Three Seas Forum

the archives

dusted off in read-only

  •  

White Lord Subdidact | joined 26 December 2004 | 212 posts


Cnaiur's prowess posted 06 August 2005 in Author Q & ACnaiur's prowess by White Lord, Subdidact

Yes, Nonmen have nimil, which is harder than Dunyain steel, which is harder than the best steel in the Three Seas, according to what Scott has said.

As to Chorae, I would guess they work in the same way for the Nonmen as for men. view post


The Few and Kellhus posted 06 August 2005 in The Warrior ProphetThe Few and Kellhus by White Lord, Subdidact

if i remember correctly, he hung from a tree, by a rope, for nine days, to gain wisdom. It was a self-sacrifice. It has many parallels to what Kellhus has done.

But I'm also interested in what meaning the introduction of trees as symbols in both books has.

It is most pronounced in the vision Kellhus has of the No-God, accompanied by that of a gigantic tree. Also, it occurs in the fight between Kellhus and Mekeritrig at the very beginning of TDtCB, and if you read carefully, and connect it to the other tree imagery, it seems Mekeritrig, and through him the Consult is literally pushing or preventing him from some discovery/realization. I have some ideas of my own but I'd like to see what others make of this tree symbolism. As a sidenote, I did ask Scott a while back, and with his usual coyness he said it did play a role, but I'd have to wait and see which one . . . <!-- s:) --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_smile.gif" alt=":)" title="Smile" /><!-- s:) --> view post


Cnaiur's prowess posted 07 August 2005 in Author Q &amp; ACnaiur's prowess by White Lord, Subdidact

I think we need a little recap here. Basically I asked Scott a while back if many Nonmen were in the ranks of the Holy War (hidden of course) since they crave trauma so much. What better place to be in, right?

He said there weren't any, and that Nonmen "tend not to" last long in the Three Seas. Later he added that the Tusk has the same attitude towards the Nonmen that it has towards sorcerers, and calls for their extermination.

All well and fine, but to my mind it doesn't tally with what we know of them and their abilities, and simply because the Tusk damns them doesn't mean that every man everywhere will kill them on sight. There was, after all, such a thing as the Nonman Tutelage, when Men and Nonmen were allied for centuries.

I wouldn't find it hard to believe there are men willing to join Nonmen.

I also think we need some more input from Scott on this. view post


Cnaiur's prowess posted 07 August 2005 in Author Q &amp; ACnaiur's prowess by White Lord, Subdidact

To me your statement makes little sense too. Let's look at the position of sorcerers. How many hate them, how many are willing to enforce the Tusk law against them and how many do so?

As far as the Tusk is concerned, there is no difference between sorcerers and Nonmen. What I said (or implied) in my previous post is that the Tusk laws can, and many times are, ignored. It happened in the Ancient North (for a time, because even there I guess the relationship between men and Nonmen was rocky) and there is no reason to think it couldn't happen in the Three Seas. Mekeritrig, the Nonman who fights Kellhus in Book 1 is also a powerful Gnostic sorcerer. He also appears to enjoy fighting with his sword. How many more like him are there? How many more greedy nobles or sorcerers willing to give assistance in exchange for instruction?

I also think that as far as the Three Seas are concerned, what the "man in the street" thinks is irrelevant, and what the nobles do to further their interests is not always parallel to the Tusk laws, and they care little about that too.

That's why I find this "killing out of hand" situation a bit strange.

I still think we'll have to wait for Scott to give us something definite . . . view post


The Few and Kellhus posted 07 August 2005 in The Warrior ProphetThe Few and Kellhus by White Lord, Subdidact

Some very interesting toughts . . .

Also, in the case of Kellhus, we can say he has come down from the tree with some kind of "wisdom". He thinks he knows what Moenghus meant by Thousandfold Thought. Also, there seems to be a positive outward transformation. When he is let down from the tree and addresses the crowd he has haloes round his hands, and since all can see them I assume they are there for real.

Which also leads me to another question, perhaps closer to the topic of this thread. The nature of Kellhus.

If you follow his inner communication with Moenghus (or with Father) as the storyline progresses, there is a subtle change that I'm noticing. Basically, from talking to someone who can be clearly identified as a human being, this communication slowly shifts to something more, as if this "Father" whom he speaks to is not Moenghus but the God.

This in turn has made me think on what exactly Kellhus could be: Man or God, son of Moenghus, or of God, or of them both.

An interesting clue is that when I let the thing drop in the Q&amp;A board, that Kellhus could be both the son of Moenghus and of God, Scott commented with a short but interesting "Mwahahaha...." view post


The Few and Kellhus posted 07 August 2005 in The Warrior ProphetThe Few and Kellhus by White Lord, Subdidact

Just another short comment on the vision Kellhus has of the No-God.

Clearly the tree is connected to the No-God, so how are we to take it that a symbol of wisdom is associated to an entity we have till now viewed as evil?

Is there more to the No-God than meets the eye?

That his actions promise no good to humanity is to me certain, still I'm used to Scott always twisting meanings, making it hard to pigeonhole anyone that I'm starting to think that "pigeonholing" the No-God definitely right now could be a little premature . . . view post


The Few and Kellhus posted 07 August 2005 in The Warrior ProphetThe Few and Kellhus by White Lord, Subdidact

Quote: &quot;H&quot;:26rp78je
Classic Scott, <!-- s:lol: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_lol.gif" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing" /><!-- s:lol: -->

Could Moenghus have "transcended" to Godlyness by means of the Thousandfold Thought perhaps? And now that Kellhus has "embraced" TTT, he has now begun to "transcend" as well? (Halos as a classic symbol of transcendental nature of somehting.)[/quote:26rp78je]

Anything is possible, really. I mean, with how scarce Moenghus has been till now, as in nonexistent <!-- s:) --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_smile.gif" alt=":)" title="Smile" /><!-- s:) -->, I'm beginning to think that Kellhus's reunion with "Father" might be with someone who isn't (or never was) flesh and blood.

Oh well, I can't wait to get my hands on TTT . . . <!-- s:) --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_smile.gif" alt=":)" title="Smile" /><!-- s:) --> view post


The Few and Kellhus posted 07 August 2005 in The Warrior ProphetThe Few and Kellhus by White Lord, Subdidact

That tallies with my thinking as well. Actually in other threads I've said that perhaps man is meant to strive towards godhood, and that sorcery is simply one (or the only) means which can bring it about (as in the study of the esoterics as Scott calls it).

I also think some of the "agencies" or gods were men once. view post


The Few and Kellhus posted 07 August 2005 in The Warrior ProphetThe Few and Kellhus by White Lord, Subdidact

Also, as another clue to the nature of Moenghus (or Father really), check the meeting between Kellhus and the Cishaurim in Caraskand. The Cishaurim, as far as I remember doesn't call Moenghus by name. He calls him "your Father . . ."

He also says he is the one the possessors of the third sight serve. The Cishaurim, all of them have the third sight, and they all serve the Solitary God, ergo . . .

I don't know how accurate this is, but it's still interesting . . . view post


The Few and Kellhus posted 07 August 2005 in The Warrior ProphetThe Few and Kellhus by White Lord, Subdidact

Quote: &quot;H&quot;:1nfbsa0o
Quote: &quot;White Lord&quot;:1nfbsa0o
That tallies with my thinking as well. Actually in other threads I've said that perhaps man is meant to strive towards godhood, and that sorcery is simply one (or the only) means which can bring it about (as in the study of the esoterics as Scott calls it).

I also think some of the "agencies" or gods were men once.[/quote:1nfbsa0o]

Good point. This could be a very good reason why the Schools (especially the Mandate, being the most powerful) are so against the No-God. If sorcery is the most powerful form of transcendental power available, then i can see how the No-God is a real threat to the School's power, in that the No-God may be able to wield power beyond sorcerer's scope without the need for the Few or for sorcery at all. And if the No-God's power was able to be had by other's, this would make the Few very very expendable, and not nearly as powerful as they are now...[/quote:1nfbsa0o]

Yes, but under my theory, sorcerers themselves may not be aware of this option they have of becoming gods. All of them actually believe they are damned a priori. What I mean is that sorcery could simply be one or the only path for the adept to become one of the gods, if he only has the courage/realization.

Even the No-God's destructiveness could be explained as a sort of punishment for those who are willing slaves, instead of trying to reach for the stars, so to speak.

Actually, this theory is grounded on real-world gnostic doctrine, that holds that all men are endowed with a spark of the divine being, that they are captives in prisons of flesh, held on the earth by false gods who don't know of the existence of a single transcendental deity which created all (think Solitary God in our case . . .) ans so believe themselves to be truly creators of all (think the gods of the tusk . . .).

I'm not very well-versed in gnostic religions but I've read some things and I'm noticing resonances with Scott's work. view post


The Few and Kellhus posted 07 August 2005 in The Warrior ProphetThe Few and Kellhus by White Lord, Subdidact

Here is also something I posted in another thread on sorcery:


I also think there is a very good reason behind the availability of sorcery to certain persons in this particular reality. I think it's the use of it by men that is somehow blasphemous, because misunderstood in its original purpose. But there is no question of its divine origin, not even the religions in Earwa doubt that, their condemnation of sorcerers results from the fact they do not think man worthy enough to use the highest power (the power of the God) that can modify reality itself, can bend the rules of nature with the utmost ease. This is also interesting because it makes us ask ourselves whether man is really unworthy, or if maybe the God made sorcery available in the first place because it is the best pathway man can use either to come closest to the God, or to become a god . . . <!-- s:) --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_smile.gif" alt=":)" title="Smile" /><!-- s:) -->

Another interesting thought is that no one really knows what is or isn't possible with sorcery. It is entirely dependent on the intellect and the experience of the sorcerer. So if you consider the God himself as the greatest sorcerer of them all (the one with the greatest intellect), there is nothing that would prevent a human with a big enough imagination, a deep enough intellect, to modify reality to an incredible degree, to somehow achieve a sort of divinity (in the sense that sorcery has absolute control of space and time, as well as other dimensions). It will be very interesting to see what Kellhus can "do" with the Gnosis . . . <!-- s:) --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_smile.gif" alt=":)" title="Smile" /><!-- s:) -->

You can also check my post in this thread: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.forum.three-seas.com/viewtopic.php?t=633">http://www.forum.three-seas.com/viewtopic.php?t=633</a><!-- m --> view post


The Few and Kellhus posted 07 August 2005 in The Warrior ProphetThe Few and Kellhus by White Lord, Subdidact

Good night then . . . <!-- s:) --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_smile.gif" alt=":)" title="Smile" /><!-- s:) --> I actually enjoyed this discussion, also because it's so rare on these boards . . . <!-- s:) --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_smile.gif" alt=":)" title="Smile" /><!-- s:) --> view post


Cnaiur's prowess posted 07 August 2005 in Author Q &amp; ACnaiur's prowess by White Lord, Subdidact

Mith, some of what you say may well be true, but the fact that the Scylvendi call themselves the People of War, or that they fight whenever they get the chance does not make them inherently or in fact better fighters than others. From what Achamian tells Kellhus even the Scylvendi feared the Norsirai of antiquity as warriors, which makes me think that at that time the Norsirai were in fact stronger (and may still be, there is no reference to battles between Norsirai and Scylvendi in the Three Seas). Also, I may grant you that Cnaiur is the strongest of his race, but I think we have no way of knowing how they compare with the Zeumi, who are apparently ruled by "warlords" from the little tidbits we have of them in the books. I also think that if we speak of individual prowess, we must not mix the collective success of a people like the Scylvendi and compare it to that of others.

Sure, as a people the Scylvendi have bested many times the peoples of the Three Seas, but even Cnaiur has learned to respect some of them as warriors.

But notwithstanding all that I simply think that Cnaiur may be becoming too unhinged to fight with his natural cunning anymore. If he becomes nothing more than a mad beast unleashed, I wonder who couldn't defeat him with a bit of intelligent fighting. view post


Cnaiur's prowess posted 07 August 2005 in Author Q &amp; ACnaiur's prowess by White Lord, Subdidact

Quote: &quot;Mithfânion&quot;:1c0axop2
Quote: &quot;White Lord&quot;:1c0axop2
I also think that if we speak of individual prowess, we must not mix the collective success of a people like the Scylvendi and compare it to that of others. [/quote:1c0axop2]

Well if that is truly so you shouldn't have brought up the collective success of the Ancient Norsirai <!-- s;) --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_wink.gif" alt=";)" title="Wink" /><!-- s;) -->[/quote:1c0axop2]

Ah, well, look at the context. You mention the Scylvendi as the more or less unique and invincible People of War. I oppose the Norsirai who may have been even better. Only later do I say this is irrelevant to the point being discussed, which is proven also by the Scylvendi/Norsirai comparison. <!-- s;) --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_wink.gif" alt=";)" title="Wink" /><!-- s;) -->

I should also add that you sidestepped the issue of the Norsirai of the present. They are very much reduced in numbers from the times of the Ancient North, but I guess not very much reduced in spirit, and the battle scenes featuring them are in every way comparable to those featuring the Scylvendi. Add to that that the Scylvendi have never been extremely numerous, and I can reasonably suppose a Norsirai victory over a Scylvendi host even in the present.

But I think it's time to wind this debate up. To recapitulate, we don't at all disagree on the main point, namely that there are men out there who could beat Cnaiur in a fight. It's just that I claim they are more numerous than what you believe. <!-- s:) --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_smile.gif" alt=":)" title="Smile" /><!-- s:) -->

Again, I'm eagerly awaiting Scott's input to this thread . . . <!-- s:) --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_smile.gif" alt=":)" title="Smile" /><!-- s:) --> view post


Cnaiur's prowess posted 08 August 2005 in Author Q &amp; ACnaiur's prowess by White Lord, Subdidact

Quote: &quot;Cynical Cat&quot;:1nujf3mm
White Lord, are you forgetting that mighty Norisai civilization that collapsed in the First Apocalypse? Even with the No-God. the Wracu, Sranc, Scylvendi et. al., the Consult didn't win. Of course the Scylvendi respect the Nosirai's prowess. Think about how often they must have been beaten before the rise of the Consult.[/quote:1nujf3mm]

You must have confused me with Mithfanion. I've been saying what you just wrote the whole time.

Quote: &quot;Cynical Cat&quot;:1nujf3mm
As for the Nonmen description, I don't recall any mention of its face. The Sranc have beautiful faces. What it is clear, even covered in full armour and clothes to handle the Northern climate, the Nonman is clearly inhuman (to a perceptive observer) at close range.[/quote:1nujf3mm]

That's simply not true. The Nonmen are the equivalent of Tolkien's elves, and I guess bear the same difference with regard to humans. In other words, they may be more beautiful, more refined or whatever, but certainly that is the only thing that would make them stand out.


Quote: &quot;Cynical Cat&quot;:1nujf3mm
As for the Nonmen's dominance of men in the north, that dates from a periond both before the coming of the Tusk (if I recall the timeline correctly) and a time when Nonmen were more numerous and better organized (and probably saner).[/quote:1nujf3mm]

The Nonmen dominated men in all of Earwa before the invasions described in the Tusk overthrew them. They were never more numerous than men, especially not so after the Four Tribes conquered Earwa. view post


Cnaiur's prowess posted 12 August 2005 in Author Q &amp; ACnaiur's prowess by White Lord, Subdidact

Quote: &quot;Cynical Cat&quot;:3u8b9gkr
Quote: &quot;White Lord&quot;:3u8b9gkr
That's simply not true. The Nonmen are the equivalent of Tolkien's elves, and I guess bear the same difference with regard to humans. In other words, they may be more beautiful, more refined or whatever, but certainly that is the only thing that would make them stand out. [/quote:3u8b9gkr]

They are equivalent of elves, but we have never seen their faces.[/quote:3u8b9gkr]

Yes we have, though indirectly. More of this later . . .

Quote: &quot;Cynical Cat&quot;:3u8b9gkr
The Sranc, who are orc equivalents, have beautiful faces not hideous ones.[/quote:3u8b9gkr]

They have beautiful faces because they were made by the Inchoroi from Nonman genes, and the fact that they have these beautiful faces on a freakish body is the Inchoroi way of taunting the Nonmen.

Quote: &quot;Cynical Cat&quot;:3u8b9gkr
We know that they are superior to humans, we don't know that Scott has decided to make them more beautiful. We know that Kelhus was immediately able to tell the differance at close range despite the Nonman wearing heavy armor.[/quote:3u8b9gkr]

You should re-read that scene. Kellhus sees nothing strange in him, physically. What makes him realize that he is in the presence of a Nonman is what Mekeritrig says.

Quote: &quot;Cynical Cat&quot;:3u8b9gkr
That he was beautiful is your conjecture. If he is beautiful and has cat's eyes or pointed ears, then even ordinary humans will pick up on it if he or she sees those features.[/quote:3u8b9gkr]

I never make conjectures, if I can help it. <!-- s:) --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_smile.gif" alt=":)" title="Smile" /><!-- s:) --> We do have a description of a Nonman's face. And it's identical to the descriptions we get of Sranc faces, which is the main clue linking them to the Nonmen. If you re-read the scene where Achamian is tortured by the Scarlet Spires you'll see what I'm talking about.

Essentially, when I think of the Nonmen, I envision them as elves, and think the difference between them and men is the same as that between elves and men in Tolkien. I think Scott has said more or less the same thing in one of his posts here on the board.

So thinking of them as radically different, physically, as far as I'm concerned, is wrong. view post


The Few and Kellhus posted 26 August 2005 in The Warrior ProphetThe Few and Kellhus by White Lord, Subdidact

I think any analogy between the No-God and Sauron is wrong. And this especially since I think the concepts of "good" and "evil" have no meaning in the books we are reading. No one here is lily-white, and no one will ever be, and the opposite is also true. What we are witnessing right now in the Holy War is a mini-Apocalypse in its own right, and it is only in part Consult-driven.

Also, we have an imperfect knowledge of the world and history of Earwa, we are exposed to only snippets of data, from one side alone. We have no understanding of what the objectives of the Consult might be. As far as I'm concerned, until I know more of what they are after, I'm not going to consider them (and the No-God) evil as in "mindlessly evil". They could even be justified in doing what they've been doing all these millennia. To conclude: no one has an exclusive on brutality and genocide/xenocide in this world, so it's not an indication of evil in itself. view post


The Few and Kellhus posted 26 August 2005 in The Warrior ProphetThe Few and Kellhus by White Lord, Subdidact

Quote: &quot;Cynical Cat&quot;:1a5j56or
Quote: &quot;Deerow&quot;:1a5j56or
Well fair enough...Mog Pharau in and of his/itself may not be the sort of "ultimate evil" but it was utilized in such a way as to maximize the evil possibilites his/its existence brings. Perhaps Mog-Pharau does not want to be used in such ways by the Consult.[/quote:1a5j56or]

Thus my "instruement of evi" and "too vile to be permitted to exist"l lines. <!-- s:D --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_biggrin.gif" alt=":D" title="Very Happy" /><!-- s:D -->[/quote:1a5j56or]

I'm not sure I'm following what you're trying to say here CC . . .

I take it it's similar to the analogy: murderers are evil and guns are too vile to be permitted to exist. (The murderers being the Consult and the guns the No-God.)

So what do we do then? Do we do away with guns so there will be no murderers, or do we remove the murderers and leave guns alone, like the inanimate, mindless tools they are?

And is the No-God so mindless after all, is he really a tool even, or made-to-order? He is simply too powerful to be mindless. I think it's more a case of the Consult harnessing the power of an entity that has no experience of the dimension of reality that is Earwa, perhaps has no place in it, and hence all the stillbirths.

I see the Carapace and the physical manifestation of the No-God as nothing else than a focus (built by the Consult) that permits it to affect the world. So in my mind the No-God is nothing but a confused child with immense power (in the dimension of Earwa, not somewhere in the Outside) that is being used by the Consult to some end. The fact that Earwa is totally alien to him may explain his lack of knowledge or confusion.

It's easy to see then why he may not be at all evil, but only misguided. So you don't "kill" him because he's evil, or because he's consciously doing something wrong, but you remove him from Earwa because he has no place in it, just like the demon Iyokus summoned has no place in it.

I could also be wrong, and the No-God could be acting consciously, and also outside Consult control, for some reason of his own. And the questions he puts to Seswatha could indicate something that goes beyond his being confused/not all-knowing, directed to us readers.

I'm sure things will start to fit better as we learn more of the world, I'm just recommending to everyone not to think in absolutes.

And now I'm off to bed, and I hope my scribblings make sense to you all . . . <!-- s:D --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_biggrin.gif" alt=":D" title="Very Happy" /><!-- s:D --> 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;TheBrucolac&quot;: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&amp;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 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


consult v. cishaurim posted 31 August 2005 in The Warrior Prophetconsult v. cishaurim by White Lord, Subdidact

Quote: &quot;Mithfânion&quot;:e1mp7iad
Additionally it has been suggested by another poster that Shimeh's fall will somehow be literally instrumental to the rise of the No-God and Golgotterath. Perhaps it works as some sort of Bulwark against it's rising, suggesting that it may be truly a Holy City....[/quote:e1mp7iad]

I find this highly unlikely. First of all because, even if Shimeh does in fact fall, the rebirth of the No-God lies some twenty years in the books' future, if not more.

There is a great deal of deja vu in the books, so I think the Second Apocalypse will kick off more or less exactly 2000 years after the first one's beginning.

This also mirrors Scott's statement that Aspect-Emperor will begin twenty years after the end of TTT.

Remember also that the No-God only came when the Apocalypse had already been raging for a quarter century.

So if you want my guess about when the No-God might make an appearance, it's around 4140-55, and it will have nothing to do with Shimeh's fall or lack thereof. view post


Betraying the Gnosis posted 31 August 2005 in Author Q &amp; ABetraying the Gnosis by White Lord, Subdidact

To my mind, it all depends on how closely the apprentices are watched.

You mention (actually Achamian mentions it . . . <!-- s:) --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_smile.gif" alt=":)" title="Smile" /><!-- s:) -->) that the stronghold of the Scarlet Spires is invulnerable. But I would bet that Atyersus is equally if not more strongly defended. After all, when a certain level of protection is reached, any offense must fail.

To get back on topic, I'd say that if apprentices are confined to Atyersus till they are made sorcerers-of-rank the risk of information leaks or escapes is negligible. If they do manage to escape, they can be easily found. Nron is an island after all, and there must be wards everywhere.

You could raise the point of apprentices who lack the ability to advance to the sorcerer-of-rank status, and represent a liability. This could be solved by simply eliminating them, if this kind of ruthlessness is acceptable to the Mandate, and it seems that it is, since all that matters is the Mission.

So I guess that, if we ascribe enough ruthlessness to the Mandate, it's very possible to hold the secret of the Gnosis indefinitely.

I think a much more pertinent question would be how the ancient Norsirai were able to protect the Gnosis from the rest of Earwa, or why they even tried, especially during the Apocalypse. 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 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


The Destruction of the Dunyain posted 01 September 2005 in The Thousandfold ThoughtThe Destruction of the Dunyain by White Lord, Subdidact

Quote: &quot;Mithfânion&quot;:3e6titui
I think the idea of The Dunyain siding with anyone from the outside world needs to be revised. They live in total isolation and to do so is one of their main goals. Just the fact that someone from the outside contacts them through dreams is enough to take their life. I do not see a scenario in which Kellhus has access to various Dunyain to sniff out skin spies all over the place, because that is not what they do. If they are to ally with anyone, may that be Kellhus, the Cunuroi or simply the Men of the North, their very nature and beliefs would have to change completely.[/quote:3e6titui]

Yes, but do the Dunyain strike you as monomaniacs? If their environment changes (most probably in a forced intervention from outside) do you see them not changing, adapting? All you have to do is compare how Moenghus and Kellhus have fared in the outside world. They certainly didn't turn into morons or kill themselves.

I can give you the argument that, as long as they are isolated, they will stay put. But I don't think we can count on someone from the outside not interfering with them. And if that interference is more than they can cope with, that forces them to even abandon Ishual, then it is more than possible for them to try to safeguard themselves with an alliance with someone from the outside. 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 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 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 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


Betraying the Gnosis posted 02 September 2005 in Author Q &amp; ABetraying the Gnosis by White Lord, Subdidact

Well I didn't really think on this till you posted your question. We should first see how the Norsirai got access to the Gnosis in the first place. Scott posted here that it was imparted by a single Nonman renegade. And look what came of it. Now we know that the Mandate is somewhat safeguarded from single sorcerers being coerced or even willingly giving it up. But I don't know if protections of this kind were available at the time of the Ancient North. I suspect the Dreams are the result of some Gnostic sorcery, possibly not doable with the Anagogis. If so, the ancient northern Schools could have had some similar protection, along with the usual surveilance techniques. But if they didn't all it would have taken was a single renegade teaching the Gnosis to any Southern School.

So your guess is as good as mine . . . view post


  •  

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