We've been wrong about the flame *No Spoilers*

Too the best of my knowledge, most, if not all, of the lore junkies have been working under the assumption that the flame just magically created all of the opposites. Honestly, I think we were wrong, and it seems so obvious now that it was a foolish thing for us to fall for.

In the intro (when she is talking about the flame creating disparity), the first word in each pair is emphasized. HEAT and Cold. LIFE and death. LIGHT and dark. Instead of "creating" each of those things, it only brought the FIRST in each pair. It brought the change. Instead of the "earth" being a frozen, lifeless, dark wasteland, the flame brought heat, light, and eventually life.

So the first flame brought the first light and the first heat. Understandable, that's what fire does best. So, perhaps the flame isn't some "magical, all-powerful essence" and is just ordinary fire.

Well, what fire could heat up, brighten, and bring life to the entire world? What "fire" is related to both sorcery and miracles (remember your astrophysics)? What "fire" is related to the vast majority of the gods we know? What fire would leave the inside of the world dark for the mortal races to crawl out of?

Why is Gwyn, "Lord of Sunlight", seen as the strongest of the Lords? Is the title REALLY coincidental? Or was he trying to brag about being the lord of a certain, life-creating fire?

The sun? What about the Kiln of the First Flame? I don't think it's the sun Shkar. Makes sense though.

WyrmHero wrote:The sun? What about the Kiln of the First Flame? I don't think it's the sun Shkar. Makes sense though.

Actually, that part was more speculation than anything. I personally can't see how it could be ANYTHING other then the sun, but everything up to the part where I start talking about that is the truly important part of that post.

That said, the Kiln IS exposed to the sky.

Well previously since the world was dominated by everlasting, not really living dragons, I think it is fair for them to emphasize the first one. Because if it creates life, it then also creates death, since something needs to be living to die. It's the same logic with the other things.

Buggy Virus wrote:Well previously since the world was dominated by everlasting, not really living dragons, I think it is fair for them to emphasize the first one. Because if it creates life, it then also creates death, since something needs to be living to die. It's the same logic with the other things.

It all depends on what definitions of the terms you think they are using. One definition points to life as being able to reproduce, grow, and etc (which the dragons can), another points to living as "being animated (again, the dragons are). One definition of dead is something that was alive that is no longer so, another is something that isn't animate".

Buggy Virus wrote:Well previously since the world was dominated by everlasting, not really living dragons, I think it is fair for them to emphasize the first one. Because if it creates life, it then also creates death, since something needs to be living to die. It's the same logic with the other things.

haha sound familiar Shkar