[Dragaera] it's late and i'm a little punchy

[Jon Lincicum via Dragaera]

----- Original Message ----- 

> From: "Philip Hart via Dragaera" <dragaera at lists.dragaera.info>
> To: "Dragaera" <dragaera at dragaera.info>
> Sent: Monday, November 24, 2014 2:09:22 PM
> Subject: Re: [Dragaera] it's late and i'm a little punchy

> On Mon, 24 Nov 2014, Scott Schultz via Dragaera wrote:

> >> From: Dragaera [mailto:dragaera-bounces at lists.dragaera.info] On Behalf Of
> >> Philip Hart via Dragaera
> >>
> >> I made some arguments on this topic here a while ago, e.g.
> >> http://dragaera.info/mailinglists/dragaera/archive/2003q2/007511.html
> >>
> >> Basically I doubt there there can be two emperors in a turn under normal
> >> circumstances. I think there's a latency issue in communication between
> > the
> >> Orb and the Cycle such that Adron was the Emperor according to the Orb and
> >> in the normal course of events would have been the Emperor according to
> >> the Cycle, except that in a great Cycle the Phoenix do get two Emperors.
> > This
> >> would be a feature then, not a bug.
> >
> > Yeah, we've had some discussions about the Cycle in the past. One of the
> > conclusions by the number crunchers was that it is *possible* for a House's
> > reign to last beyond the ordinary lifespan of a dragaeran. (Note that we do
> > not have any text examples of such a thing to say whether it ever actually
> > happens.) The possibility implies that the Orb must have a way of handling
> > the eventuality.
>
> This is just based on Vlad saying 17**3, right? Which might just be
> religious. Or maybe it's healthy to wear the Orb. Or some Dragaerans
> live to 5k.

I'm personally inclined to think it's very possible for there to be multiple emperors of a House during a single turn of the cycle. Note, that when Tortaalik first took the throne himself, it was not upon the death of his predecessor. Cherova III might even still be alive during Vlad's time, for all we know (though it's likely someone of her stature would have been in Dragaera City during the disaster).

The life of the holder of the orb--significant to a point--and the cycle actually changing appear, nevertheless to be two separate things. 

Another point; in a world where revivification is real, just because an Emperor dies does not necessarily mean that he will remain dead. Or possibly be unable to continue to rule while undead. (Although I'd imagine there's probably some Imperial Edict somewhere outlawing that last possibility...) 

> I think there are good reasons to believe he's actually relatively
> rigorous. Such as him not getting killed for publishing his works
> (admittedly there's an Uncanny Valley situation). And, well, when we
> have contradictions there're from Vlad, who's had Verra's hand inside
> his skull for starters.

It's more fun, in my opinion, to only resort to the excuse of the unreliable narrator as a last resort. As such, I tend to subscribe to the school of "what is in the text is dead-on correct...except when it isn't." But when it isn't should be limited only to cases where it directly contradicts something else with no room for compromise or integration. I do not see that here. There are still options left open to us without needing to play the "Vlad was wrong" or "Paarfi was wrong" card.

Majikjon