Three Seas Forum

the archives

dusted off in read-only

  •  

A brief history of Earwa? posted 31 August 2005 in The Warrior ProphetA brief history of Earwa? by TheBrucolac, Commoner

From what I have been able to put together (and there are holes here) here's what happened:
Inchoroi come to Earwa "from the void" (alien spaceships?). Earwa is populated by men and Nonmen, the Nonmen being the dominant species. Nonmen, as compared to men are extremely long-lived, perhaps seeming immortal to short-lived men. At some point, either before of after the arrival of the Inchoroi, Nonmen have enslaved men.

Nonmen and Inchoroi war. The Inchoroi use the Tekne to create unnatural abominations: Bashrag, Wracu, Sranc and the No-God (the No-God is never "finished"). Eventually the Nonmen push the Inchoroi back to Golgotterath and magically hide it. The Inchoroi are hidden and defeated, but not beaten.

Men gain their freedom from Nonmen ("the breaking of the gates"). Nonmen enslave the Sranc, as they had enslaved Men. At some point, the Tusk, the first chronical of men on Earwa is written. The first great age of men dawns, as the great Northern kingdoms of Kuniuri, Eamnor, Akksersia and Aorsi rise and flourish, as do the old empires of the Three Seas. Men and Nonmen establish relations and exchange ideas.

At some point, Nonmen pass knowledge of their war against the Inchoroi to men. The ancient gnostic School of Mangaecca (founders/creators/disvcoverers of the Mandate Gnosis?) acting on information from the Nonman sorcerer Meketirig, discover hidden Golgotterath. The Mangaecca become fascinated with the alien Inchoroi technology they find there. At some point, The Many wage war agains the Mangaecca. The Mangeacca succeed in raising the No-God, beginning the First Apocalypse, ending the reign of men in the North.

Things that don't fit: Nonmen - which side did they fight on in the First Apocalypse? Did they fight on both sides?

The Inchoroi - have they been hiding for the past several thousand years, or did they fight in the First Apocalypse as well? The scene at the end of TWP seems to indicate that there are only two Inchoroi left, yet they hold total sway over the Nonmen and Sranc of the North.

Does anybody have any additions or corrections? I'm sure I've made several mistakes and incorrect assumptions here. view post


A brief history of Earwa? posted 31 August 2005 in The Warrior ProphetA brief history of Earwa? by White Lord, Subdidact

Quote: "TheBrucolac":4s88doox
Inchoroi come to Earwa "from the void" (alien spaceships?).[/quote:4s88doox]

Yes the Inchoroi came in a spaceship that crashed in the north, the location of Golgotterath.

Earwa is populated by men and Nonmen, the Nonmen being the dominant species. Nonmen, as compared to men are extremely long-lived, perhaps seeming immortal to short-lived men. At some point, either before of after the arrival of the Inchoroi, Nonmen have enslaved men.


Nonmen had a lifespan of about 400 years before they were "adjusted" by the Inchoroi. They had enslaved the only race of Men that lived in Earwa, the Emwama, a long time before the Inchoroi came.

The Inchoroi are hidden and defeated, but not beaten.


The Inchoroi were supposedly exterminated. This is what the Nonmen thought. It's clear that some survived. The two we see in the books are, by their own admission, the last, but it's possible that more were alive in the past. It's been confirmed by Scott that the Inchoroi were instrumental in convincing (after the end of the Cuno-Inchoroi wars) the four Tribes of Men from Eanna to invade Earwa, effectively forcing another age of war on the Nonmen.

Men gain their freedom from Nonmen ("the breaking of the gates").


The "Breaking of the Gates" refers to the conquest of Nonmen strongholds in the Great Kayarsus that defended the whole of Earwa. The Men that did this were never enslaved by the Nonmen. These slaves, the Emwama, were exterminated along with the Nonmen who resisted this invasion.

Nonmen enslave the Sranc, as they had enslaved Men.


Nonmen never enslaved the Sranc. They are deadly enemies. The Nonmen we see consorting with the Sranc in the books are called Erratics, repudiated by the remaining Nonmen. Their behavior does not mirror that of Nonmen in general.

At some point, the Tusk, the first chronical of men on Earwa is written. The first great age of men dawns, as the great Northern kingdoms of Kuniuri, Eamnor, Akksersia and Aorsi rise and flourish, as do the old empires of the Three Seas.


The northern nations you cite are simply the last Norsirai nations to exist in the North before its destruction. There were other historical empires, extinct at the time of the Apocalypse, among them Umerau.

The Tusk was written concomitantly with the invasion of Earwa by the Four Tribes.

Men and Nonmen establish relations and exchange ideas.


This relation was exclusively between the Nonmen of Injor-Niyas and the Norsirai civilization that evolved along the river Aumris. It was called the Nonman Tutelage and lasted for several hundred years, till the Rape of Anasurimbor Omindalea by a Nonman in the year 825.

At some point, Nonmen pass knowledge of their war against the Inchoroi to men.


I expect this was also done during the Tutelage. I believe there is some mention of this in the books.

The ancient gnostic School of Mangaecca (founders/creators/disvcoverers of the Mandate Gnosis?) acting on information from the Nonman sorcerer Meketirig, discover hidden Golgotterath.


The Mangaecca didn't discover the Gnosis. All the Schools of the Ancient North used it. It was given to them by the Nonmen. The first Nonman Quya to teach it to them was Gin'yursis, a renegade.

The Mangaecca become fascinated with the alien Inchoroi technology they find there. At some point, The Many wage war agains the Mangaecca. The Mangeacca succeed in raising the No-God, beginning the First Apocalypse, ending the reign of men in the North.


The Apocalypse was well under way by the time the Consult raised the No-God, but his actions certainly contributed to a lot of the butcher's bill.

Things that don't fit: Nonmen - which side did they fight on in the First Apocalypse? Did they fight on both sides?


Nonmen have always been the enemies of the Inchoroi and their heirs, the Consult. They fought with Men against the No-God and the Consult throughout. The only Nonmen who joined the Consult were the Erratics, who were estranged from other Nonmen.

The Inchoroi - have they been hiding for the past several thousand years, or did they fight in the First Apocalypse as well? The scene at the end of TWP seems to indicate that there are only two Inchoroi left, yet they hold total sway over the Nonmen and Sranc of the North.


My idea is that they did participate in the Apocalypse, but most likely in leadership roles, as their numbers would have been small. Also I see them as being more or less the equals of other leading Consult members, among whom are also Men and Nonmen. This comes across from the thoughts of the Inchoroi Synthese we see in the books.

Does anybody have any additions or corrections? I'm sure I've made several mistakes and incorrect assumptions here.


I've threaded some additional info through your post, which I think is a fair sketch of Earwic history. You can find all of this material in other posts, especially in the Author Q&A board, but I thought it would be better to post it here as text, instead of just disconnected links to other pages.

There's probably more to be said, but I'm kinda tired right now, and I wouldn't want people to accuse me of writing an Encyclopaedia here so I'll desist . . . <!-- s;) --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_wink.gif" alt=";)" title="Wink" /><!-- s;) --> view post


A brief history of Earwa? posted 31 August 2005 in The Warrior ProphetA brief history of Earwa? by TheBrucolac, Commoner

Heh. I thought I had made a few mistakes there. I toured with the Dead for a few years, so my memory for details isn't what it used to be...

<!-- s:) --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_smile.gif" alt=":)" title="Smile" /><!-- s:) -->

Thanks for the info. view post


A brief history of Earwa? posted 31 August 2005 in The Warrior ProphetA brief history of Earwa? by Mithfânion, Didact

Things that don't fit: Nonmen - which side did they fight on in the First Apocalypse? Did they fight on both sides?


In short, yes.

Scott has explained that the Nonmen fought both for the No-God and against him. They are somewhat ambiguous in this respect unlike Tolkien's Eldar, whom they be might be loosely modelled on.

The Inchoroi's role in the First Apocalypse is unknown. Obviously they were decimated a long time before the Apocalypse, though a few may have survived, now ending with the two princes we have met sofar. Those present would undoubtedly have fought with the Consult.

The position of the Inchoroi within the Consult is something I would really like Scott to shed some light on, as well as who the members of the Consult are (outside of the low ranked Skin spies that we have seen sofar), which is why I have asked both these questions in the Q&amp;A forum.

AS WL says, one would expect them to be high ranked, perhaps even the top members.

What interested me was why the Nonmen (Erratics presumably) deferred to the Inchoroi at the end of TWP. view post


A brief history of Earwa? posted 31 August 2005 in The Warrior ProphetA brief history of Earwa? by White Lord, Subdidact

Quote: &quot;Mithfânion&quot;:1u438is8
Things that don't fit: Nonmen - which side did they fight on in the First Apocalypse? Did they fight on both sides?


In short, yes.

Scott has explained that the Nonmen fought both for the No-God and against him. They are somewhat ambiguous in this respect unlike Tolkien's Eldar, whom they be might be loosely modelled on.
[/quote:1u438is8]

I think we have to make a few qualifications here. When we say "Nonmen" we usually mean the Cunuroi as a whole, as a people. So to say that the "Nonmen" fought on the side of the Consult is wrong, because they never did so in any significant numbers.

There is a post by Scott where he clearly says that the Erratics number perhaps a few thousands, and that they have always served the Consult.

The bulk of Nonmen never did so. They fought with Celmomas as seen in the books.

From what you and others post, one could infer that the Nonmen as a whole changed sides many times, lending their aid to the Consult. This is clearly wrong, as it was only a minority. It's like someone saying Men as a whole fought for the No-God simply because the Scylvendi did so.

It's better to simply say the Erratics were/are the allies of the Consult. I'm interested to know if the remaining Nonmen even consider the Erratics their kin anymore, after what they have been doing. view post


A brief history of Earwa? posted 01 September 2005 in The Warrior ProphetA brief history of Earwa? by Mithfânion, Didact

So to say that the "Nonmen" fought on the side of the Consult is wrong, because they never did so in any significant numbers.


This is quibbling about semantics.

A) It is specifically not wrong, because we know that Nonmen fought for the No-God. Now, how you yourself choose to qualify and categorize that is your own business, I'm just stating what is clear and presently mentioned in the books and on this board.

B) Whether or not the Nonmen fought for the No-God in insignifcant numbers is something you don't know. It's just your speculation. Since neither you nor anyone else knows the numbers of the Nonmen population as a whole , we can't say how big a percentage of the Nonmen fought for the Consult.

What we know is that there were Nonmen who fought for and against the No God. This is mentioned in the books. Even if it is just a small percentage, the statement that the Nonmen are an ambiguous people who have fought for and against Mog Pharau remains as correct as can be, doesn't it?

In the same way we can say that Men fought both for and against the No-God.

Furthermore, you say that

There is a post by Scott where he clearly says that the Erratics number perhaps a few thousands, and that they have always served the Consult.

Which is not correct. What Scott said was that there are "a few hundred" Nonmen that serve the Consult.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.forum.three-seas.com/viewtopic.php?t=18">http://www.forum.three-seas.com/viewtopic.php?t=18</a><!-- m --> view post


A brief history of Earwa? posted 01 September 2005 in The Warrior ProphetA brief history of Earwa? by White Lord, Subdidact

Quote: &quot;Mithfânion&quot;:dc2aahrb
So to say that the "Nonmen" fought on the side of the Consult is wrong, because they never did so in any significant numbers.


A) It is specifically not wrong, because we know that Nonmen fought for the No-God. Now, how you yourself choose to qualify and categorize that is your own business, I'm just stating what is clear and presently mentioned in the books and on this board.[/quote:dc2aahrb]

Why all the harshness of tone?

I thought I had made the point of my post quite clear: You simply don't have what it takes to make any statements of fact based on a few sentences in a book that can be interpreted in more than one way. And my alternate interpretation was just that, one that has as much, or as little, behind it as does yours, which you put forward with a lot of "certainty".

It's clear that you choose to take that "Nonmen" to mean the Cunuroi as a whole, as a people. I just pointed out that one could just as reasonably take it to mean the Nonmen as a part of a larger whole. And I guess it's your own business how you take that.

You seem to be taking a lot of things in a black-and-white fashion, even where you admit that we don't yet know everything and Scott is always being deliberately vague about things.

Are you seriously claiming that what we've read so far is cast in iron, and cannot be undermined in future books? Or that it is more than a part of a much larger puzzle we're not yet seeing in its entirety? One that is not giving us much yet to make statements with certainty?

Especially so with regard to the Nonmen.

But essentially I'm using common sense and the past history of both Inchoroi and Cunuroi to give credit to what I'm saying. I'm not seeing you doing the same. I'm simply seeing you superimposing your own meaning on that sentence from the books.

For this to be true (that the Nonmen as an entire people chose to fight for those who basically doomed them as a race) you will have to say that the Nonman king Nil'giccas (the fount of authority for the Nonmen) chose to ally himself with the Consult.

And I'm not seeing that. I'm seeing the exact opposite. The books also spell it out for you: Nil'giccas and Celmomas were allies.

B) Whether or not the Nonmen fought for the No-God in insignifcant numbers is something you don't know. It's just your speculation. Since neither you nor anyone else knows the numbers of the Nonmen population as a whole , we can't say how big a percentage of those Nonmen fought for the Consult.


Ah, surely it's just speculation. I'm glad you see that. I wish you'd also specify that your position is also speculation, with as much (or as little) backing it as mine. Then we could agree on the fact that until we know for sure it would be unwise to make any claims either way, as you made in the post I first responded to.

What we know is that there were Nonmen who fought for and against the No God. This is mentioned in the books. Even if it is just a small percentage, the statement that the Nonmen are an ambiguous people who have fought for and against Mog Pharau remains as correct as can be.


Yes, but the catch is in the "small percentage". Would you say that the actions of a fringe of renegades accounts for the wishes of a whole people? Because my common sense tells me that the best interests of the Cunuroi as a people would have been to defeat the Inchoroi and the Consult, not provide "cannon fodder" for them, or seesaw from one side to the other and back again when the fate of both Men and Nonmen was in the balance. Let's rather talk about the ambiguousness of individuals or groups, rather than that of peoples, because their "ambiguousness" as a people would have been plain idiotic under the circumstances.

In the same way we can say that Men fought both for and against the No-God.


And you don't see the weakness of this statement? It argues precisely what I have been saying! Did the Scylvendi comprize the majority of Men? They didn't! If we didn't know about Men as much as we do we could be making the same assumptions about them that we have about the Nonmen. After all since Men fought both for and against the No-God, who is to say that a lot of them didn't do so, instead of just one small nation, while the vast majority of other Men certainly didn't fight "both for and against the No-God". The problem here is that there are many nations of Men, but only one of Nonmen. So if you use the term "Nonman" too generically it leads to confusion, and I think Scott may have been a bit too vague here.

There is a post by Scott where he clearly says that the Erratics number perhaps a few thousands, and that they have always served the Consult.

Which is not correct. What Scott said was that there are a few hundred Nonmen that serve the Consult.


Well thank you for correcting me on the numbers. The gist of those posts would tend to confirm my own speculation however. No mention of Nonmen, just Erratics, as Consult servants.

But if you want, I can put to Scott the following question: Did the Nonman king ever ally his people to the Consult? Or did just renegades from his authority fight on the Consult's side?

Would this be satisfactory to you, if he chose to answer it? view post


A brief history of Earwa? posted 01 September 2005 in The Warrior ProphetA brief history of Earwa? by Murrin, Peralogue

Quote: &quot;White Lord&quot;:hzq1i6jr
There is a post by Scott where he clearly says that the Erratics number perhaps a few thousands, and that they have always served the Consult.

Which is not correct. What Scott said was that there are a few hundred Nonmen that serve the Consult.


Well thank you for correcting me on the numbers. The gist of those posts would tend to confirm my own speculation however. No mention of Nonmen, just Erratics, as Consult servants.[/quote:hzq1i6jr]
Scott says in that post that the majority of the nonmen serving the Consult are Erratics, so that does mean there are others serving them.

[quote:hzq1i6jr]
B) Whether or not the Nonmen fought for the No-God in insignifcant numbers is something you don't know. It's just your speculation. Since neither you nor anyone else knows the numbers of the Nonmen population as a whole , we can't say how big a percentage of those Nonmen fought for the Consult.

Ah, surely it's just speculation. I'm glad you see that. I wish you'd also specify that your position is also speculation, with as much (or as little) backing it as mine. Then we could agree on the fact that until we know for sure it would be unwise to make any claims either way, as you made in the post I first responded to.[/quote:hzq1i6jr]
The same post that Mithfanion referred to for Consult-serving numbers also states that the majority of Nonmen remain in Ishterebinth, which lends more weight to the idea that those serving the Consult are only a small proportion. view post


A brief history of Earwa? posted 01 September 2005 in The Warrior ProphetA brief history of Earwa? by White Lord, Subdidact

Quote: &quot;Murrin&quot;:3vsxkfuw
The same post that Mithfanion referred to for Consult-serving numbers also states that the majority of Nonmen remain in Ishterebinth, which lends more weight to the idea that those serving the Consult are only a small proportion.[/quote:3vsxkfuw]

I'm glad you see that. It sure doesn't come through in his posts on the subject in this thread. I never denied that some Nonmen served the Consult. I just didn't want to lump them all in this category, which he seemed to have done.

As if at some point the Nonman king fought against Golgotterath, and then he decided to fight for them, ordering his whole people to do so, etc... It does sound a bit unrealistic, doesn't it? view post


A brief history of Earwa? posted 01 September 2005 in The Warrior ProphetA brief history of Earwa? by Murrin, Peralogue

I don't think he ever intended to imply that the entire nonman nation, as a group, fought for the No-God - he was talking more about the nonmen as a collection of individuals than a nation, and when he said that nonmen have fought both for and against the Consult, did not mean that the same nonmen were changing sides, but that the entire group cannot be broadly labelled as 'for' or 'against' the Consult because there were individuals of the species fighting on both sides. view post


A brief history of Earwa? posted 01 September 2005 in The Warrior ProphetA brief history of Earwa? by White Lord, Subdidact

Quote: &quot;Murrin&quot;:1olgowso
I don't think he ever intended to imply that the entire nonman nation, as a group, fought for the No-God - he was talking more about the nonmen as a collection of individuals than a nation, and when he said that nonmen have fought both for and against the Consult, did not mean that the same nonmen were changing sides, but that the entire group cannot be broadly labelled as 'for' or 'against' the Consult because there were individuals of the species fighting on both sides.[/quote:1olgowso]

Well, I have been saying more or less the same thing from the very beginning, but still he had something to say against that, telling me I was quibbling with semantics. So I'm still waiting for him to tell me what he did mean. view post


A brief history of Earwa? posted 02 September 2005 in The Warrior ProphetA brief history of Earwa? by Mithfânion, Didact

WL,

Murrin has explained my post to you as good as can be done.

I do however refute your argument that I am merely speculating, like you are when you say that the Nonmen only fought for Mog Pharau in insignificant numbers. Since you don't know how many Nonmen there are in total, you can't say anything about the percentage of Erratics and other Cunuroi that serve No-God. Maybe they form a significant part of the whole Nonmen population. Maybe not. One would hope not anyway.


Well, I have been saying more or less the same thing from the very beginning, but still he had something to say against that, telling me I was quibbling with semantics. So I'm still waiting for him to tell me what he did mean.

All of this stems from you misunderstanding my post.

When I say the Nonmen fought for and against the No-God, I am stating a fact. I never said that All the Nonmen fought for and against the No-God so there is no need to attach that. You did, however,attach that in your mind when reading my post, and thus want to qualify that. But since I never meant the Nonmen as a whole in the first place, and also didn't specifically state that, I don't need to qualify anything.

And in this same light my statement that the Nonmen can be seen as an ambiguous people is perfectly correct. There are those Nonmen that choose to fight for the Consult, and others who oppose them.

And the same applies to the race of Men, who have members serving Mog Pharau and members who oppose him. view post


A brief history of Earwa? posted 02 September 2005 in The Warrior ProphetA brief history of Earwa? by White Lord, Subdidact

Well, if you persist in saying I'm the only one who's speculating, while you are stating undeniable facts, and giving them your own broad interpretation, I see no point in discussing this any further. I have a lively dislike of vicious circles in discussions and this seems to be one.

I hope we can resurrect this thread in a few months or whenever, to see who was right and who was wrong. view post


A brief history of Earwa? posted 02 September 2005 in The Warrior ProphetA brief history of Earwa? by Mithfânion, Didact

Do as you like White Lord, it's no skin off my nose <!-- s;) --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_wink.gif" alt=";)" title="Wink" /><!-- s;) -->

It's somewhat curious to see how this goes. I make a post with a simple statement of fact. You come in, authoritatively state that we need to make "a few qualifications" when really, we don't, and I reply to that. You then start to speculate about whether or not the Nonmen who serve under the Consult are an insignifcant number but when I point out that it is just that, you're ruffled and claim that the presented facts are also just speculation. Now, in my latest post I give you another explanation of what was meant, and rather than admit that you've simply misread or misunderstood my post you basically claim that I am taking the moral high ground.

I hope we can resurrect this thread in a few months or whenever, to see who was right and who was wrong.


We don't need to wait for the future White Lord, since we already know that the Nonmen fought both for and against the No-God. That's the way it goes with facts rather than poster's opinions and speculations, which may need to be revised.

BTW

The gist of those posts would tend to confirm my own speculation however. No mention of Nonmen, just Erratics, as Consult servants.

There is no need to make this peculiar self-made distinction. Erratics are Nonmen, Nonmen gone bad. view post


A brief history of Earwa? posted 02 September 2005 in The Warrior ProphetA brief history of Earwa? by White Lord, Subdidact

You really do like to sidestep my questions, and hide behind sophisms, don't you?

I'm in the habit of responding to your posts point by point. You simply say what you have been saying without addressing my "speculations", that you cannot rebut because you too lack the evidence.

Now, let's see if I can make my position clear.

Do you deny that when someone says "Nonmen fought both for and against the No-God" what is most likely to be assumed is that the Nonman nation as a whole (or in substantial numbers) fought for him and then against him? (Especially since there is only one Nonman nation so you cannot use any other term, such as Scylvendi or Norsirai to make distinctions among Men). Because if this is not so, then I'm perplexed by the amount of questions newcomers always ask on this specific issue. And they always ask about the Nonmen as a whole, which is why I got into this pissing match with you in the first place.

Do we have enough information to claim that the whole Nonman nation fought for the No-God at some point? No we don't, and that was what I was trying to say. I was also trying to show that this statement had another possible interpretation, that for all we know might even be vindicated in the following books.

But to return to the "Nonmen fought both for and against the No-God" sentence, obviously, if even one Nonman fought for and against the No-God it makes it true in the literal sense, but it is also extremely weak for making any assumptions for the Nonmen as a whole.

Can you agree on this?

Also please I'd like you to comment on this paragraph from one of my previous posts:

And you don't see the weakness of this statement? It argues precisely what I have been saying! Did the Scylvendi comprize the majority of Men? They didn't! If we didn't know about Men as much as we do we could be making the same assumptions about them that we have about the Nonmen. After all since Men fought both for and against the No-God, who is to say that a lot of them didn't do so, instead of just one small nation, while the vast majority of other Men certainly didn't fight "both for and against the No-God". The problem here is that there are many nations of Men, but only one of Nonmen. So if you use the term "Nonman" too generically it leads to confusion, and I think Scott may have been a bit too vague here.

So to end this: what I'm trying to do here is to get to the bottom of the real desires and interests of the Nonman nation as a whole, which is more important than what given individual Nonmen have done, and the same holds true for Men, of which we know more, so we can make more guesses or statements of fact.

Now I'm asking you what is more important, and also what comes close to really answering the question of the basic loyalties of the Nonmen: what most of them have done, or what a minority did?

Please address this.

Also tell me if you are more interested in prolonging this pissing match by claiming that the sentence you quoted was true (which I conceded to you as being true in the literal sense) instead of trying to see what was really behind it, which is still wholly open to speculation?

I can tell you right now I'd like the second a lot more than the first, if only because that is what will give us the answer to the question that interests most: What did/do the Nonmen as a people want?

Now it's up to you to address (constructively) my speculations/claims, or keep hanging your arguments by the (thin) thread I have described above.

Wholly up to you.

BTW, I also invite others to join this discussion. And I have a specific question too: when/if you had any questions about the Nonmen, such as the one that is exercising me and Mith, did you think of them as a people or as individuals?

I think this will really help us to put this whole debate on the proper track (if there is any interest in speculating about this, that is). view post


A brief history of Earwa? posted 02 September 2005 in The Warrior ProphetA brief history of Earwa? by Mithfânion, Didact

I'm not sidestepping your questions WL, there's no need to nor do I desire that. You've misinterpreted my post, I've explained what I meant and any discussion following from that misinterpretation is useless.



What the overall desires and interests are is not really known at this point. Do they still harbour resentment towards Mankind for previous slaughter? Exactly how diminished are they? In any case, it seems to me that the majority of the Nonmen will yet side with the forces of "Light".

Which takes nothing away from the fact that as a people, they are ambiguous in their attitude. Some choose the way of the Consult, some (the majority) don't.

Hope that helps.


view post


A brief history of Earwa? posted 02 September 2005 in The Warrior ProphetA brief history of Earwa? by White Lord, Subdidact

If, as you say, I tend to sound "authoritative", I apologize. Believe me this is not my intention. It's just that I like to put spokes in people's wheels at times (good-naturedly of course <!-- s:) --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_smile.gif" alt=":)" title="Smile" /><!-- s:) -->) to see just how well they can defend certain statements that I find dubious or not easily proven. Or simply because at times it is simply too early to say anything definite about something, and my best tactic is to put forward a countertheory such as the one you took exception to.

But to further clarify what this debate has been all about, I should say that I was not necessarily responding to your initial post per se in an authoritative way. If I was quibbling about semantics as you said it was because we were trying to help a newbie on the boards. I hope you do realize there has been a lot of confusion on the Nonmen by members/lurkers on this board, so I don't consider this (heated <!-- s:) --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_smile.gif" alt=":)" title="Smile" /><!-- s:) -->) debate useless, just because it has clarified some of the problems regarding the Nonmen that make it hard to speak of them collectively. (And I still retain the impression that TheBroucolac was asking about what they did as a people, or as "majority", hence my response. And I invite him to clarify if I read him right.)

This is not a waste of time. And I still want to debate possibilities about them if anyone is interested. view post


  •  

The Three Seas Forum archives are hosted and maintained courtesy of Jack Brown