> Alex in response to me
> > You [Martin] make it sound as if there's an invisible silver sign over
> > his head at all times saying 'this is the real emperor'
>
> >This is the distinct impression I got when discussing
> >Moonson-identity-related issues with Martin half a year ago: "Nobody will
> >ever be confused, as there's only ever one real Red Emperor."
>
> Not what I meant, nor what I believe. I don't remember saying that exaclty,
> but since you put it in quotations, I guess I must have.
Our quotes are getting a little confusing at this point, so I must interject to point out that the first paragraph above is me, but the second is from _Nick_. I want to stress this as I don't think our positions are identical by any means (if I'm arguing more volubly with Martin than with Nick, it's more a function of me at least (thinking I) understand(ing) Nick's position -- and perhaps as Martin is the man with a draft MS in front of him... -- rather than my 'position' as such, insofaras I have one), and because I'm certainly not claiming any personal knowledge of people's Previous Stated Positions on such matters.
> The Red Emperor is singular, yes, one being. However his _rule_ is a gestalt
> of soul parts and powers from many differing aspects of rule. Each of those
> parts allows him to claim rule of part of the Empire.
You seem to be saying here that the soul-parts of the emperor are _not_ part of his being, which seems clearly wrong to me. Or are you simply saying those aren't (all?) the portions you're saying make him 'singular'?
> To those _parts_ of
> the Empire it is that part of him that is "theirs", not the other parts. Do
> you really think the Carmanians give a toss whether he has Vrimaks soul part?
> But the Rinliddi do. For the Emperor to prove himself over those people he
> has to have those parts. For a rival to claim those parts of the Empire, all
> he has to do is gain that part of the Emperors souls via quest to have a
> _legitimate_ claim to rule that part of the Empire.
The argument gets a bit fuzzy for me here, since IIRC the majority of Masks, _and_ most pre-Lunar Emperors have _not_ established total 'part-identity' with (say) Vrimak, and have ruled Rinliddi regardless. (I assume that some sort of 'identication-lite' is still required, though.) And how this works for the portions of the LE outside of traditional Dara Happan is that bit less clear, I have to admit.
But the basic point is surely, other than in the previously discussed chronomantic Hind Sight sense, who's to say that only 'the one true' RE can accompish not just one or two of these sovereignty chores, but _all_ of them? Simply as a practical matter, it seems clear that 'the successful candidate' will start off with some decent portion of the former Mask's being and power, and end up with a darn sight more, but I don't personally think that post-Sheng, the continuity is always 100%, and I think the situation at least _admits_ the situation where there is more than one entity which has enough of various 'bits' of RE-ship for there to be meaningful conflict and uncertainty about which of them was/is/will be the Real, True, etc, etc.
Graham J Robinson:
> If this is right, then the Red Emperor - the real, singular one - could
> actually have been sidelined for years now. He is, in fact, a sad, rather
> pathetic figure, wandering the outer edges of the Empire, trying to find
> anyone who'll believe him - "But I *AM* the Red Emperor" "Sure you are,
> I'm Jar-El, and this is Prince Argrath..."
Yeah, this is the Original Takenegi, isn't it -- the one alive, well, and living in northern Kralorela?
> Seriously though, the problem I have is this all smacks too much of
> mono-mythic certainty. If no one can tell whether this guy is the real red
> emperor or not, why specify he is? Why not have a nice ambiguity over
> whether the propoganda machine (Red Emperor - one size fits all) or the
> Life of Moonson (if you win, well obviously you always were the Red
> Emperor). It ain't like its going to matter to most people's games. Even
> Martin has said the main reason is that "as a GM its nice to know."
> Actually, as a GM having published sources that aren't too specific is
> even nicer...
I agree entirely. I do have some sympathy for what Martin's saying in that the Hard-Core Tales Position (aka 'GAG', 'MFG', and other TLAs) could be seen to have a certain 'lèse divinité' (pardon my Cod French) effect. I don't want to give the impression that imperial succession is _just_ a bunfight between a bunch of powerful nobles and assorted bastard Moonsonsons, because a) that's clearly not what Imperial Propaganda says, and b) equqally assuredly, it's not Correct. My worry is that Martin (pp. Greg) may be swinging a little far in the opposite direction, largely in reaction to the former. I'm quite certain there's a happy medium to be found here, and on my more cheerful days, I even think that there may be the wit and will to find it.
Cheers,
Alex.
Powered by hypermail