "keep the memory intact." That wouldn't make sense. The memory would remain holding onto something that is no longer possible to hold onto.

Therefore, she needs to be impacted.

But not just erased. That would be too simplistic. It needs to be adjusted.

And then, you arrive at a consequence that is almost uncomfortable to express: the Ex-Mortes not only eliminates the individual but also imposes a silent rewriting of the reality around them. Not in the cinematic sense of "timelines altering," but in a more objective way: the relationships that depended on that entity lose their anchor point and need to reorganize.

The world doesn't just lose something.

He adapts so as not to depend on what he can no longer maintain.

And this stops being an isolated event.

It becomes a structural event.

At this level, The Ex-Deaths goes beyond "someone" or "something." It is the fabric of reality being forced to reassess its own consistency.

And it is precisely for this reason that the risk of trivialization is so high and so unacceptable.

Well, as soon as someone takes it and starts using it as an emotional metaphor, it's over. The idea dies. Not in the beautiful sense, but in the vulgar sense: it loses precision, becomes language of effect, becomes a tool for people who want to seem profound without paying the price of thinking it thru to the end.

There are no "ex-relationship deaths."

There are no "Ex-Ideas of Canceled Deaths."

There is no "Ex-Psychological Deaths."

This is a lack of effort.

The term is only applicable when the possibility of subsistence in any sphere is eliminated — whether physical, metaphysical, logical, or relational. If there is still some kind of involvement, any trace maintained, any coherent memory, any impact that still relies on that being as the cause, then there have been no Ex-Deaths.

There was a loss. There was devastation. There was a forgetting.

But that's not it.

Without this precision, the term becomes esthetic. And, in this context, esthetics is considered betrayal.

Currently, the most sensitive issue is the differentiation between Ex-Mortes and creation.

This happens because many people fall into an almost childish dualism, as if nothing were a "thing" that competes with being. It's not true.

The Ex-Mortes doesn't produce anything.

He does not create an entity known as "nothing."

He simply removes the support.

And this changes everything, as it preserves the unaltered metaphysical coherence. An anti-being does not annihilate being. It ceases to be sustained by what made it exist. It is a withdrawal, not a collision.

Creating is allowing something to exist.

Ex-Mortes is to completely eliminate this participation.

There is no symmetry. There is no dualism. There is complete asymmetry.

And this prevents the idea from turning into a low-cost ontological fantasy.

But then the question arises that no one can avoid for long: who can handle this?

And here is no longer the time to just suggest.

If anything could provoke Ex-Deaths, the universe would be so unbalanced that it wouldn't be able to sustain itself. Any more radical rupture would become a risk of local de-creation. That doesn't make sense.

If no one is capable, the concept becomes merely an elegant logical exercise, but without substance.

Therefore, you end up with few serious alternatives.

Either the Ex-Mortes is exclusive to the foundation of being, that is, only that which sustains can completely withdraw the sustenance; or it is an inevitable consequence of a total rupture of participation; or it is a limit-possibility that organizes the system, even if it never fully materializes.

Any of these positions can be defended, but it is necessary to adopt a stance, even if it is provisional. Because, without it, the concept remains undefined. Intense, yet light.

And, in the end, everything leads to the most uncomfortable point: the status of evil.

Because the Ex-Mortes does not see evil as something that needs to be balanced, compensated, or contained forever. He approaches evil as something that, when taken to the extreme, loses its ontological authorization to continue existing, not even as a negation.

This is not about punishment.

This is a structural correction.

And this alleviates a tension that many philosophies ignore: that of a universe which, in the end, would remain eternally affected by what denies the very essence of being. The Ex-Mortes responds: no. There is no perpetual right to parasitize the real.

At this level, evil is not sustained.

He is eliminated.

And yes, this is still a logical error.

However, perhaps this is the most honest point of all: to admit that, when touching the limits of being, conventional logic begins to fail—not because reality has become irrational, but because language has not yet managed to reach what it tries to name.

The Ex-Deaths doesn't deal with that.

He reveals this.

And, by exposing, it forces you to decide: either you retreat to more comfortable concepts, or you accept dealing with an idea that doesn't fit perfectly but, precisely because of that, brings to light something that was previously out of reach.

And, to be honest, I prefer the discomfort.

Because, at least, he is not dishonest.

And when this truly becomes a serious symbolic field, not as a cheap esoteric text ornament, but as a technical language of those who understand that a symbol is a tool of thought, Ex-Mortes ceases to be just a disturbing concept and becomes an anomaly within the very symbolic grammar.

And that is unusual.

For most symbols were created to unite, clarify, and complete cycles. The Ex-Mortes acts in the opposite way: its purpose is to interrupt the cycle at the moment when no one wants it to happen.

And that's why his sign can't be excessively elegant.

It can't be "harmonic."

It should not be perceived as part of the system.

He needs to look... incorrect.

The sign is as follows:

∅̶
(usable simple variation: Ø̶)

And it's not about an esthetic aspect.

In almost all serious traditions, such as alchemy, metaphysics, and mathematics, the circle (∅ or Ø) has always represented the notion of totality, unity, field, potential, and even relative emptiness, but an emptiness that is still part of the system.

The sign (̶) is not a division.

He is not balanced.

He does not establish two poles.

He cancels.

He passes thru the symbol without creating symmetry. He does not "organize the void"; he denies the chance for the void to still be seen as potential.

And that is precisely what Ex-Mortes achieves.

It does not break externally.

Disapproves internally.

When analyzing the classical alchemical grammar that has not been vulgarized, one point becomes evident: everything in it presupposes the permanence of something.

There's always something left.

There is always substrate.

Even when everything seems ruined, there is still subtle matter, there is still a foundation for transmutation. This manifests in the most basic symbols:

☉ represents totality, gold, and fullness.
○ = potential / basic resource
△ = change / flame / action
☿ = mediation / flow / philosophical mercury
🜍 = base / ground / foundation of the operation

All these symbols, without exception, operate within the logic of the process.

Even when you enter the dark nigredo, it doesn't mean the end. It's a phase. It is a matter in progress. It is a functional death, not an ontological one.

The nigredo continues to be part of the work.

The Ex-Mortes, no.

And this represents the rupture.

Because, symbolically, the Ex-Mortes cannot be considered a phase. It cannot be seen as a new step in the solve et coagula. If you act that way, you will have ruined the concept.

He is not a dissolution.

He is not decomposition.

He is not calcinatio.

He is what happens when there is no more substance to dissolve.

The athanor can remain lit.

However, there is nothing else inside.

If you wanted to express this in an almost brutally simple way, it would be like this:

☉ → △ → ☿ → ○ → ☉

This is the traditional cycle.

Now, at the moment when the Ex-Mortes enters:

☉ → △ → ☿ → ○ → ∅̶

And here the cycle does not end.

There is no answer.

There is no possibility of reinstatement.

Final coagulation does not occur.

And, from an alchemical perspective, this is almost an offense.

For the entire tradition is based on the idea that everything can, in some way, be worked on. What is impure can be purified. The chaotic can be organized. What is inferior can be elevated. There is always the structural expectation of reintegration.

The Ex-Mortes denies this without asking for permission.

He presents the symbol of what is no longer part of the work.

And this completely alters the status of evil in this language.

For, until that moment, evil symbolically was still substance. It was still something that needed to be transformed, improved, corrected, and elevated. Even the lowest had a role to play in the process.

With Ex-Mortes, a new option appears:

there is something that has ceased to be alchemical matter.

Not because it is excessively strong.

But because he missed the opportunity to participate.

And this represents a significant change.

Because the symbol ∅̶ does not indicate the "negative of being." It symbolizes the revocation of the permission to participate in being. There is no dualism here. There is no "force from nothing" competing with being. Just a lack of support.

And, symbolically, this is much more complex.

Now we have reached the most delicate and riskiest point of all.

In alchemy, the void is never considered an absolute void.

Even what seems to be nothing is a field. It is still a power. It is still an option. It is still a silence that can be filled. The traditional void is fertile.

The Ex-Mortes goes against this rule.

He brings a void that is not productive.

An emptiness that is not a phase.

An emptiness that cannot be filled.

And that's exactly why the strikethrough (̶) is essential.

∅ alone could still be interpreted as a potential field.

∅̶ impede this.

He "eliminates" the chance of interpretation.

He doesn't allow the symbol to have space within the system.

He prevents reading.

This makes the sign something peculiar: it appears to be an alchemical symbol, but it does not act like one.

He does not indicate change.

He indicates the lack of transformability.

He does not allow interpretation.

He concludes.

And, therefore, it should not be used as decoration.

If you start spreading ∅̶ in texts as if it were a beautiful icon, you have ruined the symbol. It only operates when it manifests as a rupture. Like a reduction. Like a pause in reading.

He needs to cause a slight freeze.

Because that's what it symbolizes.

And this almost ironically concludes everything that was presented earlier.

The Ex-Mortes was already, in logical terms, an admitted mistake.

Now, in the symbolic realm, it becomes a mistake in the very language of symbols.

He is not incorporated.

He lacks elegance.

He is not "harmonious."

He is functionally uncomfortable.

And perhaps that is precisely what makes it a valid sign.

Because, in the end, the challenge was never just labeling what you were thinking.

It was to shape something that, by its very nature, resists shaping.

And you ended up doing it the only way possible:

creating a symbol that doesn't hit the right spot.

The word "death" begins to shrink in relation to what it seemed to carry only when one reaches that edge. And it shrinks because we treat it like a disorganized person uses an old drawer: we throw everything in there and then call it order. The end of the body, the silence of the mind, the absence of someone, forgetfulness, ruin, compassion, the crossing, metamorphosis, fear, rest, the enigma, the collapse. Everything ends in death. Then the individual still demands precision. There won't be. Whoever refers to everything by the same name has already given up on understanding even before starting.

Because death is not just a thing. Never was. There is death that wounds the body, while the world continues to revolve around the corpse as if nothing had happened, despite everything having happened. There is death that distances, but does not break the connection. There is death that disintegrates to restructure, that decomposes to restore, that interrupts a form without nullifying the existence of that form. There is death that causes pain because there are still those who suffer, who remember, who bury, who curse time. Death can be seen as a change of state, a suspension, a crossing, a wait, a punishment, or a shadow. All of these, even the most horrible, are still part of being. All of them still leave something unresolved.

Even the most rigid religious image, when conceived as a continuity of deprivation, remains on the side of being. There is deformity, there is destruction, there is denial, there is suffering, but there is still individuality. There is still duration. There is still connection. There is still some possible grammar. It is still possible to say that "there is someone there," no matter how subtle that presence may be. And this is much more important than it seems. Because it indicates that death, no matter how terrible, has never been the absolute limit. It has always been an internal barrier. A line within what still remains supported. In this context, death does not represent the final collapse of reality. There is an intense movement within it.

Maybe that's why people talk so much about death without being able to stop. Since always, people have written, painted, prayed, sung, philosophized, dramatized, lied, and cried about it. Death, even when it provokes fear, still allows itself to be expressed in words. It still accepts symbols. Still allows mourning. Still allows memory. Still accepts history. Moreover, it leaves a residue sufficient for consciousness to work. The human mind endures death precisely because conventional death does not completely remove us from understanding. The horror of it does not lie in making everything unimaginable, but in forcing us to contemplate the end while there is still a world, face, clothes, name, and memory. Death still leaves marks. And a trace is what makes suffering expressible.

But what happens when that also stops? When does the "having been" cease to be preserved intact as a horizon? Not when the body perishes, nor when the soul dissociates, according to some beliefs, nor when memory weakens with the passage of time. It is at this point that the Ex-Mortes ceases to be a verbal curiosity and becomes a conceptual blade. Because it is not part of the family of deaths. He is neither the weird cousin, nor the exaggerated interpretation, nor the catastrophic hyperbole of the term death. With an almost offensive coldness, he reveals that "death" has always been too small for some possibilities of an end.

If conventional death represents the end of life, Ex-Mortes symbolizes the end of the chance to have lived a subsistent life. If death leaves a trace, Ex-Mortes even removes the right to leave a trace. If death enables memory, the Ex-Death reaches its own condition of possibility for memory to have a referent. And then everything changes scale, for the issue is no longer death. The question is what death still holds. As long as there is excess, intelligence acts. As long as there are bodies, someone performs the burial. As long as there are memories, someone cries. As long as there is history, someone tells it. As long as there is pain, someone suffers. As long as there is any residue, death remains in the human realm, no matter how cruel it may be.

However, when there is nothing left, not even an identifiable "nothing." And this aspect is more challenging than it appears, as it requires the recognition of something that contemporary sensibility abhors: finitude remains a privilege. Yes, it is a privilege. Being finite is still to exist. Being finite is also being part of it. Being finite also means having been part of the set of real numbers. It is still having been present in the fabric of causality, even if for a brief moment, in a delicate or even tragic way. On the other hand, The Ex-Deaths presents the possibility that existence is not just fragile; it is conditional on a level deeper than contemporary sentimentality can bear without grimacing.

And this alters the perception of common death. It ceases to be the absolute enemy and, ironically, becomes a form of permanence. Because dying, in the common sense, still means remaining as someone who lived. It is still being susceptible to love, hate, remembrance, study, prayer, curse, genealogy, epitaph, biography, and longing. It is still to occupy a space in the fabric of being. And, from a metaphysical perspective, this is not trivial. It's enormous. It's practically everything. The contemporary man, obsessed with complaining about limits, does not recognize the importance of still being able to leave a mark. He desires eternity as a right and doesn't even realize the miracle of having been present.

That is why memory has always played such an important role in serious traditions. Not out of sentimentality, nor out of that fragile cult of memory that turns pain into cemetery self-help, but because, intuitively, it has always been understood that being remembered is a weakened, yet concrete, way of remaining present. Not as active consciousness, nor as complete survival, but as continuity in relationships. Memory is a fragile connection, but it is still a connection. It attests that something has not been completely removed. She is, in a way, one of the last human frontiers of participation. And the Ex-Mortes breaks exactly that. Not in a noisy way, nor with an apocalyptic trumpet, nor with a pyrotechnic show for the poorly fed religious head of cinema, but with a discreet, cold, almost technical withdrawal.

That's what makes him feel so uncomfortable. He doesn't shout. Doesn't attract. Don't guaranty. He doesn't threaten with fervent imagination. He simply states: there is a moment when even death does not endure. There is a point at which the very possibility of narrating the end is eliminated. There is a limit possibility in which the individual not only ceases to exist but also ceases to be remembered, to leave traces or inscriptions. And it is precisely this extreme point, which seems too dark to be useful, that brings the rest into relentless clarity. For, when looking at it, life ceases to be seen as a mere possession and begins to be perceived as a participation. Common death ceases to be seen as total annihilation and begins to be perceived as an internal limit of that participation. And the Ex-Mortes appears as the external limit, not only of life but of the very continuity in the real.

This even changes the way of living, although not in the simplistic manner that lazy moralists tend to repeat. I'm not referring to that kind of cliché wall calendar speech, like "value life," "enjoy every moment," and "be grateful." When it lacks a metaphysical foundation, all of this is worth no more than a wet pamphlet. The problem is more serious. When one understands that living is being part of something that ensures its own continuity, life ceases to be seen as a private property of the ego. It is welcomed, maintained, recorded, disseminated. Before having psychological utility, it possesses ontological thickness. You are not here simply for being "you." You are here because you are involved. Because you were kept. Because it was accepted in reality. And this can be lost to varying degrees. Yes, from a biological point of view. Morally, in various senses as well. And even ontologically, at the most radical conceptual limit.

Maybe that's why death has always played a central role in all cultures that deserve that name. Not because of humanity's obsession with the morbid, as the sanitized idiot who confuses depth with trauma believes, but because death indicates something beyond itself. It points out that we are not self-sufficient. That we are not capable of sustaining ourselves alone. That existing is not something automatic. That life does not arise from nothing as a guarantyd right nor is it sustained by mere whim. Common death already demonstrates this sufficiently to humble any arrogance. The Ex-Deaths intensifies the revelation: it shows that even finitude, when compared to the uncreation of the inscription, has something of a gift.

It is at this point that the symbol ∅̶ transcends its role as a mere sign and becomes almost a graphic wound. Because it does not symbolize a change, a phase of the work, a productive nite, a fertile putrefaction, or a silence of preparation. He symbolizes the interruption of closure, the internal annulment of the circle, and the elimination of continuity. There is no guaranty of reintegration in this case. There is no solve et coagula. There is no glorious return of the process. And yet, by rejecting the simple mystique of the eternal cycle, it ends up functioning as a negative mirror of what makes life comprehensible. The wounded circle makes the normal circle reappear with more intensity. The sign of withdrawal highlights the importance of participation. When analyzed to the end, the logical error offers a peculiar service to reason: it reveals what reason would not be able to preserve without an extreme limit to serve as a contrast.

However, it would be a disaster to end here and leave the reader in an elegant abyss, as many writers do who confuse despair with depth. That is pride, not philosophy. When taken seriously, Thomism eliminates this temptation from the outset. Being is virtuous. Participating in being is positive. Living, even in the face of the inevitability of finitude, is a good. Death is a parasite, not original. Deprivation only becomes perceptible when there was previously form, act, presence, or participation. Evil is not a second entity. Nothing does not compete with being. The withdrawal is only possible because there was a previous donation. And this aspect changes everything, as it prevents the reflection on the Ex-Mortes from falling into the theatrical nihilism of people who find it beautiful to transform nothingness into divinity.

No. Nothing does not triumph. Being is primary, more powerful, and more authentic. To make sense, the very horror of the Ex-Mortes depends on it. If there were no real good, there would be no scandal in losing it. If being were not a gift, its total elimination would be irrelevant. And it's not about that. It shocks us precisely because touching being is touching a good. Therefore, the appropriate response is not to venerate the void, but to more soberly understand the value of everything that still belongs to the real. Life, memory, friendship, virtue, wisdom, love, truthfulness, presence, commitment, journey. All of this gains more weight, not less, when confronted with the extreme hypothesis of withdrawal.

Therefore, the healthy philosophical response to this matter is not the worship of the end, but the respect for life. Not a sentimental, melancholic, and abstract reverence, but a practical, ethical, and clear reverence. Living well is important because being is not a toy. Loving is important because the bond is not a coincidence. Remembering is important because memory is not just a brain function, but also an indication of shared inscription. Acting correctly is important, for human life is not just about duration, but also about direction. The purpose does not disappear just because finitude is frightening. On the contrary: it is finitude that makes purpose urgent. And it is precisely for this reason that a deep reflection on Ex-Mortes, instead of leading to despair, ends up dissipating illusions and conferring an almost sacred seriousness to life.

Ultimately, the extreme concept is not intended to glorify darkness, but to purify vision. Those who have understood a bit of what is at stake can no longer see life as a biological triviality nor death as a poetic slogan. The person begins to understand that living is not just about moving, desiring, consuming, and passing thru. It is to be part of an order of being that demands form, truth, prudence, love, and courage. And that demands a response. No hysteria, no panic, no aestheticization of the abyss, but a response. An honest life, even if imperfect, is more valuable than a thousand illusions of self-sufficiency. A soul oriented toward good refutes half of the contemporary false ideas about freedom. An intelligence that bends to the truth sees further than an unshakable pride.

When all the smoke clears, perhaps this is what remains: not the enchantment of emptiness, but an even more intense call to life. Not to life as entertainment, but to life as engagement in the good. Not to life as an accumulation of sensations, but to life as a received form that longs for fullness. And thus, common death, seen thru this prism, loses some of its monstrous appearance and reveals its role as an internal limit, while the Ex-Deaths remains in its proper place: as an extreme hypothesis, an ontological warning, and a symbol of withdrawal, which aids in the perception of the value of presence.

The worthy thot does not end up kissing the void. It ends up kneeling before the being.

And that is why, after traversing all this conceptual darkness, what emerges is not the desert, but a demand for clarity: to live. Live more authentically, organized, aware of fragility, and grateful for participation. Live as someone who understands that life itself is a gift and that staying in goodness is the only response that does not devalue this gift. Live with the awareness that life is not based on the fear of losing, but on the authentic value of being present. To live, finally, not as one who escapes the end, but as one who respects the origin. Because the severed void does not have the final word. It is inherent to the being that sustains, summons, organizes, and assigns meaning. And it is precisely for this reason that sincere intelligence, upon reaching the bottom of the abyss, does not learn to venerate the darkness. Learn to choose life.

There is a curious aspect to all this, which I took a while to recognize without seeming to force a connection where there was none: the origin was not a treaty, nor a classic author, nor an established tradition. It happened during a game. And not a "philosophical" game, nor an RPG full of deep dialogs, but a raw, almost primitive experience that hits before it explains.

You wake up.

Without identity, without history, without reference.

Forest.

Inappropriate silence.

And it is not the serene silence of someone seeking peace, but a silence that seems to have consumed something. You don't know what it is, but you are sure that something is missing. And that feeling arises before any monster, before any fear. The game begins by implicitly conveying the idea that the world is not complete.

And that, from a philosophical point of view, is already a bombshell.

Because terror does not reside in the presence of evil. It's about the feeling of lack of structure. As if something had been removed and the rest were trying to reorganize, but without success.

You walk.

Enter the house.

Moreover, the house is not just a setting. It is almost like a sick body. Everything there indicates that something was created, destroyed, hidden, or corrupted. Sacrifices, rituals, and fragments of a story that don't fit together. Nothing is clarified clearly. Everything is suggested.

And this is relevant.

Because the game doesn't offer a predefined narrative. It leaves you open-ended.

And the gap is the starting point of thought.

As you progress, one thing becomes increasingly clear: the problem is not "what happened there." The problem is the nature of what happened there. It's not just about violence, madness, or macabre ritualism. It is something deeper: a form of disorder that seeks not only to destroy but also to transform the very essence of what it is.

And then we reach the point that connects everything.

In the end, you simply don't realize that you were dealing with something external.

You realize that you are involved.

That it's not just a horror scene.

It's a mirror.

And this type of change, when well executed, is not narrative. It is representative. Because it dismantles the player's fundamental security: that there is a "self" distinct from the problem.

There isn't.

And it is here that Exmortis takes on its true weight as the origin.

The name already reveals more than it seems.

"Exmortis" has the sound of something that comes "from death," "out of death," or "away from death." However, the game does not consider death as an end. It approaches death as a context. As an area. As something that has already been surpassed and what remains is not just life after death, nor punishment, nor rest.

It's about something else.

It's as if the game is trying to present a situation where death no longer has any effect.

And that was precisely what surprised me.

Because there, without philosophical language, without theological definition, without an organized system, was the raw intuition of something that I could only organize later: there is a point where dying is no longer the problem.

The problem lies in what happens when even death loses its function.

And this manifests as atmosphere in the game.

It is not mentioned.

It is perceived.

The house is not just haunted.

She is like a byproduct.

A place where something was done that shouldn't have been, and the result is neither a traditional ghost nor an entity that still "exists" in the usual sense.

It is a presence that seems to be... poorly founded.

Almost as if it were there without permission to be.

And, upon reflecting on this more clearly, I realize that it is profoundly alchemical, not in the superficial sense that people usually repeat.

This happens because, in traditional alchemy, everything is incorporated into the process.

Everything.

The rotten, the impure, the broken, and the chaotic are still objects of work. The nigredo does not represent the end. It is the beginning of a change. Decomposition is not a defeat. It's a phase.

However, what is presented in Exmortis is not nigredo.

It's not a matter in preparation.

This is a matter that seems to have already been excluded from the process.

It's as if the athanor were in operation... but what was supposed to be transformed was no longer involved in the process.

This is not about classical alchemy.

This represents the breakdown of alchemy.

And then you understand the true symbolic weight: the game does not just depict corruption.

He demonstrates something that can no longer be corrected within the cycle.

And it is at this moment that Ex-Mortes begins to become comprehensible as an idea.

For what is observed there is not just death, punishment, or failed transformation.

It's more like a withdrawal.

Something that should have already disappeared, but still leaves a strange, unstable trace, almost like a glitch in reality.

Moreover, this addresses a theological aspect that few people notice.

This happens because, traditionally, evil still "persists" as deprivation. It is parasitic, yet it still depends on being. Even in hell, there is continuity. There is an agent. There is a period of time.

However, the game proposes, albeit in a rudimentary and unsystematic manner — the idea of something that is no longer in that state.

It's not just about falling.

It's not just about condemnation.

It's as if the very foundation that supported that existence had been shaken.

And this is not a doctrine.

However, it is a strong symbolic intuition.

Because it indicates what you later organize philosophically: the distinction between something that is corrupted within the being and something that has lost the ability to continue being part of it.

And, when you observe closely, it was already there.

In the inappropriate silence.

In the house that doesn't close.

In the narrative that remains unfinished.

In the perception that you are dealing with something that is not just "another," but something that no longer has a defined place.

And that's why the game was significant.

Not because of the scare.

Not because of the gore.

However, without realizing it, he touched a real boundary.

He presented, esthetically, what later required language to be reflected upon: that the deepest horror is neither suffering, nor death, nor punishment.

It is about the loss of one's own ability to persist in existence.

And when you return to the term, everything makes sense.

Ex-Dead.

Not as a random creation.

But like a necessary name for something that already existed, it just hadn't been mentioned.

And then you understand why this connection is not forced.

Because the idea was not originated by the game.

He just opened the wound.

And philosophy later emerged to try to shape what already existed, raw, silent, and too uncomfortable to be ignored.

In the end, it's kind of ironic.

A simple and technically limited game, created in a time when the internet was different, ended up addressing an aspect that many sophisticated philosophies carefully avoid.

And this reveals more about the philosophy than about the game itself.

Because, in some cases, the truth does not reveal itself where everything seems to be in order.

It arises when something doesn't fit.

Where there is a problem.

Where the symbol cannot.

Where language cannot express.

And it was precisely at that point that everything began.

Not with an explanation.

However, with a very clear feeling that cannot be disregarded:

that there was something worse than death.

And that it needed to be named.

Exmortis the Game

I remember the beginning not as a dramatic impact, but as an annoyance that is unjustified. You wake up in a forest, with no name, no past, no point of reference, and the game makes no effort to ease this situation. There is no emotional soundtrack guiding you, nor a character indicating what you should feel. There is just that strange feeling that you are already late for something that happened before you realized it happened.

The house appears almost as an inevitable consequence, not as an option. And this already sets the tone for the entire experience. You are not there out of curiosity; you are being driven by a logic that is beyond your control. Upon entering, you realize that it is not a typical horror scene. It's not a "haunted" place in the superficial sense. There is an internal organization, a silent coherence, as if everything there is structured to guide you, not to scare you for no reason.

The game begins to reveal itself in the details. Documents, correspondence, testimonies. And this is how you find Xavier Rehayem, not as an active character, but as someone who has already traveled that same path in a more difficult way. His story is disturbing not only because of what he did — murdering his own daughter, Gwen — but also because of the way the game addresses it. Not as an emotional explosion, but as the result of something larger that was already in motion before his action.

And then Vlaew appears.

Not as a traditional villain, but as an entity that does not require form to exist. That was what impressed me the most while playing: the game does not seek to create a direct confrontation. Vlaew doesn't show up to "battle." He acts as a factor of structural influence. He doesn't need to persuade you. There is no need to threaten you. Just take a stand.

And it's at this point that the game really changes.

You gradually begin to realize that you are not investigating a story. You are being inserted into it. The character is neither a hero nor a survivor; he is a tool. The title "Hand of Exmortis" is not presented as a narrative reward, but rather as a diagnosis. You haven't achieved anything. You were manipulated.

And, in practice, this is the most striking aspect of the first game. It ends without a clear resolution, but it evokes a specific feeling: nothing very visible happened, but enough to change what comes next.

This becomes clear in the second game.

The world was not annihilated, and that is the most unsettling aspect. It still exists, but it is not preserved. There is a constant perception that something has changed at the core, and not just on the surface. The introduction of Joshua Hannay as the main character creates a false expectation of a "redemption story," but the game does not follow this simplistic route.

Actually, what he does is even more uncomfortable: he puts you in a situation where the very force that caused the problem starts to guide you. Vlaew starts giving instructions. And this is not displayed in an obvious way as manipulation. On the contrary, it seems to be in tune with what is happening.

You act, solve problems, remove what seems to be an obstacle... and only then realize that it wasn't a correction. It's a matter of domain adjustment. You were not restoring any order. I was assisting in the consolidation of a third.

And this brings us to one of the most intriguing aspects of the narrative: the game does not deal with a simple opposition. In direct action, there is no clear distinction between good and evil. There is a shift in control. This makes the narrative more complex, as it takes away from the player the feeling of being "on the right side."

In the third game, all of this had already become an irreversible consequence.

The protagonist, now acting as the Redeemer, no longer seeks to understand what is happening. He is already too involved for that. The battle is not against specific beings, but against the condition in which the world has been placed. And the cost of this is clear: there is no clean solution. There is no complete restoration. There is continuity with a cost.

When analyzed calmly, the complete story is not about scares or superficial terror. That is just the most visible surface. The idea that something that shouldn't exist in reality managed to persist and operate within it is what truly sustains the game.

And that was what really caught my attention.

Because the game does not present a devastated world. It depicts a world functioning incorrectly. And that is much harder to notice and much more uncomfortable to accept. There is no spectacle, no exaggeration. It has a cold logic that gradually unfolds.

If I had to evaluate the story, I wouldn't consider it "complex" in the traditional sense. It appears to be simple. What sets her apart is the way she deals with what is not fully explained. She doesn't provide everything ready-made and spoon-fed, and that's not a problem. It's part of the process.

And, to be honest, that's what makes the game memorable.

Not for the jumpscares, which nowadays don't have as much impact.

But by the constant feeling that you weren't dealing with something.

You were contributing to something without realizing it.

And when you realize it, it no longer matters.

REFERÊNCIAS BIBLIOGRÁFICAS

AUGUSTINE, Saint. De natura boni of Saint Augustine: a translation with an introduction and commentary. Washington: Catholic University of America Press, 1955.

AQUINO, Thomas of. The Being and Essence: De Ente et Essentia. Petrópolis: Vozes, 1995.

AQUINO, Thomas of. Summa Theologiae. Turin: Marietti, 1948-.

BIBLE. Portuguese. Jerusalem Bible. New revised and expanded edition. São Paulo: Paulus, 2002. Rev 20:14; 21:8.

LEFFLER, Ben. Exmortis. [S.l.]: Ben Leffler, 2004. 1 electronic game (Flash).

PERNETY, Antoine-Joseph. Mytho-Hermetic Dictionary. Milan: Arche, 1980. Facsimile of the Paris edition, 1758.

Rosarium Philosophorum. Rosarium philosophorum: an alchemical florilegium of the late Middle Ages. Weinheim: VCH, 1992. 2 v. Facsimile of the Frankfurt edition, 1550.

SCHOLEM, Gershom G. Principales tendencias en el misticismo judío. Nueva York: Schocken Books, 1961.

ZOHAR. The Zohar = ספר הזהר. Pritzker edition. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 2004-2017.

Nous Study Circle

Explore the website and chat with us on Instagram:

Contact

Newsletter

Instagram

@ nous_pva

© 2026. Nous Study Circle. All rights reserved.

Terms of use