[Dolorous Menhir]

SilchasRuin;130763 said:

any theories on what would happen if rhulad earned dragnipur....would he go there physically and perhaps cause some sort of mischief

or do you think its more a spiritual thing and it would be like tug of war between rake and CG for his soul


perhaps thats the way to beat him afterall no matter how often you are rebirthed if your rebirthed back into dragnipur ure not gunna have much luck

One theory I like, is that this has all been a very long plan by the CG to get his man (Rhulad) inside Dragnipur so he can do...whatever. He created someone who can presumably only be finally slain by Dragnipur, and then once he has influence inside via Rhulad who knows what he will do.

Would Rhulad resurrect inside Dragnipur?

Would he still have his sword inside? (everyone else must lose their weapons, most of them must've fallen in battle yet they are not armed in Dragnipur if I remember correctly. But Rhulad can't lose his sword short of physically loses his hand)

[The .303 bookworm]

Dolorous Menhir;130866 said:

One theory I like, is that this has all been a very long plan by the CG to get his man (Rhulad) inside Dragnipur so he can do...whatever. He created someone who can presumably only be finally slain by Dragnipur, and then once he has influence inside via Rhulad who knows what he will do.

Would Rhulad resurrect inside Dragnipur?

Would he still have his sword inside? (everyone else must lose their weapons, most of them must've fallen in battle yet they are not armed in Dragnipur if I remember correctly. But Rhulad can't lose his sword short of physically loses his hand)

An interesting theory, since freeing the various nasties inside Dragnipur would presumably doom Anomander Rake (Since your sword exploding and being gang-banged by former foes all at once is bad for anyone) removing one of his principle foes.
That would mean that he'd gain Draconis instead of Rake though, far from a far trade (But he might consider it worth it for the chaos wrecked)

[polishgenius]

Isn't one of Feather Witch's prophecies that someone, I can't remember the name she gave but it was blatantly Rake, is 'doomed to cross swords with his own grief' or something? Because if it is, he's blatantly going to get killed by Traveller.

[Dolorous Menhir]

polishgenius;130895 said:

Isn't one of Feather Witch's prophecies that someone, I can't remember the name she gave but it was blatantly Rake, is 'doomed to cross swords with his own grief' or something? Because if it is, he's blatantly going to get killed by Traveller.

I think it's "vengeance" rather than "grief", which lends even more weight to the "fights Traveller" theory since Vengeance was the sword Traveller took from Andarist in HoC. And that sword was forged and used by Anomander Rake, until he came into the possession of Dragnipur.

The .303 bookworm;130875 said:

An interesting theory, since freeing the various nasties inside Dragnipur would presumably doom Anomander Rake (Since your sword exploding and being gang-banged by former foes all at once is bad for anyone) removing one of his principle foes.
That would mean that he'd gain Draconis instead of Rake though, far from a far trade (But he might consider it worth it for the chaos wrecked)

I'm not sure what would happen to all the people in Dragnipur if the sword was broken. I doubt they would all appear in one place in their corporeal forms. They did die, after all. They're not just going to come back to life.

I'm thinking it will be similar to the "can't kill Scabby outright" argument that Kilmandaros & Gothos had in the RG prologue. The souls of the Dragnipur slain will be freed, like Scabby's would've been had they not stuck him in the Finnest. They would be without bodies, but not without power (they must mostly be very powerful creatures, though I suppose Rake might've wasted some beggars or old ladies at some point in his life).

Rake also seems to accept that the sword will have to be broken, I think within the timescale of the series, and he doesn't seem to think that will doom him or Mother Dark, at least not immediately. I think the main reason for the breaking was the need to free Draconus, but I'm not sure if there were other pressing reasons (like the sword not working very well and needing to be fixed?).

[Xaspian]

Niko III said:

Same as when the Immovable Object meets the Unstoppable Force.

It goes around?

Dolorour Menhir said:

I think it's "vengeance" rather than "grief", which lends even more weight to the "fights Traveller" theory since Vengeance was the sword Traveller took from Andarist in HoC.

"There are many names for this particular sword." Darist lifted it free of the hooks. "Its maker named it Vengeance. T'an Aros, in our language. But I call it K'orlais."
"Which means?"
"Grief."
~House of Chains, page 517

So either is acceptable, I guess.

[Dolorous Menhir]

Iarwain Ben-Adar;131051 said:

It goes around?



"There are many names for this particular sword." Darist lifted it free of the hooks. "Its maker named it Vengeance. T'an Aros, in our language. But I call it K'orlais."
"Which means?"
"Grief."
~House of Chains, page 517

So either is acceptable, I guess.

So the sword has both names. But the quote from Feather Witch's reading of the Holds in MT (Rake is referred to as the Knight of the Dragon Hold) is

"cross swords with his own vengeance"

just to be clear. And it's not 100% that this refers to a fight with a Vengeance-wielding Traveller. After all, what grievance does Traveller (ie Dassem) have against Rake, that we know of?

[Illuyankas]

Allowing Hood to take his daughter? Rake preventing him from killing Hood?

[Dolorous Menhir]

How was Rake involved in the "Dassem's daughter" incident?

[Illuyankas]

He could have been involved. After all, they were all gathered together when Hood took Dassem's daughter for that particular Chaining... it's just some aimless speculation.

[Dark Mac]

Meh, the implication to me was that Hood took Dassem's daughter with Dassem's permission...she just wasn't returned in the condition Dassem expected.

[Urko Crust]

okay skipped most of this thread because it is loooong. so sorry if any of this has been mentioned.

The Rope;120263 said:

Okay my very first post in the empire! First, cuz i'm still wraping my brain around bonehunters after just finishing it, just a simple one - single edged sword of Iccy's may be the finnest (re: earlier post about "single edged sword might be it") I think thats what the dude was getting at... mayhaps i be wrong. It would explain the power of the sword (anyone clue in to that little bit in bh when iccy wipes out a bunch of letheri/edur tryin to assault the first throne)......
Who says Kilmandaros is a god of ANYone? She's just an elder god... Personally, I think if it matters, it will come up. Her children... demons of some kind possibly, perhaps something we dont know about yet.

i think maybe the finnest is the shards within rhulads mottled blade, it is mentioned that they looked like they were originally a sword of some kind.

Ok kilmandaros children. Maybe Kchain chemalle/ Nruk. kchain chemalle are not of that realm, but elder gods encompass all realms, and they are refered to as your children on this world.

[Kage-za]

The swords in Rhulad's blade were originally Silchas Ruin's.

If you want the seeds of a crazy theory to link Rake to Traveller/Dassem through Vengeance, it could work if Traveller came into contact with or possession of Scabby's soul while on Drift Avali (which is where many people think it is residing). For instance, it would be pretty crazy if Traveller decided to avenge the "betrayal" of Scabby by the Andii.

No, I don't think this will happen, but it would be a fun way to get Traveller and Rake into the action

[The Rope]

re: the children - the NOs dont seem to be following what they're supposed to do to protect the Azath - might they be Killy's children? Not a specific race (or maybe thats what the NOs were originally but forgot, so changed the name, and then recruited other races?) but a cult... Ithink there are times where a cult is referred to as a certain God's children... Killy may be the Elder God of balance/justice, that is the purpose of the Azath, and the NOs are supposed to be devted to the Azath...

Make sense? Or am i confusing NOs with with someone else?

[Urko Crust]

Kage-za;131564 said:

The swords in Rhulad's blade were originally Silchas Ruin's.

Sorry must have missed that where was it said/hinted at?

The Rope said:

re: the children - the NOs dont seem to be following what they're supposed to do to protect the Azath - might they be Killy's children? Not a specific race (or maybe thats what the NOs were originally but forgot, so changed the name, and then recruited other races?) but a cult... Ithink there are times where a cult is referred to as a certain God's children... Killy may be the Elder God of balance/justice, that is the purpose of the Azath, and the NOs are supposed to be devted to the Azath...

Make sense? Or am i confusing NOs with with someone else?

by NO i am assuming you mean nameless ones. thats possible. but when you said balance justice i thought of Forkrul Assail. Kil is described as having multiple joints on her limbs which seems to be characteristic of FA.

[Aptorian]

Urko Crust;131699 said:

Sorry must have missed that where was it said/hinted at?

The sword is mentioned a thew times as being made out of shards from "blades". In the prologue of MT, you hear that Ruins twin blades have been shattered by a matrons deathcry.

Urko Crust;131699 said:

by NO i am assuming you mean nameless ones. thats possible. but when you said balance justice i thought of Forkrul Assail. Kil is described as having multiple joints on her limbs which seems to be characteristic of FA.

She also has scales and a portruding snout/face which made me think KCCM or even Dragon though she can't fly. I first thought she was a Matron when I heard her describtion.

There are other races that are described as having multiple joints, demons and I even think Jaguts are supposed to have some kind of extra joint... that one I'm not really sure of though.

[Dolorous Menhir]

Apt;131708 said:

There are other races that are described as having multiple joints, demons and I even think Jaguts are supposed to have some kind of extra joint... that one I'm not really sure of though.

If I remember right, the Corporal List's Jaghut from DG was introduced by the phrase (not exact)

"from the distant past, the many-jointed hand of a Jaghut"

when Duiker realised what was giving List his visions. That's the only support for many-jointed Jaghut though, otherwise it is certainly FA who have the "extra-joint" characteristic - it is always mentioned when describing FA, and because Poleil was described similarly I think she was an FA too.

[Aptorian]

Hetan;131733 said:

Kilmandaros does not have scales... nor does she have a protruding snout.

"the frontal portion of the head was thrust forward -- brow, cheek-bones and jaw, and its deep-set eyes revealed black pupils surrounded in opalescent white."

I don't read this as snout.. simply a more brutal appearance, in the way the neanderthal man is described.

Jaghut appear to have extra finger joints, but there's no mention of any other additional joints on them

I wrote snout/face, I read her facial features as portruding, elongated, but the lack of discription of her nose does imply it's not so much of a snout as just a strange face... ugly lady

Quote

Skin the hue of sun-bleached bone, darkening to veined red at the ends of the creature’s arms, bruises surrounding the knuckles, a lattice-work of cracked flesh exposing the bone here and there

I think this quote was what made me think she had scales... I was so sure too :confused:

[Urko Crust]

Quote

Skin the hue of sun-bleached bone, darkening to veined red at the ends of the creature’s arms, bruises surrounding the knuckles, a lattice-work of cracked flesh exposing the bone here and there

i think this means she has just been punching alot.
I originally thought KC, but FA just seems to fit. Although is there any evidence that gods resemble their children in any way?