I'd say between 435 and 440 or so. 435 because that's when Talor cleansed Gbaji. It's plausible that Harmast pointed out the remaining Gbaji threat further east. Harmast's role has been overblown because we've seen the Orlanthi perspective only. To the devotees of Talor, he was just a messenger (an exalted enough role, but not on a par with being a hero).
Me:
>> As Mike
>> Dawson pointed out in his Malkionism seminar at Convulsions >>(available
real soon in the post-con book),
Joerg:
>Real soon?
Any Day Now. Really. I've been Assured. ;-)
Me:
>> The
>> Carmanians, as spiritual descendants of Talor (Arkat's rival in many
>> ways), would most likely fall toward the anti-Arkat end of the spectrum.
Joerg:
>Hmm. Talor was Arkat's rival, not enemy; both followed the same goal,
>the destruction of Gbaji and his minions. I think that their attitude to
>Arkat would be balanced. In some sources Syranthir is even called an ally
>of the Dark Empire, so I find it difficult to believe that they are really
>that far on the anti-Arkat side. About as Arkat-friendly as my view on the
>Aeolians, I'd say - "Arkat was a great man, but he also made great errors.
>Don't try that at home."
Those who say Arkat fell are toward the anti-Arkat end of the spectrum. The pro-Arkat types say he never fell, but "rose to higher secrets." For these (and they're by far the majority), Arkat is not a role model or even a positive figure. To them, a "balanced" view would be using Arkat as an object lesson on hubris.
Powered by hypermail