On Mon, 2005-06-06 at 14:43 +0000, Jeff Richard wrote:
> This makes a lot of sense to me. It also explains the
> traditionalists' fury towards Andrin and his reforms - these aren't
> just weird reforms, but a deliberate undermining of Hendreik's way.
> In the Second Age, the Hendreiki cut down the Steal Woods and turned
> it to farmland, but I doubt they ever had much religious attachment to
> the place itself (I'm sure Hendreik probably told his followers to
> never become too attached to any one place - never know when you are
> going to have to leave it).
There's one problem with this, though. Aren't the Larnsti completely tied to the land? They can't leave it, ever? If the Hendreiki way (quite reasonably) includes the idea of not being attached to the place because you might have to leave, you have a bit of a conflict with their sacred protectors of rulership and all being completely tied to the land. It doesn't seem to fit. I suppose you can say the Larnsti aren't Hendreiki really, having given up some part of their freedom to be closer to their god. It does seem weird that the one who is King of a People, not a Land, is tied to a brotherhood that is tied only to the land, and not to a people.
Maybe it's one of those sacred mysteries.
Mind you, if the whole Larnsti tie directly to the land is important in some sort of mythical way in its tie to the king of the people, then the Andrin reforms (if we view them as tying the king more directly to the land) are more of a blow to the Larnsti than ever in some way, completely usurping their position.
And I, once again, have probably dragged this all the way over into Digest territory. :)
LC
Powered by hypermail