[Use Of Weapons]

I would add this: Elder Gods, we're frequently told, take the long view. It might have been enough for Draconus that his alteration of the finality of the sword meant that sometime in the very distant future, there would be a chance of escape. It may be that the sword was so near completion that he could only shift it very slightly -- enough to allow one person access, and that person would have to be very special indeed.

[Lord of Salvation]

I like your idea ^^ but how would he get such specific info?

Also, I cant remember anything about how hated Draconis was, so could people please provide quotes showing how he was considered evil. And also how he tortured people, apparently, besides Envy just saying she hated her father.

[Folken]

Memories of Ice -

Nightchill to Ganoes "...his legendry cruelty has been...blundted. Wissdom earned a thousand times over."

Bonehunters -

Dragon to Cottilion "The most reviled of them all!"

[Use Of Weapons]

Lord of Salvation;110972 said:

I like your idea ^^ but how would he get such specific info?

He wouldn't necessarily need to have specific information about what might happen in the future. Just build in the possibility of escape, allowing events to determine how it is actually acheived. Possibly.

[tiam]

Jen said:

finality doesn't have to mean death. if something is done and cannot be undone...its final. get slain by the sword...you get trapped and you cant escape. Finailty no?

No its not finality. Its like saying an Azath house is finality. Yes it is and no it isnt. It is final for around a million years then it dies. Dragnipuir the same. Yes it wont die but finality it is not. It is a more efficient Azath. Atleast thats how i see it. The Azath absorb souls so that choas cant get them. Therefore Dragnipur can be broken and so its not final

[Thelomen Toblerone]

The fact that Paran freed the two Hounds from Dragnipur show it isn't finality, because there is at least one escape route- however unlikely it may be.


It's a bit like saying death is final- to many religious people it is not, because it's just a step to heaven and the continuation of life in a higher and more improed form. Atheists on the other hand would say that death is completely final.

As long as you know that there is one possibility of escape, no matter how remote, it can't be considered finality.

[Tiger_sword]

Thelomen Toblerone;122636 said:

It's a bit like saying death is final- to many religious people it is not, because it's just a step to heaven and the continuation of life in a higher and more improed form. Atheists on the other hand would say that death is completely final.

Or a trip through Hoods gate! They seam to linger on forever, remember the scene in BH where Paran et al go through that realm full of the dead. Hood only knows how long they have been there (or not as it would seam )

[Dolorous Menhir]

The hounds didn't come back to life though. Their status is unknown, though it must have something to do with the Deragoth statues. I'm not sure if what happened to them can be considered escape, and nor do I think it will easily happen again.

[Dolorous Menhir]

That connection is obvious. The question is, in escaping Dragnipur did the Hounds really become free? Did they go directly into the statues? Did they have any choice?

Obviously a similar thing cannot happen to anyone else who leaves the sword in the same way (which isn't going to happen anyway), because they will not be Hounds, and there are no remaining statues to occupy. So will anyone who gets out in the same way just appear somewhere in the realms, with a body and a pulse?

[Thelomen Toblerone]

I would suggest yes, in much the same way as someone freed from sealing a rent (eg the Pannion Seer) when someobody else takes their place. They are unharmed upon returning from a magical imprisonment of sorts, so it seems just as likely to me that those in the "gaol" of dragnipur freed would be similar.

[Abyss]

Draconus did make the point in GotM that there were dragons inside the sword... maybe is was Draconus and not Rake who put them there... help me out here... in the RG prologue where Rake and Kila go to purge KE, is there any indication whether Rake has Veng/Grief or Dragnipur with him?

Because it would logically but not necessarily follow that Rake chained the three dragons in TB to keep them from seizing KE at that time, but it could have been a later effort.

Silch notes to Wither that if the wraith gets too close to the solid state dragon blood, there wil be no escape for Wither. This sort of follows on the no-escape-for-souls from Dragnipur thing.

- Abyss, dead threadcromancer.

[Dolorous Menhir]

Abyss;202035 said:

Draconus did make the point in GotM that there were dragons inside the sword... maybe is was Draconus and not Rake who put them there... help me out here... in the RG prologue where Rake and Kila go to purge KE, is there any indication whether Rake has Veng/Grief or Dragnipur with him?

- Abyss, dead threadcromancer.

No way Rake had Dragnipur at the time of the RG prologue. That would be an insane timeline error.

The lack of the sword does neatly explain the chaining of those dragons rather than entrapment in the sword. However, he may have been reluctant to give three warren-anchor dragons the Dragnipur treatment, or resort to killing them, if he did have the sword at the time.

[lobo the wolfman]

Maybe draconus did make a change to the sword, and that was to allow someone (in this case Paran) and ability to enter and exit the warren inside Dragnipur whenever he wants. And if some one can do that then that same someone can maybe take other souls out as well, like a back door or emergency exit.
Also if the blood of dragons can trap souls, then does the blood of hounds have the same effect, seeing that Paran ended up in Dragnipur by touching the dead hounds blood?

[Lisheo]

No, Paran was merely linked to them and was brought along... Id say it was along the lines of the way the Hounds travel or something.
Right, the way I see it is: Originally, Draconus made the sword with the intention that no one was EVER getting out, and the sword could not be broken EVER. Im assuming he intended to destroy the forge too, in order to accomplish that.
After cursing Kallor, he devised a way for the sword to be broken, if it was absolutely necessary. Perhaps he left the place it was forged in one piece.
The escape of the Shadow Hounds was NOT part of that plan, I dont think. I think that they could escape because they were shadows of Darkness, and so the Gate merely reunited them with their Deragoth counterparts.

[Aptorian]

Was Paran wearing his Oponnsword when he went Jen'isand Rul?

Cause that would go along way in explaining how he managed that feat, and also explain why none have been able to figure that out before, including Draconus.

[Dark Mac]

How do we know that Draconus never figured it out before? After all, he saw the Hounds leave and hasn't left since then, so there's probably a reason that the Hounds are the only ones to leave that way.

[Abyss]

Iirc, Paran had the sword with him - that was how he summoned Oponn to lure the Hounds into the gate under the wagon.

Presumably, Draconus might not think it a good idea to throw himself into the heart of Mommy D, hence why he didn't follow the hounds.

It remains a question tho', why Draconus made the sword in the first place - did he just want a sword that warrentrapped souls of those it killed, and the wagon/gate thing came later, or was it always a way to prevent chaos from eating Mommy D and Rake just didn't trust Draconus with it...

- Abyss, knows the shadow knows...