[Editcadet]

I'm on my 2nd run through the books. So please, if it's your first read through some of the answeres may have spoilers.

When Tattersail does her second dealing of the Deck of Dragons, she lays a card down of the Mason of High House Death who is described as "lean graying man clothed in faded leathers. His massive vein-roped hands held stone cutting tools, and around him rose roughly dressed menhirs." Also it says..."the role had been assumed by a man who once worked with stone but no lonver."

Was wondering if I should know who this is and if I missed it on my first read through.

[Grief]

I dont think you get his name until later, so i'll spoiler it for you. I doubt it'll change much.
Also you have to keep in mind that he may just personify it at the time, depending on the meaning of the card, without having a permanent position in High House Death. What I mean is King is always Hood, but other people can occupy the meanings of some of the other cards without actually having the position.

Anyway, its:

Spoiler

whiskeyjack

[Aptorian]

It's believed that the Mason at the time is represented by Whiskeyjack.

[teholbeddict]

Yes you're both right it is Whiskeyjack, grief was also correct in stating this was a momentary thing not permanent. We find out in The Bonehunters that Whiskeyjack was once a mason, which is why the part about working with stone may initially be misleading.

[Excellence]

Whiskeyjack, all right. I think Memories of Ice mentioned a bit about his past. Masonry of some sort.

[sacase]

Actually you find out Wiskeyjack was a mason in GotM. p. 148 "Was born in an alley in Malaz City, learned the stone-cutting trade breaking into barrows up on the plain behind Mock's Hold." He Glanced up at his sergeant "You used to be a stonecutter, too. Just like me. Only I'm no fast learner in soldering like you was. It was the ranks or mines for me-Sometimes I think i went and made the wrong choice" (Fiddler talking to Wiskeyjack)

[silentmaven]

 sacase, on Jan 8 2009, 02:51 PM, said:

Actually you find out Wiskeyjack was a mason in GotM. p. 148 "Was born in an alley in Malaz City, learned the stone-cutting trade breaking into barrows up on the plain behind Mock's Hold." He Glanced up at his sergeant "You used to be a stonecutter, too. Just like me. Only I'm no fast learner in soldering like you was. It was the ranks or mines for me-Sometimes I think i went and made the wrong choice" (Fiddler talking to Wiskeyjack)

I was about to pull my book out and copy out you're quote.

This bit about the Mason had me for a very long time. I think this is my 3rd read through and it was the only time I caught it - but it didn't maddeningly annoy me so I didn't go in search of answers.

[IWishIWasBlank]

Makes sense.

I vaguely remember the two references to Whiskeyjack being a mason, but I don't remember the mention of the Mason of the High House of Death or that the description matched him.

And Grief makes a great point, all of the other positions within the house are very fluid. People come and go fairly often, as you see even as you make it through the first third of the ten book series.

[Kryphon]

SO this may be a dumb question.. How can one personify the position within the house without actually holding the title. Rake is the Knight of High House Dark. His position isnt fluid. We learn of other people holding positions in other houses in later books, and they don't seem to be fluid.

Spoiler

Trull might be the possible exception. He seemed unaware of his title.

RG SPOILER I'm just not understanding how someone can be something without actually occupying the position. Does that make sense?

This post has been edited by Kryphon: 31 May 2009 - 10:48 PM

[D'rek]

 Kryphon, on May 31 2009, 05:44 PM, said:

SO this may be a dumb question.. How can one personify the position within the house without actually holding the title. Rake is the Knight of High House Dark. His position isnt fluid. We learn of other people holding positions in other houses in later books, and they don't seem to be fluid.

Spoiler

Trull might be the possible exception. He seemed unaware of his title.

RG SPOILER I'm just not understanding how someone can be something without actually occupying the position. Does that make sense?

Okay, so, here's the dealio. Each of the Houses has positions and there are people, usually Ascendants or potent mortals, who hold these positions.Such as your example: Anomander Rake is the Knight of High House Dark. Likewise, Hood is the King of High House Death, Cotillion is The Rope of High House Shadow, etc. These folks are in their positions within their House and they remain in those positions until usurped, killed or the head of the house (ie Hood is the head of High House Death) kicks them out of their place. At this point I am not taking the Deck of Dragons or the Azath into consideration yet, this is purely just the Houses of the pantheon and their structure.

Now lets add in the Deck of Dragons. The Deck does not dictate who is in what positions, it merely uses the roles and aspects of the positions to show current or upcoming events. So when there is a deck reading and The Rope comes up, lets say the Deck is predicting what Kalam is going to do. This does not mean Kalam is now The Rope, that position is still held by Cotillion. It is merely using The Rope to represent Kalam, mostly because Kalam is an assassin and therefore The Rope is the best representation of him. At any given point in time there could be a thousand Deck readings going on across the world and they could all be potraying entirely different events, using the same single The Rope card to represent a thousand different assassin-like people doing a thousand different assassin-like things. The Deck can be very localized, so the readings usually refer to things happeneing in the area - a reading in Darujhistan will not likely portray whats going on in Malaz City.

Of course, the combination between these two things is when someone who holds the actual House position is relevent in a Deck reading. If Anomander Rake is going to be doing something important in Darujhistan, then a Deck reading will likely portray what he is doing or is going to do. Obviously the Deck card that matches Rake the most is the one for the very position he holds, Knight of Dark, so that Deck reading will actually show him with his actual card, but the rest of the cards can still be ordinary people unrelated to the High Houses.

As for the additional factor of the azath, you'll learn about that in later books.

Oh and I should also point out that not every major servant of a House necessarily holds an official position or a position that matches the a card of the Deck. Additionally,

Spoiler

depending on how the leader of a House wants to organize his House, there can be multiple servants assigned to the same role, ie there could be multiple Soldiers of Light

<--TtH/RotCG spoiler, sort of

[RangerSG]

I'd say the the role can signify that someone is performing an act on behalf of the patron or in the fashion of the patron, and therefore is occupying that place.

Spoiler

I'd say that's exactly what happens with Kalam in Deadhouse Gates. We know he's not the Rope, as such. But he is carrying out the hit on The Rope's behalf. So the deck comes up centered on him as the Rope.

This post has been edited by RangerSG: 03 June 2009 - 02:01 AM

[Cougar]

D'rek an excellent post, if we had rep I'd dole some out to you for this.

[D'rek]

 RangerSG, on Jun 2 2009, 09:00 PM, said:

I'd say the the role can signify that someone is performing an act on behalf of the patron or in the fashion of the patron, and therefore is occupying that place.

Spoiler

I'd say that's exactly what happens with Kalam in Deadhouse Gates. We know he's not the Rope, as such. But he is carrying out the hit on The Rope's behalf. So the deck comes up centered on him as the Rope.

Yes, if the role comes up in a Deck reading then it can certainly signify someone acting on behalf of a deity of some sort, but that's just a specific case of someone doing something important and matching the profile of that card. Obviously someone on a mission from The Rope is most likely to have that card represent them in a reading, because The Rope would presumably assign many more assassination missions to his minions then orphan-cat-petting missions (those orphan cats can be pretty tough though!).

re: DG Spoiler part -> Mmm, no he isn't, it's totally of his own volition

Spoiler

and not assigned to him by The Rope at all. He is workin' for Ropey in HoC, though.

 Cougar, on Jun 3 2009, 07:04 AM, said:

D'rek an excellent post, if we had rep I'd dole some out to you for this.

Why thank you!

[RangerSG]

 D'rek, on Jun 3 2009, 09:33 AM, said:

 RangerSG, on Jun 2 2009, 09:00 PM, said:

I'd say the the role can signify that someone is performing an act on behalf of the patron or in the fashion of the patron, and therefore is occupying that place.

Spoiler

I'd say that's exactly what happens with Kalam in Deadhouse Gates. We know he's not the Rope, as such. But he is carrying out the hit on The Rope's behalf. So the deck comes up centered on him as the Rope.

Yes, if the role comes up in a Deck reading then it can certainly signify someone acting on behalf of a deity of some sort, but that's just a specific case of someone doing something important and matching the profile of that card. Obviously someone on a mission from The Rope is most likely to have that card represent them in a reading, because The Rope would presumably assign many more assassination missions to his minions then orphan-cat-petting missions (those orphan cats can be pretty tough though!).

re: DG Spoiler part -> Mmm, no he isn't, it's totally of his own volition

Spoiler

and not assigned to him by The Rope at all. He is workin' for Ropey in HoC, though.

I don't think I said

Spoiler

it wasn't with his volition. But it was still doing something Cot had wanted done.

So he was acting, intentionally or no, as a direct agent.

[D'rek]

 RangerSG, on Jun 3 2009, 02:51 PM, said:

I don't think I said

Spoiler

it wasn't with his volition. But it was still doing something Cot had wanted done.

So he was acting, intentionally or no, as a direct agent.

OR WAS HE??!! DUH DUH DUUUUUUUUH!!

It's debatable whethe that guy really wanted that thing there to happen. Some of the later forums have big discussions about this somewhere, I would think, or you can start a new one if you like, but either way we shouldn't discuss this here...