Earwa > General Earwa

On the Nature of the No-God

(1/12) > >>

[I've searched a few times, but I can't find a thread for just discussion of the No-God, but if I'm wrong, someone correct me.]

The No-God has always been my second favorite character in the series, so I do have some off-the-wall theories about it's nature.

Mursiris—“Wicked North”
Tsuramah—“Hated One”
Lokung—The “Dead-God” of the Scylvendi.
Cara-Sincurimoi—"The Angel of Endless Hunger"

These are the names of the No-God that we know of.  I think the most interesting of them all is the Ihrimsû name of, Cara-Sincurimoi, "The Angel of Endless Hunger."  The name seems to imply two things, first, that the No-God hungers, but also that it is an Angel that hungers.  What might such a thing hunger for.  Surely, considering the nature of what we know of the Carapace, the No-God eats no corporeal food.  What I would hypothesize is that the No-God hungers for is souls.

It has been my personal crack-pot that the No-God is not evil, because the No-God has no agency.  It doesn't know what it is doing.  To square these two points though, my summation would be that it is no more an animal (in fact, maybe less), fueled by a hunger, blind to the implications of it's action, it kills to eat, but it is simply a device, nefarious only because it's creators made it so.

Also, I would like to lob out the following Nerdanel, that perhaps the No-God was born of collective renunciation.  In other words, if we suppose that Fane could 'birth' the Solitary God out of faith, perhaps the No-God is 'born' of apostasy?

Sound off on how bad my ideas are.

Like the nerdanel,  but I think we have lots of evidence suggesting the no god has agency


--- Quote from: locke on July 27, 2015, 06:21:16 pm ---Like the nerdanel,  but I think we have lots of evidence suggesting the no god has agency
--- End quote ---

Well, I think I am using the wrong word.  My theory would be that it has no understanding of who, what, where, or why it is.  Everything that it does (because I do believe it somehow 'unites' all the soulless things) it does not out of some grand purpose, but out of simple ignorance/base instinct (hunger).  It had no 'true' will of it's own, in the same way that a battery has no will of it's own, it just does what it does, when it does it.

I guess I figure the No-God as if someone with total sensory derivation.  It has no idea what anything is, it can't tell what it is doing, it is driven only by a hunger and it only knows that doing whatever it is helps to feed the hunger (which is probably the only thing it can actually feel).

Would a thing born of renunciation renounce itself?


--- Quote from: locke on July 27, 2015, 06:42:16 pm ---Would a thing born of renunciation renounce itself?
--- End quote ---

I think that is part of the reason for it's blindness.  It can't know it's own nature, it is a paradox.  It is by necessity blind, or else it would cease to exist.  Likely when the Carapace cracked, it simply could not exist of it's own accord.

While it is said that the No-God is a Tekne creation, to me, it reeks of a Shae idea.  A clever loop-hole in the metaphysics of souls, probably funished by Tekne though.


[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Go to full version