Randomander, on 05 August 2013 - 07:22 PM, said:
This is a very interesting take.
Some points regarding this.
1. First this means that the aspect has an existence which is separate from the "suzerain", i.e. the aspect and the overlord are not the same. For example, Night would exist with or without Draconus.
2. By the definition you provided, it could also mean that the suzerain does not control everything, i.e. they have voluntarily ceded control over some aspects (while keeping some others)
3. The "Suzerain" would be a power position (with the most powerful ability to control their domain). Their only recourse in a case a lower lord rebels is to use power to subdue them.
4. This might apply to all Azathanai. For example, Mael would be the Suzerain of Water element.
5. A mage who is using a warren is essentially stealing power from the aspect (and this is what K'rul enabled)
6. A priest wins lordship over some part of the aspect by agreement with his/her god. This is why D'rek kills his priest class so as to prevent them from sharing his power.
7. Sacrifices by the worshipers somehow effects this arrangement (binds the god to the worshiper in exchange for more power through influence and probably somehow traps the god)
This would explain Shadowthrone. There was no suzerain of Shadow and by being the greatest mage (and doing something in NoK) he ascended to that position. Once you become god, you have even more power by having access to worshippers.
It would also explain the thrones. Whoever sits on the throne would essentially deem himself to be suzerain and would be recognized as such by the worshipers (similar to how how the Imass would obey orders by somebody sitting on their throne)