[Aptorian]

BridgeBurner;205262 said:

Why do you think that should affect Paran? Those tiles weren't related to any of the Houses, and they weren't Cards.

Well again I haven't done a reread, but I seem to remember that the Errant was all messed up and felt powerless and remarked something about the new Master of the Decks. A position he wanted back or wanted to go to war against, something in the lines of The Errant pitting the Holds against the Deck.

When he put his godlike blood into the tiles it had a riplle affect and I thought it was an attack on the decks?

[Lisheo]

So hes attempting to poison the deck, like the CG did with the Warrens?

[Aptorian]

Not poison them, I don't think he's nearly powerfull enough for that (plus Kru'll would probably smithe him ) rather it's an attempt at regaining control of things, the Errant wants to once again be in the center of things. Paran's assuming power of the Decks might actually have contributed to the Errants blindness... allthough, not probable.

He wants power. He doesn't like the whole worshipped buisness maybe he wants to return to being a Master of the Holds, which means he needs the Deck out of the way. It seemed like the whole system of the Deck was a surprise to the Errant and Featherwitch when she does her Mojo, remember how she remarks and Oponn. The Twins might want to watch their heads if the Errant decides he wants their position.

If the Errant can weaken the Deck it would certainly play in to the hands of the CG.

[Lisheo]

To be fair, I dont think the Errant would ever directly help the CG. Hes Elder, and the Elder Gods seem to have a thing about the CG. He may be poisoned by ambition, but not only does he not have half the power needed to destroy the Deck, but he will also have to contend with Oponn. The Twins might not be strong, but the Errant is weak as a newborn now.

[ShadowOwl]

In MT, it says Dolmen (one of the 3 Fulcra) has been usurped by the CG who is bound in chains to the menhir. So the Holds seem to be undermined already.
Then the Errant (one of the 3 Fulcra) is described by Mael/Bugg:
"Forkrul Assail, who are collectively personified in our Fulcra by the personage we call the Errant."
In RG, we see the Errant with the blood of all the dead FA's at his temple on him -I think he killed them to gain as much power as he could before he 'walked into the world' where he was not restricted by followers. That was so long ago, his power is now waning, so he cannot see the patterns in his Tiles, only the "disturbances in the old and new pantheon, Chaos, the stink of violence and a god's meddling." He talks about an empire arising using the power of pain.
From these clues in the two books, I think we can see the CG is influencing the Elder Holds, not just the newer Warrens/Houses. And I think that means he can influence the Errant as well.

[Obdigore]

I'm not sure why everyone is attempting to dis-associate the deck and the holds and warrens. They are different ways of accessing the same(ish) power.

The holds are rougher, but allow you to call 'stronger' power, and the warrens are a lighter, sneakier, more easier manipulated power.

Imo, think of a 'hold' as a farmer's field, and a warren as just 1 row of crops.

If you call on the hold, you get the power of the whole field, but its all jumbled together and crushing in weight.

If you call on a warren, you only get that row of ... carrots ... but with those you excert much more control over what happens with that power.

IE, if you are fighting someone, with a hold you have to crush them with your might. With a warren, you can nudge them off balance, then nudge their blade 2 inches to the left so they fall on it. Much less power, same result.

As to the deck, it is a system of ordering the universe and pantheon.

HOLDS + TILES = Deck + Warrens.
It is an evolution into a more specialized way of accessing the power base.

The hoary old ascendants call on the power of the holds. a big, bloody, violent, incapable-of-subetly power. They can be outsmarted/outwitted.

Errant was 'master of the tiles' - aka he was for the holds/tiles what Ganoes is for the warrens/deck. And he wants his primacy back.

[Dag]

Obdigore;206316 said:

Errant was 'master of the holds' - aka he was for the holds what Ganoes is for the deck.

I cannot look for any references in the books right now, but I'm pretty sure that Errant was "Master of the Tiles", just like Ganoes is "Master of the Deck" and not the Master of the Houses or Warrens.

But I agree with you that the Holds/Tiles do not stand in oppostion to Houses/Deck (and the Warrens) and should (or even cannot) be disassociated from each other. Right now I cannot think of any good comparison (nice work you did there with with those fields and carrots, btw;) ), but lacking other words I would say that they are just different manifestations of the same phenomenon.

[Locke Reaper]

The deck is an refinement of the holds as the holds changed to warrens. Almost a type of 'upgrade' as the users became more bastard backstabber type than hit you with a club type user.

[Obdigore]

Dag;206353 said:

I cannot look for any references in the books right now, but I'm pretty sure that Errant was "Master of the Tiles", just like Ganoes is "Master of the Deck" and not the Master of the Houses or Warrens.

But I agree with you that the Holds/Tiles do not stand in oppostion to Houses/Deck (and the Warrens) and should (or even cannot) be disassociated from each other. Right now I cannot think of any good comparison (nice work you did there with with those fields and carrots, btw;) ), but lacking other words I would say that they are just different manifestations of the same phenomenon.

bah I was going to do a field and rabbit warrens, but decided not to get quite that far into it

Yes, I am sorry, I meant he was master of the tiles, not holds. Going to edit my post to change it so I don't look absolutely insane.