Atyar

From: Peter Metcalfe <metcalph_at_voyager.co.nz>
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 17:56:08 +1300


Keith Nellist:

Me>> Vivisection is theft? If you looked at the myth of ShangHsa, you
>> would see that the New Dragons Ring was actively disseminating
>> occult knowledge and not stealing it from others. They seem to be
>> the complete opposite of Atyari occult thieves IMO.

>The History of Kralorela from the Genertela book describes the Godlearner
>freebooters "seeking plunder and lands" (theft),and five people who "dried
>up the lands magic and vitality" (dehydration?), rituals and age old rites
>were "usurped and abused" (usurped and abused).

None of this has any close similarity to what the Atyari do. They are interested in devouring knowlege. You can make _anybody_ out to be an Atyari using similar creative interpretations.

>> No, the New Dragons Ring didn't [plunder other peoples' secrets]. They
>> discovered new insights and taught them to others. They are not occult
>> thieves nor were they chaotic. Both which IMO makes the NDR and Atyar
>> incompatible faiths. At least in the early stages of ShangHsa's reign.

>I was under the impression that Kralorela may not even have a concept of
>Chaos.

But Atyar _is_ chaotic from a God Learner/New Dragons PoV. And the Kralori do have a concept related to 'chaos'.

>I would like to point out that I am not suggesting that the New Dragon
>Ring was just an Atyari Temple but that Atyar practices may have been
>of use to them, or at least some of them.

And I am pointing out that NDR had their own methods of exploitation and control which was far more potent than the Atyari. The Kralori could expel the Atyari when they became a problem - they had to suffer 350 years of the NDR.

>> What exactly [the New Dragons Ring] gave up after they
>> took over, I don't know, but I doubt that there was a wholescale alignment
>> with the cult of Atyar.
 

>Me: since there is no precise definition of being a Godlearner then it is
>hard to define a date at which one gives up being one. There is no Oath of
>allegiance to Godlearning.

There is 'a precise definition of being a God Learner'. They were a literal-minded church passionately interested in determining what the correct belief was. Abjuring even one of these beliefs would be recognized as no longer being a God Learner.

Powered by hypermail