[Kellanved's shadow]

So what will now happen with the house of Chains after the end of CG. Originally Paran allowed it to exist as a way of binding the Crippled God to the rules of the world but with him gone what now. A lot of the members of that house go power and protection from the Crippled God himself but with him gone will they now lose it. Kallor was only able to travel through the Warrens thanks to the blessing of the Crippled God. Will he still be able to travel through the Warren of chaos, will any of them. If Parran was able to allow the house to exist does he also have the power to destroy it as well.

[Abyss]

Back in GotM someone mused that Houses come and go, and return. It's likely that the HoC will either continue in some form, or go dormant. There is still the various linked cults... the Chained God cult in Darujhistan, the cult Bakune looked into in SW, Felisin Fatter's plague survivors on 7C... that aren't likely to simply fold.
Also, we saw in TCG that aspects of gods can exist separately from the actual gods... so some form of the CG could still be around.

Now the House of War... that's a mess.

[worry]

And what is it good for?

[Zetubal]

worry, on 27 August 2017 - 03:24 AM, said:

And what is it good for?

From the perspective of mortals? I'd say a cult that centers around the celebration of imperfections and flaws appeals to many people (namely, the disenfranchised, the deviant, crippled etc.) Its a kind of coping mechanism in a world where intercontinental warfare, nationwide genocide, and extreme capitalism take their toll on an ever-growing mass of people.
From the perspective of the ascendants that occupy the permanent positions in the house...well... I guess the resonsibility of the God/King of the HoC is similar to the one that all of their "colleagues" have: Listening (and possibly answering) the prayers of their believers. From what I gather from the talks and thoughts of Sechul Lath, Errastas, and so on...their positions automatically bind them to their worshippers, and though they can choose the manner of response (or even to outright turn away from the worshippers), that's basically their job.

[Gorefest]

I think Edwin Starr's perspective is the key here.

Also, bear in mind that by tCG the houses are probably going to be usurped/overshadowed by Icarium's new paths. So it may all be moot anyway.

[Abyss]

Not necessarily. Iccy's new warrens may be temporary, or geographically limited.

[Gorefest]

We will find out in the Karsa sequel! If I'm correct I will bask in eternal glory, if you are correct I will donate my brain to religion.

[Zetubal]

Gorefest, on 30 August 2017 - 12:11 AM, said:

I think Edwin Starr's perspective is the key here.

Also, bear in mind that by tCG the houses are probably going to be usurped/overshadowed by Icarium's new paths. So it may all be moot anyway.

I don't quite follow you here. I mean, if that were the case, I don't see how it changes much about the HoC. I's not conventionalized in the same way as other aspected warrens, at least as far as we know. It's not like the ones that are reflections of Elder warrens or ones that connect to natural forces like Earth, Fire etc (where we've seen cases of usurpation/overshadowing with Emurlahn/Shadow or the Olar Ethil/Burn thingy). Even if the warren (meagre as it is) of the Crippled God were to be usurped or overshadowed this would likely not affect the fact that there is a cult among mortals that revels in misery, and that alone should be enough to create a HoC. Or, at least, propel some ascendant character into a position like the one Kaminsod used to have (similar to how the Redeemer ascended).
And then, it mostly becomes a question of who sits on the throne and, well, semantics, if said "usurper" decides to rename the whole thing.

This post has been edited by Zetubal: 30 August 2017 - 01:55 PM

[Gorefest]

I guess we simply don't know enough about the magic system to really make sound predictions on this. We can only infer. As Abyss already remarked, houses rise and fall and some houses are mapped/are drawing from 'older' sources such as holds and elder warrens. I always took the 'House of Chains' to be a house that was drawing predominantly from chaos magic, possibly with some particular alien flavour or warping introduced by Kaminsod. With Kaminsod out of the picture, that alien aspect (if it even existed) will be gone but chaos magic is of course still around. So it is possible that other ascendants take up the existing titles. As you say, there is a large breeding ground for followers of misery, but it doesn't necessarily need to translate into the creation or continued existence of a House. D'rek, the Worm of Autumn, is already mistress of decay who used to have a large following but she doesn't have her own House.

A House is just a type of depiction of the magic organisation of a certain area, visualised (or possibly even governed) by the Deck of Dragons. It is convenient for trying to figure out what is going on and how powers are divided but it is not the exclusive magic reality. Houses don't really mean anything in Lether, for instance. So I don't think it really matters whether the House of Chains continues to exist as a House or not, it doesn't mean that the fundamental forces behind suddenly blink in or out of existence. I sort of compare it to a beam of light in which path someone sticks a prism. If you ask someone to organise the prism output, they might make seven 'Houses' (red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, violet) whereas someone else might lump violet and blue together or draw the boundaries different, and a third person might be able to 'see' in the UV or the infrared spectrum and make a completely different schematic. Somehow being a sanctioned House appears to both legitimise the power base and capture it within a certain set of rules and prohibitions, but that doesn't necessarily make it a whole new thing. The Crippled God already had most of the powers, abilities and followers before he was a sanctioned House. So I wouldn't attach too much weight to something being a House or not, I don't think it really matters in the bigger scheme of things.

[Zetubal]

Gorefest, on 30 August 2017 - 02:53 PM, said:

I guess we simply don't know enough about the magic system to really make sound predictions on this. We can only infer. As Abyss already remarked, houses rise and fall and some houses are mapped/are drawing from 'older' sources such as holds and elder warrens. I always took the 'House of Chains' to be a house that was drawing predominantly from chaos magic, possibly with some particular alien flavour or warping introduced by Kaminsod. With Kaminsod out of the picture, that alien aspect (if it even existed) will be gone but chaos magic is of course still around. So it is possible that other ascendants take up the existing titles. As you say, there is a large breeding ground for followers of misery, but it doesn't necessarily need to translate into the creation or continued existence of a House. D'rek, the Worm of Autumn, is already mistress of decay who used to have a large following but she doesn't have her own House.

A House is just a type of depiction of the magic organisation of a certain area, visualised (or possibly even governed) by the Deck of Dragons. It is convenient for trying to figure out what is going on and how powers are divided but it is not the exclusive magic reality. Houses don't really mean anything in Lether, for instance. So I don't think it really matters whether the House of Chains continues to exist as a House or not, it doesn't mean that the fundamental forces behind suddenly blink in or out of existence. I sort of compare it to a beam of light in which path someone sticks a prism. If you ask someone to organise the prism output, they might make seven 'Houses' (red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, violet) whereas someone else might lump violet and blue together or draw the boundaries different, and a third person might be able to 'see' in the UV or the infrared spectrum and make a completely different schematic. Somehow being a sanctioned House appears to both legitimise the power base and capture it within a certain set of rules and prohibitions, but that doesn't necessarily make it a whole new thing. The Crippled God already had most of the powers, abilities and followers before he was a sanctioned House. So I wouldn't attach too much weight to something being a House or not, I don't think it really matters in the bigger scheme of things.

Totally on your side here, really. The latter half is basically what I meant when I wrote that it mostly comes down semantics in the end. I think "House" as a metaphor is a tad misleading since it evokes the image of something sturdy, fixed, when really, Houses are fluid constructs that serve as practical frameworks to conceptualize dynamic forces. The D'rek-comparison is one that I actually find intriguing because it raises the question why some entities like him/her don't have Houses. The answer is probably very simple: There hasn't been a reason to create one. That kind of formalization is mostly a crutch for mortals and ascendants to interpret (through divination) what's going on. Like to bring order and structure to changing allegiances and roles.
Looking at it from that perspective, you're totally correct, it becomes clear that most forces in the Malazan world could slip in and out of the formalized structure of Houses, and we really shouldn't overestimate the importance of this structure.

On the flipside of that argument, one could also guess that there hasn't really been a reason for the HoC to be disbanded. I mean, there's a throne to be had and we all know how much ascendants (and Kallor) love those. Formalization may even be an attractive feature that ascendants could flock to because it promises things like hierarchy (and by extension, dominance/power over "colleagues") and so on.
The way I see it is this: Ganoes sanctioned the House because he felt there was a good reason for it. By the same logic, I don't see why he would disband it - I mean, afaik it doesn't do any harm to have it.

This post has been edited by Zetubal: 30 August 2017 - 08:18 PM

[Kellanved's shadow]

I'm really loving these answers.

[Kellanved's shadow]

worry, on 27 August 2017 - 03:24 AM, said:

And what is it good for?

Absolutely nothing

[Abyss]

Kellanved, on 08 September 2017 - 10:40 AM, said:

worry, on 27 August 2017 - 03:24 AM, said:

And what is it good for?

Absolutely nothing

SAY IT AGAIN, Y'ALL