> > >To me, the slarges are reptilian but not draconic.
>
> > And the newtlings are amphibian, not draconic. Yet there is
> > a link between them and the dragonewts.
>
>Neither newtlings nor slarge are closer to dragonkind than odonatites.
Who they? In any case because the newtlings can understand Auld Wyrmish better than anybody else, it follows they have some relationship regardless of whether they were devolved dragonewts or that dragonewts are draconized newtlings.
I'm suggesting that the Slarges have a similar relationship and adduce their facility with dinosaurs (also degenerate draconic beings) as further evidence.
> > Simply because we have bugger-all information about the
> > Slarges from their own view.
>
>Same amount of inside information with dragonewts, who get a different
>description.
No. We have a number of articles about the dragonewts ranging from the Dragon Pantheon to Elder Secrets but the amount on Slarges in terms of their own culture and world-view is non-existent.
> >>Unlike Thrunhin Da and lesser forms similar to her, the Sea Dragons
> >>are part of the Merfolk mythology.
>
> > This is a flawed argument. The Merfolk themselves appear in Vithelan
> > myth yet are not mystical.
>
>You're stating my point there.
Considering as far as I could understand your argument was that Sea Dragons appear in Merfolk (actually waertagi) myth so can't by implication be draconic, it would help if you weren't so cryptic with your rebuttals.
> > The Waertagi are not Merfolk.
>Unless you follow the school of thought that Waertag is the lost
>sorcerous triton.
Waertag is the Logical Explorer of the Seas. He was human first and foremost before his descendents adapted themselves.
> > There is
> > nothing to prevent Thrunhin Da from appearing in Merfolk mythology
> > and considering that she is the ancestor of the Zabdamar, she does.
>
>In the same way that the merfolk appear in Orlanthi or Vithelan myth.
So what? In what way does the fact that Sea Dragons appear in Waertagi myth mean they can't be draconic? If you're making a major point, I'm not understanding it.
> > So you don't see any evidence for the Loskalmi and Seshnegi
> > fighting dragons in their own country.
>Correct. Not a single shred in any of the publications.
Categorically incorrect. Herjan the Raider [MSE p30] and possibly Saval [MSE p17].
> > Does that mean they cannot
> > have possibly fought any dragons there whatsoever? What about
> > Herjan the Raider then? What about the dragonewts of fallen
> > Seshnela?
>What about those of Jrustela and Pamaltela? Not present there.
Considering the question was knights fighting dragons in Loskalm and Seshnela, I fail to see how Jrustela and Pamaltela are relevant. There are dragons in Pamaltela and something must be producing the dinosaurs as there are no dinosaurs among the Fiwan.
>Even Ralios had to be settled from Peloria.
Although the 'newts of Ralios had their origins in Peloria, the subject was Dragons, not 'newts. One can have dragons without newts as much of Kralorela does.
>Seshnela was Earth Snake country.
So? It's not a question of either it is a serpent or it is a dragon with no middle ground ever possible. Considering that the EWF and the Kralori were quite clever in finding in draconic analogs, it's no big leap that the snakes of Seshnela could possibly be made into a draconic cult.
>The only recorded draconic
>connection there was Hykim.
Seshnela (Genertela): this wild land is full of
exotic creatures like centaurs, satyrs and
dragonewts.
RQ3 Book 5 p8.
> >>I don't see any evidence for dragon
> >>presence on Danmalastan, though (even Waertag's conquered Sea
>A parallel to Genner, Bamat, Worlath, and Vit. This doesn't populate
>Danmalastan with Great Spirits, Storm Gods, or Parloth, other than as
>invaders.
In other words, there is evidence for dragons in Danmalastan?
Secondly Worlath and Ehilm were True Beings that lived and died in Danmalastan alongside Zzabur and Malkion. That they resemble Orlanth and Yelm is neither here or there insofar as Orlanth and Yelm represent the Last Rebel and the Evil Emperor. Bamat, Genner and Vit on the other hand are entities set in other lands and so the argument about Danmalastan being full of Gods and Spirits is misguided.
>Zzabur is quite meticulous about naming all the invaders his magics
>fought off.
If this is reference to the list of the wars of low and high magic, then dragons are not listed (an oversight I think). In any event most of the wars of low magic are wars against domestic enemies within Danmalastan as opposed to the enemies of the wars of high magic which are without Danmalastan.
> Dragons are defined as different otherworld, and remain
>excluded.
Dragons are nowhere defined as different otherworlds and do in fact appear quite naturally on the sorcery plane (whether the Malkioni like them to appear there is a different question entirely).
> > No, the source says that TarnGatHa is equated with Vith which
> > is not the same thing.
>This amounts to "Kralori myth doesn't differentiate between TarnGatHa
>and Vith".
No, it doesn't. It's not a statement about Kralori myth but simply an off-handed comment. Dogsalu is a much better fit for TarnGatHa than Vith will ever be.
> > >There is no mention of snake whiskers.
>
> > Does there need to be? Does a hero have to get so close to
> > the green dragon and provide eye-witness testimony before
> > you concede otherwise?
>
>The Green Dragon is the only one to receive a description in some detail.
And which description reads as follows:
The full extent of the green dragon's magical abilities would
take too long to list and are best determined by the narrator
as needed. In particular, many minor non-magical abilities
with a 'mere' three masteries or less are likely to be known.
Anaxial's Roster p157.
Ample room for Snake Whiskers 1w3.
> > While the Dragonkill may have been part of an awesome
> > eruption of draconic energies, to suggest that the Kralori
> > took place presumes that the Inhuman King is the only
> > true heir of draconic tradition which is something the
> > Kralori deny. The Kralori would go so far as to argue
> > that the War in Heaven was the primary event and that
> > the Dragonkill was an aftershock.
>
>All that the Kralori would observe were the events visible in the
>heavens.
Nope. There was the terrible typhoon, the awful drought, the huge fire, a great shake and all that. Heaven refers not to some distant celestial realm but the spiritual foundations of Kralorela.
>Didn't you say that the Kralori dragonewts accuse the Kralori of being
>wrong about true inheritance of the draconic tradition?
No. I simply wondered why you needed a textually ambiguous statement explained to you when the context was that the dragonewts the Kralori were arguing with were from central genertela (which has been made in Elder Secrets for example).
--Peter Metcalfe
Powered by hypermail