> > Jose wrote: > > Chris Olson - SunPS wrote: > > > > >Which came first, the Cycle or the Gods? What about the Empire? > > > > > > > > I suspect the gods came first, unless the Cycle included the other 14 > > tribes and could drop them from its face as they disappeared. But given > > that the Cycle is a representation of who is in charge of the Empire, > > and the Empire didn't exist until after some of the gods rebelled, I > > think it's safe to assume that they came first. > > Very well, I concede that the Cycle came after the Gods. > (Given the timeline, I suspected as much.) > > That doesn't explain why the Gods seem to be somewhat beholden > to the Cycle. Wouldn't they have been its creator? I suppose > even the creators might have to answer to it, but given their > nature (at least some of them) I would have suspected them of > just making alterations where needed. They did it with the > Orb, and the Cycle is in the Paths with them. Quoting my own quote from the Timeline: The Cycle "created"??? Barlen asserts that "it is part of the fundamental nature of the universe" (PD 193). I should note that this assertion has an even larger number of unreliable narrators than is common: Brust translating Paarfi relating a conversation that is theoretical between powerful, yet known-to-be-fallible Gods. Apply salt liberally. Alexx Opinions expressed are my own and not necessarily those of my employers. alexx at carolingiaSPAMBL@CK.org http://www.panix.com/~alexx "His revolver slid noisily across the floor and stopped abruptly (like intercourse when the woman's husband comes home early) and a pregnant silence ensued (also rather like the early husband thing.)" -- from "The Return of Phil Noir" by Minstrel