In the classic DS setting, while it is true that the Veiled Alliance(s) nominally exist to overthrow the Sorcerer-Kings and bring liberty and empowerment to preservers, in truth they busy themselves with for less noble goals. Survival is the foremost occupation of most Veiled Alliances as they exist under the eyes of the local SK and templarate who constantly seek to eradicate them. Each Alliance chapter is divided into small cells, with only one or two cell members having contact with members of other cells so large-scale cooperation is rare and difficult. These cells act on a day-to-day basis as a support network for Veiled Alliance members, helping preservers and their allies deal with the diffuculties presented by their chosen lifestyles. This support might range from something as simple as food & lodgings to something as substantial as an escape route out of the city, for example.
Actually combatting defilers and the sorcerer-kings tends to come a poor third place behind the considerations of simple survival and cooperation. It does take place but tends to be rarer than common perception or rumour amongst the athasian populace might suggest. When it does come to hard action, few Veiled Alliances aspire to the moral high ground and can be extremely brutal in their methods. The Veiled Alliance are not the Rebel Alliance ;)
Originally posted by xlorepdarkhelm
They are more closely related to terrorist organizations, actually.
Or the Resistance movement of occupied Europe in World War II.
They aren't working so much "for the good of Athas" as they are working to remove tyrants and wreckless wizards from power. That's a fine but important point.
1) Protect the Alliance.
2) Protect Preservers.
3) Protect Auxiliaries (non-preserver Alliance members).
4) Combat Defilers.
5) Combat Sorcerer-Kings.
Generally speaking, simple self-preservation ranks far higher than proactive campaigning against the enemy and the lives and well-being of individual members are secondary to the well-being of the organisation as a whole. Of course, we're all free to mess with this formula in any way we choose, but as presented in their sourcebook, the Alliances seem to operate much more on the level of covert support networks rather than as resistance groups. Just my 2 bits
.They certainly aren't always good and not even always the "good guys" as Xlorepdarkhelm said. This is due to the nature of their fight; they often have to worry about simple survival and helping other preservers and looking at this sort of thing as "the best that can be done right now." But in most cases I've always gotten the impression that removing the defilers and Sorcerer-Kings from power is the ultimate goal. It's just not easy to do...and not even always easy to focus on due to the amount of time and energy that must be spent just on surviving such a mission.
Now this says nothing about corrupt Alliance members (or even cells), spies, etc. I'm just talking about the "base" organization. That's how the source book presents them, to my eyes at least.
In my games I personally take the stance that the Sorcerer-Kings have nothing to do with the Alliance in general (though they do try to use spies from time to time of course) and they are certainly not in control of it, direct or otherwise. In short, the Sorcerer-Kings would very much like to see the Alliance wiped out, just as much as the Alliance would like to see them wiped out. I don't like the idea of the Sorcerer-Kings being all powerful and having no real enemies that they need to keep watch on. And the Alliance gives them just such an enemy.
Sound familiar?
--Sysane, The Terror of Urik
From the Veiled Alliance monitoring and keeping Defilers in check, to allowing the existence of the slave tribes, providing external sources to tap for the levy (go raid a slave tribe or twn, to fill the quota - they don't drain the city's resources), to providing some amount of smoke and mirrors to keep people behind them - like the "war" between Nibenay and Gulg, or the rigid and exhaustive laws of Urik, and even the blood sacrifices and rituals of Draj. Each Sorcerer-King has devised means to keep their people in-line, and their society from breaking into chaos (with Abalach-Re being the worst example of this, she didn't seem to get it right, Raam was already in the beginning stages of anarchy before she died).
Basically, everything that goes on there, is by design, and is in such a design as to keep the city-states stable, and functioning, keep people alive (and thus not finishing Rajaat's work), and to provide the lives necessary to keep Rajaat imprisioned. By effectively using different elements of the city to keep others in check, they have a whole system of internal political "checks and balances" that keeps a zero-sum, and leaves the Sorcerer-King available to persue their own twisted goals and plans.
So, having said that, I like the idea that the Sorcerer-Kings aren't all powerful and that they are very much aware they can be killed and have enemies strong enough to do it (with a lot of planning and maybe even more luck). Four of them were killed in the last decade after all.
My Athas is gritty, deadly, harsh, and generally a very nasty place to be but it's also a world that hasn't given up. Most of the populace has of course, but that only makes the heroes (PCs) that much more special and interesting (in most cases of course). But no matter how bad things have gotten the point is that Athas can begin to thrive if the right people take the right actions. How likely that is, I leave up to my PCs.
So that's my version of Athas. And the VA that Xlorepdarkhelm uses just doesn't fit that world for me. But, like he said about mine, that doesn't make his version any less good or vallid.
And I agree that the VA gathering in one spot makes them an easy target...but it also gives them strength in numbers. I'm sure the Sorcerer-Kings know more about the movements of the Alliance than that group would like but I'm also sure the Alliance poses more of a threat to the plans of the Sorcerer-King (not the SK himself) than he's comfortable with as well. At least that's how things look on my Athas.
So the Alliance isn't always filled with the most noble of people (even those who are fighting the good fight) but it is an organization out to better the world. They simply have an "end justifies the means" method.
I find giving the Sorcerer-Kings one more advantage and method of control to be way too boring and predictable. Power struggles are what make Athas fun for my players and my VA creates yet another one.
As written, I tended to read VA as implying the Sorcerer-kings were not all powerful, just mostly all powerful. Thus VA cells were true resistance against the Sorcerer-kings as opposed to a facade set up by the SKs. However, I very much liked tRaFoaSK and the ideas expressed within. I think the facade idea has more merit for drama in a Dark Fantasy setting and will likely run a VA game based on that premise.
regards
the cute and fluffy DM
i also point to the power of the VA in the prism pentad books, especially in trying to thwart Kalak. they were able to disrupt the ziggarut and also avoid being captured.
in summary, the Va are something that could be defeated but it would be a tough lengthy war, much like a ctiy fight to remove insurgents. they have many hideouts, safe houses and are brutally determined to meet their goals. and yes, they are definately not always the good guys. but that is what makes athas great, the good guys aren't even good all the time.
they could be defeated by the SK but at a high cost
A high cost for some, especially for mortals.
So it takes a hundred years or two to fully root out and destroy a local VA. It may even cost the lives of a thousand templars and other soldiers over the course of time. And resources of course, lets not forget the monetary costs involved. But when you have all the time in the world, these costs are easily calculated and just as easily recouped. So it may take an SK another 100 years or so to build his treasure troves back up, or a generation or two to bolster his templarate back to its shining heights of grandeure. Eventually though, the costs will in hindsight be negligable over the course of another thousand years.
The VA is at the Tyrant's mercy. But yet they serve a purpose as Xlore points out. A city needs some sense of dynamics. Events need to happen. Socially, no news is not good news. The VA provides that bit of social dynamics. It gives the templars a goal, a group to train against. Any SK that is involved in the local VA (as most probably are through spies and agents; remember, not all VA members are spellcasters) would do well to take notes on any insights, experiments, and breakthroughs that the VA comes up with. So the VA serves its purpose, so long as it does that, most SKs will continue to allow it to exist.
Then there's always Eldaarich. Draskinor didn't seem to think the VA served any purpose except as a threat to his power. Now, there is no more VA in that city. Nor will there likely ever be again.
Four of them were killed in the last decade after all.
Ahh yes, but only one, one single SK was ever killed by the hands of mortals. Of the main 5 ;) in the last decade, Andopoinis, Tektuktitilay, and Abalach-Re, and Borys (who is still a champion as well) were all killed by Rajaat. Mortals were simply the recepticles of the Warbringer's will and vengeance. Even going back, no other champion was ever slain by a mortal (Myron, Sielba, Kalid-Ma, Dregoth, all slain by other champions). Was it a fluke then that Kalak died at the hands of a crafty VA? If not, can it possibly be duplicated again?
Not in my game anyway.
edit: some drunken typos
edit2: i would still classify sadira as a mortal. so that's 2, but alas you confuse me when you quote 2 people in one post
And, unless I am mistaken Borys was actually killed by Rikus and Abalach-Re was either killed by Rikus or Sadira (or both at once). Either way, the Sorcerer-Kings are not gods and they are not all powerful. They do have to watch their backs and, most especially, they can not afford to weaken themselves to the point where the other Kings start looking for good spots to stick a knife. :D
Not in my game anyway.
Same opinion.
/favourite rant
Though I liked the Prism Pentad novels for the athasian feeling, I just find the slaying of the SK pretty ridiculous. Yes, I know that it is no problem for Rajaat. I just think it is bad style to set up a REALLY interesting world and then hack most of the major players (who are a HUGE part of the feeling of the setting) to pieces in a novel. Oh yeah, and one of these "major players" was one of the best things about Athas: Borys, The Dragon of Tyr...
No adventure in which player characters could have been involved, let some bimbo novel-characters do it!
/end favourite rant
Kalak, Abalach-Re, and Borys were all killed by mortals and while it took a lot of luck, blood, and sweat it could certainly be duplicated. That very hope is what makes players enjoy Athas! If you take that away from them then all they're playing is "Dune" with some half-dwarves. No thanks.
The same with Borys. Rikus did nothing at all and would have died a thousand times over had it not been for the intervention of Rajaat through the Scourge.
In both cases, mortals were merely vessels of the Warbringer, bearing his will.
Reread both sections from the Cerulean Storm with that in mind. In both cases, its the blow by the Scourge that ultimately ends each Champion, and in both cases neither Champion was on the verge of death, or even moderately wounded by their confrontation with either Sadira or Rikus.
So, I stand by my statement that indeed, in all history, only one SK has ever fallen by mortal hands. And that is Kalak.
(edit)
Also, that's why I think its not something so easily duplicated by mortals (i.e. player characters). The deaths of the SKs was part of a long, intricate, and very complicated web spun by the Warbringer. Mortals simply are not able to stage something like that.
You can, of course, make up whatever interpretations that you want but nothing of what you said has ever been stated in any DS product. Rikus killed Borys and Abalach-Re (along with Sadira). I'm not talking about what a particular DM wants to do with his world or how he wants things to work.
The Prism Pentad books were all about heroes stepping up and taking back the world from the evil of the Sorcerer-Kings. Athas is a world that is supposed to inspire the PCs to those same level of heroics. It's not a world where Rajaat is god and everything happens at his whim. At least that's not what it was designed to be and it's certainly not how I run my world.
You can, of course, make up whatever interpretations that you want but nothing of what you said has ever been stated in any DS product. Rikus killed Borys and Abalach-Re (along with Sadira). I'm not talking about what a particular DM wants to do with his world or how he wants things to work.
Okay, I have to question now wether or not you have read (or in this case perhaps reread with some scrutiny) the sections in question.
Sadira does indeed use the scourge to impale Abalach-Re. Who then goes into one hell of a tizzy, blowing up, folding in on herself, etc, etc. The Scourge in action. Take the time to read the section itself since no, it is not spelled out within a single simplistic sentence.
Borys case is similar. Rikus did indeed impale the Dragon in the snout with the Scourge, breaking off the tip. Yeah, that's really going to kill him, go Rikus, go! He's surely as good as dead. Its not till the Scourge, which is at more than one occasion refered to as a materialisation of Rajaat's will, begins consuming Borys in ichor and goo that Borys goes down.
So, does this make Rikus and Sadira as heroes, or pawns?
Ardnutz, by your logic, who wins a war, the individual soldier on the battlefield, or the nation who placed the soldier there in the first place?
and to be honest if said god is all that why would he allow himself to be imprisoned? and why imprisoned again? last i read the hollow wasn't club med.
i admit it has been a while since i read the pentad (i started rereading the other day, on book 2 atm) but if you give me time i shall indeed get to the end of book 5(i'm not about to skip ahead to ruin the adventure one more time, forgive me), and when i do so, please give me some time mind you, i'm a workin man, i will discuss book 5 with you.
You're talking about reading between the lines and I'm talking about what all the offical sources say outright.
When I come onto the forums to answer questions about printed material I don't put my own thoughts or ideas into those answers. I use the material as printed. Everything else is up to each DM. If you want to say that Abalach-Re and Borys were killed by Rajaat's will that's fine...but what game book supports that directly?
So I'm not going to argue if it was "Rajaat's will" or not because in the printed material the answer is obviously "no" but in each game it can be anything you want.
So please understand that nothing I say is a reflection on what ideas, creations, or theories you might have for your own game. But, when I come here to talk with others, I keep things simple by only debating things that we know for sure, not things that we have added and/or changed.
unfortunately this thread has digressed from the original topic of the Va but in a way they are linked. in no DS rules has it ever said the va were a control of the sk, this is merely a speculation (a bad matrix speculation imo) of the rules and state of athas. while i have no problem with anyone using said ideas in their own campaign, when a person asks for the official rules, let's give them the rules, not our own ideas.
as i said earlier, mach i will be more than willing to continue the "will of rajaat" debate with you further, just let me finish the books again, i refuse to skip ahead just to argue with you (please, no offense meant, i just don't want to ruin the story again)
but if you give me time i shall indeed get to the end of book 5
My apologies then. I hope I haven't given away too much then
So I'm not going to argue if it was "Rajaat's will" or not because in the printed material the answer is obviously "no" but in each game it can be anything you want
While our side discussion is very much OT, it was indeed about events depicted within an official printed source, namely, the novel in question. And my bad, it was not Rajaat's will, but the Essence of Rajaat (direct quote in several instances throughout the novel series).
The question was, in general anyhow, could they have done it without the intervention of the Scourge, and hence, the intervention of Rajaat. In that, the answer is no.
Its plainly stated that the SKs, or at least most of them, do indeed know plenty about the VA's within their cities. The level of their knowledge varies from city to city. Its also stated that, should any SK wish to, the VA's would not last very long (scattered reference quotes throughout the Veilled Alliance sourcebook, no direct quote possible).
And one very much gets the impression that Rajaat probably would never have had anything else to do with Dark Sun had the product line continued. But those are my own theories and, as I said, there is no point in arguing those. ;)
The point I'm making is that mortals have killed Sorcerer-Kings. Debating what it would take to do it with other methods makes no sense as we can say anything we want. So while I don't agree that Rajaat had anything at all to do with the deaths of Abalach-Re or Borys even you agree that Kalak was killed by mortals. Powerful magic was again needed (of course) but he was still killed by a bunch of heroes who had the guts to try. And that is what Athas is all about for me and I think for those who designed it.
Nothing in any of the books (game or novel) states that Rajaat is running the world behind everyone's back and it is certainly never said that PCs don't have the power needed to take out a Sorcerer-King, no matter how difficult that might be. In fact, it's quite the other way around. To me that is the flavor of Athas, the PCs have more power to change the world than in any other setting, right up to and including taking on the Sorcerer-Kings if they wish. Heck, they might even win...with a lot of planning, a lot of magic, and a little luck.
Edit: Ok, now you had to go and get back on topic! :D I agree with you there for sure. But like Ardnutz pointed out, doing so would leave them too open to attack from other powerful enemies (like Sorcerer-Kings for example). So, sure the Sorcerer-Kings know about the VA and they are capable of putting them down, but at what cost? And it is certainly never stated that the VA is another level of control for the Kings (other than in Rise and Fall and we all know how many errors and crackpot theories that thing has). Ok, sorry about having to add the edit. lol
An SK could simply devote one day a week and still take out the VA in his city, if (s)he wished. Remember, they have been alive and in complete control of their city for at least 2,000 years. That's 112,000 weeks, and many of the SKs have been in control of their city for longer than that. An SK would not need to devote loads of resources.
You can look at it another way, as well: the VA amuses them. It provides interest in the tedium that has become a part of their immortal lives. They live to manipulate people and see what will happen. Of course, there's always little surprises (Korgunard - they probably have no idea where he came from), but that only adds to the spice.
On SK deaths:
By canon, Kalak was killed by the Tyrian heroes with the combination of an artifact (Heartwood Spear) and good deal of luck and hitting him while he was weak/in the process of casting a massively powerful, draining spell (in more ways than one).
Tec was killed by Rajaat. Sorry, but when he kills you, you're probably going to stay dead, but I've offered other views on ways that he might have gotten out of it (contingency spells). That's my take, though, so officially, he's dead and gone and Rajaat killed him.
Abalach-Re was killed by the Scourge, which was wielded by Sadira. Technically, you could give her credit: if she had not swung the sword, Abalach-Re would not have been hit by it. In the end, though, the sword only killed her because of Rajaat (or "his will," if you want to think of it that way - the Prism Pentad is pretty clear on this). Rajaat killed her.
Kalid-Ma isn't dead and is trapped in either Ravenloft or his dragon sphere-thingies.
Sacha and Wyan were killed by Rikus and Sadira (I think - it's been a while). Once again, in my campaign, this has now allowed them to reform their bodies thanks to contingency spells.
Dregoth was "killed" by the combined might of Kalak, Abalach-Re, Nibenay, Hamanu, Tec, Adroponis, and Lalalai-puy. And that still didn't do it.
Borys was hit by the Scourge wielded by Rikus. It is likely that Borys has been hit by a sword, even a vorpal one, once or twice in his lifetime. What he has not been hit by was a broken sword spewing black goo whispering with the voice of Rajaat. Rajaat killed him.
Sielba was killed by Hamanu. Nuff said.
So, adding up the score by canon, we get this:
Rajaat: 3
SKs: 1 (4 if you count Dregoth, Sacha, and Wyan)
Heroes: 1
My reasons have all been stated above so I won't go into it again (so everyone won't have to read it again...lol).
But, simply, I don't think it's as easy to wipe out the VA as you make it seem. From the printed material I get the impression that they could but that it would leave them in a bad position. I don't think there is anything more to it than that. No deep conspiracy, etc.
Also, I don't get from the Prism Pentad that Abalach-Re or Borys were killed by anybody but the people who used the tools. That's also how the revised DS boxed set and Beyond the Prism Pentad lays it out as well. So I still give those deaths to the heroes. Regardless, however, we know at least one has been killed by mortals, so it can be done.
But, anyway, I've said all that above...I just wanted to put it all in one easy to read format before I leave this one be. lol Those are my views based on the printed material and unless I've missed something big I'm not likely to change them. But, hey, that doesn't affect anyone's game but mine.
Just to keep the argument going...
And in good tradition of vader, I am ending my post with a
Originally posted by vader42xx
Sorry, I just don't agree.
My reasons have all been stated above so I won't go into it again (so everyone won't have to read it again...lol).
But, simply, I don't think it's as easy to wipe out the VA as you make it seem. From the printed material I get the impression that they could but that it would leave them in a bad position. I don't think there is anything more to it than that. No deep conspiracy, etc.
And my point is that the Sorcerer-Kings have been keeping the status quo functioning for 2,000 years. These are immortals, in places of power, and who have their own motivations and desires they wish to work on, not to be troubled by the details of rulership that they find troublesome. So, they keep a delacate balance between different groups within their respective city-states, most likely without anyone other than themselves knowing just how much they do this, and use this balance to come up with a means to free themselves up for their own ulterior motives.
It's basic necessity and inventiveness. They need the people at a certian population level to support their levy quotas to the dragon, they need people in the city to at the very least, be largely accepting to what's done within the city or to be apathetic to or against any causes for the most part, and they need to keep the more radical elements in check. Now, if you were some obnoxiously powerful immortal being with extraordinary magical, political and psionic power at your fingertips (arguably among the most powerful and influential beings in the region), and an entire order of people who are loyal to your cause (the templars), whouldn't you want to devise some system of leadership that makes life easier for yourself?
Did I ever give you any impression that this makes the Veiled Alliance easy to wipe out? If so, I'm sorry. Just because they have everything in their cities being played like a harp from hell, it doesn't mean that the Veiled Alliance is totally ineffective. They just serve the Sorcerer-King's motives within the city - even as they oppose the Sorcerer-King himself. It's a basic, sound tactical strategy that is applied, and I'd think that the people who led entire armies across the world to annihilate entire species from their very existence for millenia, might know a thing or two about tactics and stratigic maneuverings/manipulations.
Also, I don't get from the Prism Pentad that Abalach-Re or Borys were killed by anybody but the people who used the tools. That's also how the revised DS boxed set and Beyond the Prism Pentad lays it out as well. So I still give those deaths to the heroes. Regardless, however, we know at least one has been killed by mortals, so it can be done.
Actually, the Prism Pentad states, each time, that the black, tar-like substance that leaks from the scourge ends up killing them. Later, it explains that this black substance is the essence of Rajaat. Now, logically, this means that the essence of Rajaat killed them.
But, anyway, I've said all that above...I just wanted to put it all in one easy to read format before I leave this one be. lol Those are my views based on the printed material and unless I've missed something big I'm not likely to change them. But, hey, that doesn't affect anyone's game but mine.
I'd suggest re-reading the parts of the Prism Pentad that are about the deaths of Abalach-Re, Tectuktitulay, and Borys. It is fairly clear who kills each of those Sorcerer-Kings - and how. Sadira and Rikus were merely the instruments used by Rajaat in order to exact his revenge. Do you really think it so far-fetched that the first sorcerer, the warbringer, the Sorcerer-Kings' creator, mentor and master could possibly accomplish this?
The events of the Prism Pentad actually trouble me in one thing - I truly believe that Rajaat is nowhere near truly imprisoned by anything of substance any more. Sadira has an extreme case of overconfidence, and sadly, the remaining Sorcerer-Kings aren't even sure how to handle it. I think Rajaat is merely licking his wounds, and reviewing what happened. He has an apparent connection to the Paraelement of Rain, and I believe he's simply biding his time - when he's ready to strike again, it will be far more decisive, and he will have made a stronger power base for himself to achieve his goals. And nothing Sadira, or even the remaining Sorcerer-Kings can do will really stop him.
Actually, the Prism Pentad states, each time, that the black, tar-like substance that leaks from the scourge ends up killing them. Later, it explains that this black substance is the essence of Rajaat. Now, logically, this means that the essence of Rajaat killed them.
I'm in complete agreement. What I stated earlier wasn't my opinion, it was a statement of facts presented in the Prism Pentad which is what the world is based on. Whether you choose to follow those facts or make up your own is your choice as a GM. My point was simply show what the facts were, what you do with them is entirely up to you.
And I also don't think wiping out the VA would be easy. It's kind of like the argument for life on other planets: if you take an infinite number of stars, an infinite number of planets, you will get life and some of that life will be intelligent. If you take an immortal, superpowerful being who, in some cases, created their city, they will know absolutely everything that goes on their city. Either that, or their plans are so convoluted and complex that no mouth-breathing mortal could ever conceive or delve into them.
My point with the VA is that, while the SKs could do away with the VA, the VA is an interesting thorn that alleviates some of the boredom of living for thousands of years. Could the SKs destroy the VA of their cities? Yep, just look at Eldaarich.
The events of the Prism Pentad actually trouble me in one thing - I truly believe that Rajaat is nowhere near truly imprisoned by anything of substance any more. Sadira has an extreme case of overconfidence, and sadly, the remaining Sorcerer-Kings aren't even sure how to handle it. I think Rajaat is merely licking his wounds, and reviewing what happened. He has an apparent connection to the Paraelement of Rain, and I believe he's simply biding his time - when he's ready to strike again, it will be far more decisive, and he will have made a stronger power base for himself to achieve his goals. And nothing Sadira, or even the remaining Sorcerer-Kings can do will really stop him.
This is interesting, as well. My take was always that Rajaat set something in motion when he broke out. In a way, it makes sense:
1) Most of known civilization is now contained in isolated cities - much easier to purify.
2) The world is largely cleansed, not just of "good" things and some ancient races like ogres and pixies, but outdoubtably there's plant-life that has evolved to live on land and not the endless oceans of the blue age.
3) The creation of the Cerelean Storm is now dumping water on a parched and dying land, threatening to drown it out. Where the SKs think in hundreds of years, Rajaat may think in tens of thousands.
I don't believe Rajaat was really beaten; I just think a new plan has been set in motion. Of course, how long it takes that plan to play out is anyone's guess.
Originally posted by Mach2.5
So, I stand by my statement that indeed, in all history, only one SK has ever fallen by mortal hands. And that is Kalak.
Yet another reason why I don't think he is a true Champion of Rajaat.
Originally posted by Dawnstealer
Sacha and Wyan were killed by Rikus and Sadira (I think - it's been a while).
Nope, the Scourge once again.
Originally posted by Dawnstealer
I don't believe Rajaat was really beaten; I just think a new plan has been set in motion. Of course, how long it takes that plan to play out is anyone's guess.
Rajaat also has something else in his favor - the current direction the world is going is heading to exactly what he desires. The populations are slowly, and inevitably shrinking, the Defilers are accomplishing his goals. Rajaat is nothing if not patient, methodolgical, and persistant. He currently has a nice, protected "laboratory" to expirament with new powers (the Hollow), servants working in the Black and on Athas itself, as well as his potential alliances with the paraelements. He is a master chess-player, simply setting himself up for putting the world into checkmate. The worst thing anyone (including the Sorcerer-Kings) could do is simply let him alone . He can leave the Hollow any time he wants now, if he desired. But, he's most likely playing the people against themselves - by remaining in the Hollow, they become overconfident in their abilities, and believe they have beaten him.
But yea, this is conjecture.
Originally posted by NytCrawlr
Nope, the Scorcher once again.
I guess you mean the Scourge (the weapon Rikus used when he choped one head in two), cause the Scorcher has never been depicted or mentionned in the novels.
Originally posted by Pennarin
I guess you mean the Scourge (the weapon Rikus used when he choped one head in two), cause the Scorcher has never been depicted or mentionned in the novels.
My bad, keep getting the two mixed up.
Edited my post.
Nope, the Scourge once again.
True, but in at least one of the two instances, the dismembered head was simply cut in half. This would imply simply the sword;s plain usage, and not having been consumed by the Essence of Rajaat (the goo that spilled from the broken blade). Having a slight problem with finding the referening text in the novels, but I'll sit and think on that later (yes, of all the things I brought with me, I take my Prism Pentad series ;)).
But yea, this is conjecture
Perhaps, but all the foreshadowing elements are there within the novel series. A topic for another thread since this own is being overtaken by it, but if you pick apart the novels, you can see the direction that Troy had plotted out, which matches up with this theory perfectly.
Nope, the Scourge once again.
True, but in at least one of the two instances, the dismembered head was simply cut in half. This would imply simply the sword;s plain usage, and not having been consumed by the Essence of Rajaat (the goo that spilled from the broken blade). Having a slight problem with finding the referening text in the novels, but I'll sit and think on that later (yes, of all the things I brought with me, I take my Prism Pentad series ;)).
You can read between the lines and draw whatever conclusions you want (which is what any good DM does of course) but I'm talking about printed material and nothing else. If it wasn't in a game book it's not canon. That's the only reason I use the Prism Pentad novels as canon; the revised Dark Sun boxed set was updated to take those novels into account. And that's not true of any other Dark Sun novels.
And, to the best of my knowledge, all the things you are talking about (Rajaat licking his wounds, Kalak not being a champion, Rajaat having some control over the world, etc) are all items from non-canon books or ideas you have come up with on your own (no matter how logical they may be).
And that's the stand I've taken from the start. While it's great that each DM is fleshing out his own campaign I'm talking about printed material only. Now if you can show me where any of those items are specifically stated let me know. Otherwise saying things like "it's pretty clear" means that's what is clear to you and that's how you read it. For my talks and/or debates on public forums I use what is known and printed, nothing else.
and Mach to continue from last night, no worries you didn't spoil any of the books for me, i'm just rereading them for kicks.
on a somewhat lighter note, has anyone had problems posting replies? last night when i tried to reply to a post it said i was not logged in. then when i logged in again i still kept getting the same you are not logged in message?
i must have missed something, where are you guys getting the kalak was not a true champion of rajaat thing?
That mostly comes from the book Rise and Fall of a Dragon King, by Lynn Abbey. While there are many inconsistancies in the book with other, more established canon, some of those inconsistancies have spurned the creative ideas of others. In one passage of the book, Hamanu says flatly that Kalak was not a Champion at all, just a powerful defiler playing at being a sorceror-king and that that is the only reason why a bunch of mortals were able to take him out. The novel is quite good at many points, even with the inconsistancies (the ending is lame in my opinion, but alas, you can't have everything).
please give me page numbers
First off, take a breath and relax. I'll try and explain that its not 'reading between the lines', but simply understanding what you read when its not spelled out in so simple a manner.
Now, take a look at the Cerulean Storm pages 266 to 268
A synopsis of the points in question (major spoilers for those who haven't read it)
Note that prior to this section, our little mul hero had been fairly ineffective against the Dragon. Anyhow, Rikus snaps the Scourge off in the snout of Borys. The mul falls off into a crater, banged up and bruised. The Scourge begins to pour out the black ooze, dubbed earlier by Jo'orsh as the Essence of Rajaat (page 161) after the battle with Abalach-Re. As Sadira and Rikus meet up and inspect the now nearly human remains of Borys, they hear the dead body eminate the words "Borys of Ebe, Butcher of Dwarves, your master has claimed his punishment." Gee, and who could have spoken that and how? The lingering Essence of Rajaat, through which Rajaat spoke those words, through which Rajaat consumed the body of Borys of Ebe. Rikus surely didn't hack him to death, nor beat him down. He delivered the instrument of Borys destruction. This one is quite simple to see, read, and understand.
Later on, on page 282, after the SKs have just had their little background synopsis with Rikus and Co, Nibenay stays behind to attempt to kill the heroes. Rikus hurls the broken shard of the Scourge at Nibenay, which left a trail of ooze on the ground that formed into a mouth, with a long forked tongue lashing out ot Nibenay. The mouth goes so far as to speak "Soon Gallard, very soon." Once again, Rajaat acting through his Essence eminating from the broken blade, but this example is only placed to exemplify the prior section.
If it wasn't in a game book it's not canon.
Its in a game book that is certainly considered canon by most people I know in real life and on these boards.
I'm talking about printed material only.
Gee, so was I. Now, I'm not going through the rest of the novel for other source quotes, but I'm sorry, based on what is specifically printed and not merely implied in the books, I'm not giving credit to the heroes of the novel for killing the SKs.
has anyone had problems posting replies?
None as of yet, but I'm not on my own comp so I have to log in each time to the boards (owner has an auto delete of all cookies on sign off).
Now, moving on, I don't take anything as canon unless it comes from game books. So the only DS novels that I get any information from are those in the Prism Pentad. So while I have read Rise and Fall I don't have any respect for the "history" it tries to present. That does not mean I don't have respect for others that choose to use that book or take ideas from it. Simply that it's not canon as far as I'm concerned.
Secondly, the things you are saying regarding the Prism Pentad are all your own ideas based on what is written.
While you see that as the spirit of Rajaat I see all of what you wrote as being the power of a somewhat intelligent artifact. See what I mean? That stuff is all perspective. I won't argue which is better because that is up to each DM. My point is simply that the best we can say for sure is that Rikus and Sadira struck the killing blows to those Sorcerer-Kings. We don't know what else happened beyond that. All other details are left up to the DM.
Finally, Kalak is a Sorcerer-King according to all game material so as far as canon goes mortals have killed a Sorcerer-King.
So, once more, I'm not trying to stomp on ideas...we all have our own and that's great.
But, while talking about such things, I give 100% canon answers. I make mistakes like the rest of us of course but my goal is to give 100% cannon answers and nothing else as that is the only information which is likely to be the same in most games. Also, to my way of thinking, canon information is what most new players are looking for. So, that's what I give. Edit: Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear when I said "printed material." My fault.
By printed material I mean things that have been out and out stated in either the Prism Pentad novels or the TSR Dark Sun game materials. Those are the only canon as far as I (and most 2e DS players from what I've seen) am concerned. Originally posted by vader42xx
If any of the books specifically state that Rajaat isn't back in the Hollow, or that Sadira/Rikus didn't kill those champions please give me page numbers. Otherwise those are all things you are "getting" from your readings.
You can read between the lines and draw whatever conclusions you want (which is what any good DM does of course) but I'm talking about printed material and nothing else. If it wasn't in a game book it's not canon. That's the only reason I use the Prism Pentad novels as canon; the revised Dark Sun boxed set was updated to take those novels into account. And that's not true of any other Dark Sun novels.
And, to the best of my knowledge, all the things you are talking about (Rajaat licking his wounds, Kalak not being a champion, Rajaat having some control over the world, etc) are all items from non-canon books or ideas you have come up with on your own (no matter how logical they may be).
And that's the stand I've taken from the start. While it's great that each DM is fleshing out his own campaign I'm talking about printed material only. Now if you can show me where any of those items are specifically stated let me know. Otherwise saying things like "it's pretty clear" means that's what is clear to you and that's how you read it. For my talks and/or debates on public forums I use what is known and printed, nothing else.
You can follow a multiple-topic thread/conversation, can't you? Congratulations. Now, if you look closely - the conjecture, which I know, is a big word, how's "personal opinion & theory" work for you? Anyway, that part about Rajaat licking his wounds, and not really being held by anything of substance within the Hollow (NEVER SAID he wasn't in the hollow, just that he currently desires to remain there, and it's only the lack of interest in leaving currently is what keeps him there) was my pet theory. And, I even clearly marked and defined it as such. It is independant of the rest of the conversation, short of the comment that Dawnstealer had (and I had on DawnS'), and Mach's response. It's a different topic. Skimming through someone's responses and then replying to what you only skimmed - doesn't help your arguement any.
And - the "It's pretty clear" means that you have to be pretty non-fluent in the english language, especially considering Troy wasn't THAT complex of a writer, to not grasp these things. Mach has provided the pages and books you seek. The fact of the matter is - Abalach-Re, Borys and Tectuktitulay were ALL killed by Rajaat. The book spells it out for you, and the only way you could miss it is if you have some sort of reading disorder, are blind, or english isn't your fluent language. They are in the books.
Mixing the topics up as you have, does seem confusing - especially since what you wrote is hard to make sense of. Reading between the lines is something that I'll do, but it doesn't apply in the case of who killed whom in the Prism Pentad. My personal pet theories on Athas - those are me reading betweent he lines. I usually open such things with "My personal idea on the subject is..." or some other reference that in the english language points that the rest of that paragraph (and topic) that follows, until I change the topic, is my subjective opinion, and probably filled with speculation.
Xlore, you get no
Bad Xlore! Bad!Be nice to people
Its the only way you can dupe them out of their life savings with carefully planned life insurance schemes and other such cons.
Anyhow, yeah, I must say its not spelled out in one single sentence, but it is very plain (the mouth on Caelum's hand through which Rajaat speaks, Rajaat's own conversation with Khidar, etc) that Rajaat wasn't sitting back in the Hollow ignorant of what was transpiring across Athas, and no, there is nothing at all that can possibly lead one to conclude that the Scourge was simply an intelligent weapon (an intelligent sword that thinks it is really its own maker, takes over banshee giants and transforms them into images of its own maker; or would that be images of itself then if it thought it was its own maker . . . nope, there's simply no bait on that hook my friend).
And I doo have to agree with Xlore in saying that Troy was not a very complex writer at all. But there were a few little nuggets that he did manage to scatter over the books that you have to read into a bit before their meanings become clear (in fact, it took me a second reading to start piecing together some of the larger picture, kudos to Mr. Denning in that regard). Its not 'reading between the lines' at all. It is there, spelled out. In fact, there's even a literary term for it called Underlying the Plot, and its a fairly common practice. It simply means to leave some things up to the reader to figure out for himself. You may call this 'conjecture', but thats not a very accurate term. Conjecture would be if I were making more bold assumptions with far less supporting evidence.
First off, no need for me to relax, I'm fine. lol
That's good. One of the things I hate about text based conversations. Its easy to take someone the wrong way. Thanks much ;)
Further, what may be "clear to you" may not be clear to others. Whether I am "blind" or have a "reading disorder" isn't really the point. In fact, if those things were the case, the way you try to "help" such people shocks me. However, since I don't have any of those problems I'll move along. Rajaat did not kill Abalach-Re or Borys. Rikus and Sadira killed those two, as stated in both the revised boxed set and the Prism Pentad novels. If the text that Mach pointed out says to YOU that Rajaat was behind it, great. But it doesn't say that to me and many others I know. The point here being that those events can mean many different things to different people. So, if you'd rather, Sadira and Rikus struck the killing blow against those Sorcerer-Kings. Now, if you think there is more to it than that great. I don't personally (other than an intelligent weapon was involved). Your view isn't better or worse than mine. Nor is one more educated or valid. So, please, have respect for those who don't read every word the same way you do. I have respect for your ideas and thoughts after all.
As to what Mach had to say, I understand what you mean by it being "plain" and sure we all have our own ideas on what all those books mean. I even said that in several other posts. What I'm trying to say here is that I stay out of such things (maybe that's my loss). And since the game material (DS revised boxed set) tells us that Rikus and Sadira killed those Sorcerer-Kings that's what I go with. And there is no mention of Rajaat having anything to do with it in a direct or indirect sense. We're also told in those game books that those same heroes killed Kalak. Which is one (or one more, depending on how you look at it) example of a Sorcerer-King being killed by simple mortals.
As to the nature of conjecture, that word can certainly be seen in several different ways. Which, of course, is at the heart of what we're talking about here. lol When dealing with canon material for a gaming world that often has a confused history I keep things simple by only using what has been stated in an exact fashion so as to avoid saying something regarding a question that might be my own idea slipping in when it isn't wanted.
So while your thoughts might not be conjecture for you, they are for me. And, on that, we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Also, no worries about the "relax" comment. I agree that it's often very difficult to tell if someone is taking things out of context or what not. I'm glad to know that most of us here are keeping it nice and friendly.
The same can be applied about Rikus and Sadira on the Borys and Abalach-Re.
Its all up to personal interpretation.
--Sysane, The Terror of Urik
Originally posted by Sysane
Look at it this way. If someone pushed a person off a cliff into a pool of hot magma. Who killed the person? The pusher or the lava?
The same can be applied about Rikus and Sadira on the Borys and Abalach-Re.
Its all up to personal interpretation.
--Sysane, The Terror of Urik
Wow! This is actually THE best explanation i ever read about the whole subject! sysane, you nailed it!
Originally posted by Sysane
Look at it this way. If someone pushed a person off a cliff into a pool of hot magma. Who killed the person? The pusher or the lava?
The same can be applied about Rikus and Sadira on the Borys and Abalach-Re.
Its all up to personal interpretation.
--Sysane, The Terror of Urik
Umm, no. The pusher murdered (most likely, it could have been executed or mortally wounded, based on circumstances not defined in the statement) the person, the magma destroyed (or killed) him. Two different words, two different meanings, it's not a subjective issue based on personal interpretation, it's statements of objective analysis. Not everything is a subjective shade of gray.
Rajaat's essence was defined as the black goo. Rajaat is very much sentient and in control of things. Rajaat used Sadira and Rikus to eliminate Borys and Abalach-Re. Regardless of whatever you may think - the fact of the matter is - Rajaat had done the actual physical destruction or killing (rather, one would say murder as there was definite personal gain as the motivation behind this on the part of Rajaat). Sadira and Rikus, however, are better defined as having mortally wounded (killing an emeny during a wartime situation) Borys and Abalach-Re. Makig the language vague and overgeneralized does not prove a side is right - it is a logical fallacy.
Either way the example still stands. Rikus and Sidira prompted by Rajaat or not had a hand in Borys and Re's deaths.
--Sysane, The Terror of Urik
Would anyone be able to kill a Sorcerer King
1) without the help of Rajaat?
or
2) without a really strange weapon that thinks itself to be its creator?
Let's Kalak leave out of this for the moment (as that would spawn a champion/non-champion discussion).
Originally posted by Sysane
Okay change my example to a pit full of hungy kreen. Who killed the person then? The Kreen or the Pusher?
My arguement stands. Changing those involved doesn't change it. If the puisher had the intent of murder (in other words, had direct, personal gain to recieve through the death of the person pushed) then the pusher murdered the person. The Thri-Kreen, being hungry, and as they don't necessarily recognize non-kreen as sentient, did not murder, but rather killed the person. They killed the person as if he (or she) was an animal, something to be eaten.
Either way the example still stands. Rikus and Sidira prompted by Rajaat or not had a hand in Borys and Re's deaths.
The above sentence I have no arguements against. It's not what you said before, tho. Ambiguous language doesn't prove a case. Stating that they had a hand in the Sorcerer-Monarchs' deaths - that I have no doubt. They were, after all, wielding the Scourge at the time.
Ok.... let's try your game of examples. If someone is not in control of themselves, through some means of suggestion, and kills someone, are they responsible for their actions or not? Now, what if the thing that was giving them the suggestions was communicating their actions through the very weapon they were wielding. And let's say that this force or being somehow was able to physically contact the victim after the weapon gets damaged and leaks this black goo all over - which is the very being that was making the suggestion. This goo, being toxic to the victim, kills him. Now, let's say the suggestive force that physically was a black goo in this case, was actually the most powerful being on the planet, arguably the closest thing to being a god. Now - who did it? Who is responsible, and, more to the point of it all - who had a hand in the deaths?
Rajaat had a direct hand in the deaths of Abalach-Re and Borys - with him even speaking that Borys' punishment was death, something that Rajaat then turns around and uses for Tec, and even a similar note for Andropinis (only his was imprisonment, not death). His presence and hand in the deaths of those Sorcerer-Kings cannot be denied. This is what I've been getting at. It's not quite the same thing as if he was merely standing aside, and directing Sadira and Rikus without involving himself personally into the mix.
Am I saying that Sadira and Rikus didn't have a hand it it? No. Am I saying that Rajaat suggested something to them that was contrary to what their own desires were anyway? No. In actuality - hypnosis only works on you anyway if it's something that you wish to do yourself. I'm saying that the presence of Rajaat, the physical contact with his essence, is what ended the lives of the two Sorcerer-Monarchs.
Originally posted by Elonarc
Just another question...
Would anyone be able to kill a Sorcerer King
1) without the help of Rajaat?
or
2) without a really strange weapon that thinks itself to be its creator?
Let's Kalak leave out of this for the moment (as that would spawn a champion/non-champion discussion).
I'd say yes - it could be possible. You would just have to not only be able to kill them, but circumvent any of their contingency spells they have set in place for such an occurance.
Those who have the easiest time accomplishing this are:
1. Rajaat - he made them what they are, he has already proven his immunity to any arcane power, and he's the closest thing to a god Athas has. What he makes, he can destry, so if Rajaat kills someone, they are gone.
2. Hamanu - extrapolated from ideas presented in Rise and Fall of a Dragon King, as well as references to some of the unique qualities he has from the Prism Pentad, and applying it to the past history in the official timeline, I think Hamanu has the power to end a Sorcerer-Kings' life. Hamanu single-handedly killed Sielba, by all accounts. Hamanu struck the killing blow for Dregoth, who had the presence of mind (in my opinion) to have a contingency for this special case. Hamanu was even present to assist in the killing of Kalid-Ma, even if he's not specifically stated as being the one who did it. Which leads me to my next point.
3. A fully-metamorphosized Dragon (and probably Avangion) could probably accomplish this. Borys is, I think, the one stated for killing Kalid-Ma. The only real difference between himself and the other Sorcerer-Kings (except for Hamanu) was that he had completed the metamorphosis. I see that as being the reason he was able to do this. Even so, he had the help of Hamanu.
There might be other ways as well.
As to your question Elonarc I'd say yes as well (in fact I have already...lol). What it would take is up to each DM but in general I agree with the power level that Xlorepdarkhelm has suggested. It could happen in other ways of course, but as I said, that's up to each DM.
Originally posted by vader42xx
The point is that unless something canon specifically says "Rajaat killed..." etc (which it doesn't) then the matter is open to interpretation by the reader. And that is very much a fact. If nothing else I'd think the many different view points on the subject would prove that to anybody.
I'm sorry, but I simply disagree. Something can be objectively defined without needing interpretation in this case, as is presented. Rajaat's influence is very much there, and he definitely was part of the equasion. There is no way you can show that to be false from the books, and it's already been shown to be true. The only way you can say it isn't, is by ignoring what is written, and then making a subjective opinion based on what you feel it should be, not what is actually presented.
from Dictionary.com
kill1 ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kl)
v. killed, kill·ing, kills
v. tr.
1.
1. To put to death.
2. To deprive of life: The Black Death was a disease that killed millions.
2. To put an end to; extinguish: The rain killed our plans for a picnic.
3.
1. To destroy a vitally essential quality in: Too much garlic killed the taste of the meat.
2. To cause to cease operating; turn off: killed the motor.
3. To tire out completely; exhaust: “The trip to work, and the boredom and nervousness of jobs, kills men” (Jimmy Breslin).
4. To pass (time) in aimless activity: killed a few hours before the flight by sightseeing.
5. To consume entirely; finish off: kill a bottle of brandy.
6. Sports. To prevent a hockey team on a power play from scoring during (a penalty).
7. To cause extreme pain or discomfort to: My shoes are killing me.
8. To mark for deletion; rule out: killed the story.
9. To thwart passage of; veto: kill a congressional bill.
10. Informal. To overwhelm with hilarity, pleasure, or admiration: The outstanding finale killed the audience.
11. Sports.
1. To hit (a ball) with great force.
2. To hit (a ball) with such force as to make a return impossible, especially in a racquet game.
v. intr.
1. To cause death or extinction; be fatal.
2. To commit murder.
3. Informal. To make such a strong impression as to overcome: dress to kill.
n.
1. The act of killing.
2.
1. An animal killed, especially in hunting.
2. A person killed or to be killed: “Infantrymen... had seen too many kills suddenly get up and run away or shoot at them as they approached” (Nelson DeMille).
3. An enemy aircraft, vessel, or missile that has been attacked and destroyed.
3. Sports. A kill shot.
Phrasal Verb:
kill off
To destroy in such large numbers as to render extinct.
Idiom:
in at/on the kill
Present at the moment of triumph.
[Middle English killen, perhaps from Old English *cyllan. See gwel- in Indo-European Roots.]
The word has far too many definitions, but the two lines I marked above, show how yes, it very much is the correct term. Rajaat killed the two Sorcerer-Monarchs. His black goo-essence, upon contact with the Sorcerer-Monarchs, deprived them of life. Quite simply, that's the way the word is used, that is the definition of the word, and desiding to change the word to fit your own subjective view, doesn't make the actual definition any less viable. It is not opinion, but fact.
your argument of (rephrased) "Rajaat didn't kill Borys and Abalach-Re, it wasn't specifically stated in the book, and since it wasn't specifically stated in the book, it cannot be proven that Rajaat killed them." is also known as circular logic. it makes no sense, and does not work. Please, try again. I'd like to have a rational discussion, but it's hard to when your argument is a fallacy in and of itself.
If I'm incorrect, and that isn't your argument, please, by all means, correct me.
Sysane's arguement is also just as bad, as he is attempting to make someone decide between who killed someone, when the correct answer is both parties involved. The first one - the pusher and the magma killed te person. The second one, the pusher and the thri-kreen killed the person. There is no differentiation possible, as is shown after a review of the word "kill" in the definition above.
Originally posted by vader42xx
And I think that you've already been shown several times that others can read the same story you are and get different ideas. Unless it's stated as fact (which, again, it's not) then it can be seen in different ways by different people. It's as simple as that.
Yep.
I think Professor Plum killed Abalche Re and Borys, with a candlestick, in the dining room.
Yep, hooked on phonics worked for me too!
Seriously, sorry you can't see that you're wrong on this issue Vader. It's common knowledge that while Rikus and Sadira may had intent to murder Abalache-Re and Borys, Rajaat, via his black-goo essence, is the one that actually killed them.
Don't believe us, feel free to email Troy and ask him, I'm sure he will set you straight.
Originally posted by vader42xx
And I think that you've already been shown several times that others can read the same story you are and get different ideas. Unless it's stated as fact (which, again, it's not) then it can be seen in different ways by different people. It's as simple as that.
But, it is, stated as fact. It is not literally stated word for word in the book, but it is stated as fact within them. It is not a subjective interpretation where the possiblity of different views and perspectives can be derived from it. It is concise, and very well defined that Rajaat killed them. You, to date, have not proviuded a counter arguement to disagree with this of any merit, relying on logical fallacies to prove your point, which, in and of themselves, are erroneous.
From The Cerulean Storm, page 266:
As he dropped, he saw a fountain of black syrup spraying from the blade still half-buried in the Dragon's snout.
From The Cerulean Storm, page 266 (a little further down the page):
A huge fountain of black fluid was shooting from the Scourge's broken blade and had already coated the Dragon's head beneath a thick layer of ebony slime. With angry red plumes of smoke pouring from his nostrils, the beast was madly scratching at the steel shard lodged in his snout. He accomplished little, save to coat his claws with the same dark sludge that covered his face.
The Dragon bellowed in horrid pain. He sprayed a fiery red cloud high into the sky, and his hands dropped limply to his sides, his beady eyes glazing over in agony. A series of convulsions ran through his slender face. With each spasm the snout grew shorter and thicker, until the thing looked more like a nose and drooping chin than a beast's muzzle. The spiked crest on top of his head broadened into a sloping forehead. Borys gave one last roar, then fell silent and dropped behind the ridge.
That passage, right there, clearly states the black sludge is what killed Borys. Not Rikus' attack. The book shows that Rikus' attack simply initiated the process. On page 268, the following happens:
From The Cerulean Storm, page 268:
"Borys of Ebe, Butcher of Dwarves. Leader of the Revolt," the voice hissed. "Your master has claimed his punishment."
Which clearly states that Rajaat did this, as it was already defined that the master who is mentioned, is in fact, Rajaat. Elsewhere in the series, it defines that the black goo is the essence of Rajaat, unquestionably. And that it implies that all three swords Rajaat made for his followers were made with a part of Rajaat himself, his essence. A similar situation occurs with Abalach-Re earlier, during the battle with Sadira. How can this possibly be any clearer, without it specifically spelling it out for you? This is not some interpretation of the situation, it is what the book states happened. As such, your arguement that it is simply my opinion on the subject, because it has not been proven through the specific wording that Rajaat killed them being spelled out, is known as the logical fallacy of ad ignorantiam, or "pleading ignorance". It is a false plea, as you simply refuse to accept the facts, and are at this point, intentionally ignoring them - on the basis that the book doesn't state the words "Rajaat killed Borys" or "Rajaat killed Abalach-Re", without even remotely wanting to look at the simple evidence that it is what is written within. It's a weak arguement, and one that rather you need to come up with a better arguement, and try again.
Another fallacy you have decided to pull is called "common practice", or "two wrongs" - in that your case of "well, since there are several people with this other opinion, therefore it is right". Popularity of an incorrect or erroneous arguement doesn't validate it.
and i'm still not buying the Kalak was not a real sk thing. i think by saying that the book rise and fall loses alot of credibility.(i have not read the book to be honest) every single game source that i know of names kalak as one of the sk, and a champ of rajaat.
Originally posted by xlorepdarkhelm
It is a false plea, as you simply refuse to accept the facts, and are at this point, intentionally ignoring them - on the basis that the book doesn't state the words "Rajaat killed Borys" or "Rajaat killed Abalach-Re", without even remotely wanting to look at the simple evidence that it is what is written within.
Not to mention that it would make the novel extremely boring if he just wrote that instead of using a more colorful way of pushing the point home.
Like Mach said above, Troy isn't the most complex writer, but he does have his moments, this being one of them.
Originally posted by ardnutz
my problem with that whole thing is then why do rikus and sadira get credit for the destruction of borys and abalach-re in the revised DS boxed set?
I've never said that they don't get credit. I have said that Rajaat killed them. it doesn't mean that Sadira and Rikus didn't haver anything to do it themselves.
and i'm still not buying the Kalak was not a real sk thing. i think by saying that the book rise and fall loses alot of credibility.(i have not read the book to be honest) every single game source that i know of names kalak as one of the sk, and a champ of rajaat.
Well, that is actually an opinion that has been developed based on conjecture, and has not been an arguement stated as absolute fact (the arguement that Kalak is not a Champion of Rajaat). That one is opinion, and thus different people do have different views on the subject.
Originally posted by ardnutz
my problem with that whole thing is then why do rikus and sadira get credit for the destruction of borys and abalach-re in the revised DS boxed set?
More Dark Sun inconsistencies just like the rest of the campaign setting? Anyways, they should get credit, for helping anyways, that's not in debate, since Borys and Abalache-Re would never had died, at least for now, without those two fools bringing a Rajaat made artifact to them, which also happens to be connected to Rajaat's essensce, and sealing their fate.
Remember that Troy had nothing to do with the Revised Box Setting and was probably out of the loop by then anyways, since TSR was heading into a downward spiral around this time.
and i'm still not buying the Kalak was not a real sk thing.
I never said he wasn't a real SM (SK), I said he wasn't a real champion of Rajaat, there is a difference, and one does not equal the other, just ask Raven, I made this same mistake once, heh.
Also please don't take that as official because it isn't, not until I can talk to Troy again anyways.
I'm just coming to the conclusion that he wasn't due to some things written in RaFoaDK and elsewhere. If you are interested, check out my site, I have a nice article on it.
Originally posted by vader42xx
You can say it's common knowledge but that just means the most commonly accepted theory.
Nope, just means you're wrong and not willing to accept it and that you obviously have a weird reading comprehension than most people, heh. Last time I looked, it wasn't a theory either, but go ahead and keep thinking that if you want and if it makes life easier on you. ;)
If Troy has written anywhere that this IS the case then please send it my way, I'd love to read it. Otherwise, it can be seen many different ways.
Well, he did, it's called the Cerulean Storm, book 5 of the Prism Pentad series, like several here have tried to point out to you. :D
Originally posted by vader42xx
You can say it's common knowledge but that just means the most commonly accepted theory. If Troy has written anywhere that this IS the case then please send it my way, I'd love to read it. Otherwise, it can be seen many different ways.
Just because your arguement is your own opinion on the subject, does not mean that my arguement is based on opinion. Making such an arguement to prove your case is known as petitio principii or "Begging the question". You are using the conclusion that your arguement is based on opinion and conjecture to restate that my arguement is as well. This does not make any sense. It's just more circular logic. It is not a "commonly accepted theory". It is the literal facts presented in the book. This cannot change without rewriting the book, or ignoring those parts of it. Once again, stop using circular logic, and present a viable counterarguement to this, or else concede that your arguement is erroneous, and that what has been presented is true, however that your arguement is your own opinion on the subject - which quite honestly is acceptable in this case. But stating that the arguement that has been presented against you is opinion or a theory, is where your fallacy lies.
So, in short, unless you can show me something in print that says flat out that Rajaat had something to do with it then it's your own way of reading it and I've got nothing further to say on the subject.
Originally posted by NytCrawlr
Nope, just means you're wrong and not willing to accept it and that you obviously have a weird reading comprehension than most people, heh.
This conversation is turning into something similar to the long talks we had with WarOverlord (iirc) concerning the chronology of world events: when did the rhulisti live, when did the pyreen appear, what powers existed at what time, when did Rajaat invent magic and who was around at that time...
Anyone recall those interminable series of arguments, leading, iirc again, to WarOverlord stoping from puting on more posts, never wanting to say he had it all wrong?
Maybe it was another argument I recall, but I remember also the wonderfully intertaining magical-fairyland-DS-supplment-that-never-was, which the guy did not own, never did own, but only skimmed at a book store somewhere he didn't recall, and couldn't find anymore...
Originally posted by Pennarin
Maybe it was another argument I recall, but I remember also the wonderfully intertaining magical-fairyland-DS-supplment-that-never-was, which the guy did not own, never did own, but only skimmed at a book store somewhere he didn't recall, and couldn't find anymore...
I remember that, ahhh the memories.
Originally posted by vader42xx
So, in short, unless you can show me something in print that says flat out that Rajaat had something to do with it then it's your own way of reading it and I've got nothing further to say on the subject.
Guess we are in the matrix, cause Vader thinks ignorance is bliss.
Originally posted by vader42xx
So, in short, unless you can show me something in print that says flat out that Rajaat had something to do with it then it's your own way of reading it and I've got nothing further to say on the subject.
Do consider that the people who wrote the Revised Boxed Set did not include Denning, and had not probably fully read the novels, but only based the text they wrote upon summations of the Prism Pentad events. Most likely the people who wrote the Boxed Set did not know of any goo. The secretary or employe who typed the story condensate of the novels for those who would write the Boxed Set most likely left out a lot of sensitive stuff. The Tyr Heroes were there at the end of the novel series and precipitated the death of the Dragon; as such they must have caused its death, the employe's reasoning went.
And that's my opinion.
Originally posted by vader42xx
So, in short, unless you can show me something in print that says flat out that Rajaat had something to do with it then it's your own way of reading it and I've got nothing further to say on the subject.
It was shown. The fact you don't want to accept it as such, is your choice, however it is ignorance of what is presented. Requiring the statement of the phrase (or something reminiscient of it) of "Rajaat killed Borys" is a logical fallacy and an invalid arguement in the extreme. This is something that has been known within debate and conversations since at least the age of the Ancient Greeks. Proven time and again, even well defined as such since then, and yet you still insist that it is a valid arguement. It takes an extreme amount of ignorance to keep up that point, and unfortunately, you just plain aren't willing to learn. As such, it is a shame you are like that, but I'm quite honestly tired of this arguement. You have had no substance to your arguement, people have provided exactly what evidence was needed to prove this arguement, and you blatantly reject it. You've proven that discussing anything with you is questionable, as you are unwilling to accept anything other than your own side. As such, I withdraw from this pointless discussion, until as such time as you can present a more substantial counter arguement to the debate.
But wait? Isn't Vader the name of a WarOverlord???:D
Anyway, I'm not arguing the point anymore as I said. It won't do any of us any good to read the same things over and over.
As for the "ignorance is bliss" and other such comments I think the same of those who are telling me that they are right about the interpretation of a book and any other view is, by default, wrong. So, we're at least on the same page there.
Originally posted by vader42xx
As for the "ignorance is bliss" and other such comments I think the same of those who are telling me that they are right about the interpretation of a book and any other view is, by default, wrong. So, we're at least on the same page there.
Wow, now you're doing ad hominem (against the ma), or "name calling", as well as the straw man fallacy (making a false accusation of what we were saying and claiming it legitimate), and tu quoque (and you too) which is the same thing as a child saying "You are too!" after another child had said "You're a pig!" or some other insult. yea... This works so well for your cause. I never said that in a subjective interpretation of something, that the opinion was wrong. What was said was that your opinion isn't factual. The facts remain as have been repeated. Please, when you refer to my arguement, don't misquote me.
Arguement stands until countered better. I will continue to point out the errors of your logic until you either cease making them, or come up with something with substance to it to support your case. These logical fallacies you are making are really quite humorous.
But I do appologize (something you have yet to do unless I missed it) if my comment sounded like an inuslt. I didn't mean it that way at all. I do honestly feel that you are being closed minded by not accepting that other theories are possible. That's just my view. Just as you feel I am ignoring what you call the facts that must mean this one particular thing.
If we're talking about your ideas, I think they're great. They just aren't what I got from the books and my ideas (based on what I got from those books) are different (and not all that much to be honest). The one thing I've been saying from post to post is that those "facts" can mean different things to different people. I don't think anything in any of those books actually states what you're talking about 100%. So what you're saying isn't really a fact, it's just a very probable theory. But, still, a theory all the same. However, what I do see is that you certainly have every reason to believe what you do. There is an awful lot of evidence to support it. But there is just as much evidence (some of it the very same in fact) to support other ideas.
My only issue with anything said here is the lack of ability to accept that other people can draw different conclusions from the same text. That just totally shocks me. But, as I said above, no offense is meant in the least. I do respect all the time you put in on these boards, your answers, your thoughts, and your ideas.
Now, are we done with this? lol I don't think either group will change their minds and I don't see the need for them to. It's our differences that make the forums great. That means we can all share different ideas which is something I love. So, shall we just agree to disagree and move on to better topics?
Awww...What's next? group hug?
Originally posted by Jon, Oracle of Athas
Probably that blasted cotton candy, with complementary lightning bolts to go with it.
PLEASE, no more!
The ricochet from Dawn already roasted and tenderized my delicate person from as far off as Canada.No more, I tell ya!
Originally posted by vader42xx
But I do appologize (something you have yet to do unless I missed it) if my comment sounded like an inuslt. I didn't mean it that way at all. I do honestly feel that you are being closed minded by not accepting that other theories are possible. That's just my view. Just as you feel I am ignoring what you call the facts that must mean this one particular thing.
Another straw man fallacy, combined with ignoratio elench (changing the subject) and ad misericordiam (sympathy). The problem is you simply refuse to accept the truth, even when it is being force-fed you. Your opinion is one thing, and that's fine. I do not have a problem whatsoever with your opinion. The problem I have is when you keep saying that the facts that have been presented to you, is not fact, but opinion. That's wrong. The only arguement you've used to prove they are opinion is circular logic that begs the question (the logical fallacy called "petitio principii") and you have yet to provide any stronger arguement to prove your point yet. Instead, you've resorted to name calling, and using fallacies designed to pull at heartstrings and other emotional reactions, rather than providing a logical arguement. So, that discussion cannot go anywhere yet, until you can do better.
If we're talking about your ideas, I think they're great. They just aren't what I got from the books and my ideas (based on what I got from those books) are different (and not all that much to be honest). The one thing I've been saying from post to post is that those "facts" can mean different things to different people. I don't think anything in any of those books actually states what you're talking about 100%. So what you're saying isn't really a fact, it's just a very probable theory. But, still, a theory all the same. However, what I do see is that you certainly have every reason to believe what you do. There is an awful lot of evidence to support it. But there is just as much evidence (some of it the very same in fact) to support other ideas.
Yoiu cannot claim that on the basis that your arguement is a subjective opinion, that then any arguement against you on this also is a subjective opinion. You cannot use a two wrongs or common practice fallacy to defend your thoughts too - just because different people can make an opinion based on what is written that could be different, it does not change what is written. It is written in the English language, not swahili. As such, it's not that hard to comprehend for those fluent in english.
Stop the straw man fallacy. You keep misrepresenting what my side of the arguement is in order to gain leverage. it is not merely what I "believe" is true. it is what the book states. Then your further pleading for ignorance combined with your circular logic on it (Rajaat didn't kill Borys, because the book does not contain the phrase "Rajaat killed Borys". And since the phrase "Rajaat killed Borys" isn't in the book, therefore Rajaat didn't kill Borys). This logic is so significantly flawed - my challenge to you was to provide a better arguement. You have not, and instead have been continuing in this fallacy line-up. You almost have used all of them. You are trying to incite something from me, and I'm not going to fall into the conversational traps.
My only issue with anything said here is the lack of ability to accept that other people can draw different conclusions from the same text. That just totally shocks me. But, as I said above, no offense is meant in the least. I do respect all the time you put in on these boards, your answers, your thoughts, and your ideas.
I have never said that I was uwilling to accept that other people can draw different conclusions. Stop redefining my side of the arguement to suit your needs (and yet another Straw Man fallacy appears). I have no problems with that. My problem is that when you are provided with what is actualy stated, you simply say "no, that's not what's written" and ignore it.
Now, are we done with this? lol I don't think either group will change their minds and I don't see the need for them to. It's our differences that make the forums great. That means we can all share different ideas which is something I love. So, shall we just agree to disagree and move on to better topics?
As soon as you either make a stronger arguement or stop using logical fallacies to justify your side of the arguement. The last few posts that have been done, you haven't gone anywhere. Instead, you actually look kind of rediculous, as what you are doing is the same flaws that have been well-documented for a few thousand years, and were first noted in ancient Greek society.
Now - since you apparently don't read PM's, or simply deleted mine out of spite, I will apologize for the earlier criticism that was uncalled for when I implied you couldn't read big words. A personal attack was never my intention. My intention is to argue and discuss the topics, while that has yet to continue from your end.
--Sysane, The Terror of Urik
Look what I found on Nyt's site, in the Kalak article:
Later on the 5th Prism Pentad book, The Cerulean Storm, told of the same group of heroes (probably around 10th-13th level by now), minus or plus a few more, along with a couple of artifacts, one of which was made by Rajaat, to take out not one, but two of the former champions (Abalach-Re and Borys). Not only that, but both champions were taken out the same way, by Rajaat's artifact the Scourge, which only happened because Rajaat's essence was tied to said artifact and was broken, allowing Rajaat's essence to leak out along with the essence of the Black which destroyed both champions after engulfing them with said essence.
For the record: I too came at the same conclusion as these two did, while I read the series.
Talk about a thread gone wrong. The joy has been sucked out of this topic.
Sysane, you hopefully do not expect to say to someone "OK, you're right, you're absolutely logical" just to end a discussion everyone is tired of. Xlorep is right when he states several times that vader doesn't come up with a arguement to prove his point.
Denning should've written his book in a "Rajaat killed Borys & Abalach-Re. End."-style.
Sysane, you hopefully do not expect to say to someone "OK, you're right, you're absolutely logical" just to end a discussion everyone is tired of.
Nope, but it just needs to be realized that a dead kank is being beaten.
--Sysane, The Terror of Urik
Originally posted by Sysane
Nope, but it just needs to be realized that a dead kank is being beaten.
--Sysane, The Terror of Urik
Yeah.
Cliff, let it go man, if vader wants to continue being ignorant, let him.
This is getting old, even for me, heh.
Okay, name calling, finger pointing, etc, etc. All that needs to stop by all parties involved.
Or else someone is going to have to be sent to time out. Maybe even for five minutes or longer.
Now, right or wrong, doesn't matter all that much at this point. All I'm going to suggest to you Vadar, in is much a manner of friendly debate, is to seriously take a day and sit down with the last 3 books of the Pentad novels. Get a handfull of bookmarks and start marking the pages where any reference is made to Rajaat, Khalid (the shadow giant liason of Rajaat's on Athas), any conversation of Sacha or Wyan, and the Scourge. Once your finished reading all three (and using probably three dozen markers, I use post its), go through and start picking into those sections. Sadira at the Pristine Tower, Caelum's new talking hand, the Scourge, Sacha and Wyan's manipulations of Tithian into wanting to free Rajaat (remember when reading their dialogs that the two floating heads are still loyal to the Warbringer, and were not always at Kalak's beck and call since their curse during the Revolt). Once you've done this, it does indeed become clear that these are intentional references to the plans of Rajaat (whether set in motion before his imprisonment is in fact a point of conjecture, one opinionated train of thought that I myself like to indulge); but it is plain to see that they are set in motion during the Age of Heroes. Just because you are not given a one shot desription of the big picture doesn't mean that you can't put the entire puzzle together once you have all the pieces at hand, and come up with the same picture that the author placed within the novel.
Several times its was asked 'Well then why doesn't it say that in the revised book (from which those sections are simply copied nearly word for word from the Beyond the Prism Pentad campaign update published much earlier). Simple, paraphrasing and space editing. For the game books afterwards to state anything else would have required a more lengthy explanation, something that would have made the game books longer, more time consuming, and hence more costly (and yes, sometimes even another page or two can break a proposed budget or time constraint placed on a writer/editor/publisher). Look how many other details got left out or glossed over in the history section of the Revised set that delt with the novels. Heck, whole sections described in the novels were left out or over simplified. This simply is another instance of over simplification.
Hopefully, everyone can drop the pointless bickering. We're adults here, not kids. Let just all get along . . . like hippies . . . and sing songs around the campfire . . . nekkid . . . and free . . . errr . . . nevermind.
Originally posted by Mach2.5
Hopefully, everyone can drop the pointless bickering. We're adults here, not kids. Let just all get along . . . like hippies . . . and sing songs around the campfire . . . nekkid . . . and free . . . errr . . . nevermind.
Is wanting a logical discussion too much to ask for? :P
I was quite ready to stop the bickering. Still am.
The problem is that you and I both are pretty high strung people from what I can tell. lol And we don't agree with the other's logic in any sense of the word so I imagine that any such debate is going to get right back here after a while. ;)
And thanks for the suggestions Mach, I'm actually reading all five books again but I don't think I'm going to find anything to change my mind. I've already agreed that there is a lot of evidence to support what you guys have been saying. I just think there is enough evidence to support other theories as well. And since that's all I'm really debating why bother? We all know that the DM makes what he wants out of his world even if the books don't say it. So debating something like that any longer seems to be a bad idea.
And, NytCrawlr, if being ignorant means that I accept other possible answers might be out there, count me in. :D
a dead kank is being beaten
You use this saying in English, too? I suppose, normally with a horse instead of a kank :D ?
Talk about off topic...
It just turned into "what I like & hate about the PP" and then degenerated when vader casually mentionned that the heroes of Tyr had killed Abalach-Re.
This is bad: a future newbie will make a search for "Veilled Alliance" and will say: "Jolly! Four pages on the topic!".
And its disillusion will only begin
I think no mortal could match 2000 plus years of insane, parinoid wisdom.
however you use them in your game, they should be resourceful and extremely paranoid. other than that, to each his own. if anything, this thread has taught us that much.
Originally posted by vader42xx
And, NytCrawlr, if being ignorant means that I accept other possible answers might be out there, count me in. :D
That's not being ignorant, that's being opened minded, something I agree with.
Being ignorant is something you are displaying by looking fact in the face, and continuing to do it even now I might add, and calling it opinion.
I'm going to drop this however, since it's pointless at this point, and you're pretty much resembling a brick wall.
Sorry to be so blunt, but damn man, open your eyes a little wilya?
Go ahead and report this to a mod too since you will anyways. ;)
Originally posted by NytCrawlr
Being ignorant is something you are displaying by looking fact in the face, and continuing to do it even now I might add, and calling it opinion.
Everyone: to see a marvelous example of ignorance, by Nyt's reckoning, check-out this site. It exposes ideas whose falsehood has been proven over and over again through mechanical devices and human observers.
Geocentricity
Originally posted by Pennarin
Everyone: to see a marvelous example of ignorance, by Nyt's reckoning, check-out this site. It exposes ideas whose falsehood has been proven over and over again through mechanical devices and human observers.
Geocentricity
Good one Penn. :DYet its a conscensus among readers and scholars that the novel is aptly named, and of what its overall subject is, even though nothing is ever spelled-out between its pages.