Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Gwen Ikiryo]

I would link sources after every canon reference. I don't know of any of the history of achura so take my critique lightly. I would like to believe that one of the three origin myths are true. Especially that achura came from Jove, that would explain their height and intelligence. But it's hard to believe an advanced society like the Jove would devolve into a feudal system. I think the achura would be much more advanced and maybe even more evolved and develop something better. The stories are great though. Very believable if the achura came from an exiled or destroyed civilization. Also fav part, eyelash quills! Either achura have really long lashes or really tiny fingers. Either way, that's pretty funny.

When I started off, I was putting citations to every source whenever something relevant was mentioned, but I ended up doing it so much and also linking to the same stuff from the pitiful lore pool over and over that it started to seem pointless. I eventually opted to leave it as is. For the Achura/Jove thing, I envisioned the theory as being that they were a group that explicitly scorned technology for it's impact on their people - A sort of Amish style group. I purposefuly cited it as being the least common with how out there it is compared ot the other two.

The brush thing is canon, for the record. I didn't make that up.

[Lyn Farel]

I am not sure but I wondered that maybe you could publish it on the wiki with the "player created content" label ?

[Gwen Ikiryo]

I am not sure but I wondered that maybe you could publish it on the wiki with the "player created content" label ?

I thought about that, but I worried it would just confuse people looking for canon information, and come across as attention-seeking.

Also, the reception to this hasn't seemed super enthusiastic, so far, hahah.

[Lyn Farel]

Mh. Really ?

Or maybe just on the fiction forum... To me that's the kind of things that could potentially interest CCP, if they want to give directions. Who knows.

Not sure though. Just a silly idea.

[Gwen Ikiryo]

Eh what the hell, I made one anyway.

https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/History_of_the_Achura_%28Speculative%29

[Lyn Farel]

That looks great!

[Lyn Farel]

Ah.. there it is. The thing that bothered me but I wasn't able to put my finger on.

This is something I have always more or less wondered, the why the SuVee was interested in Saisio to begin with. Correct me if I am wrong of course, but you seem to assume as a postulate that what the State was interested in with Saisio was its manpower.

Usually I assumed that the Caldari megas before the war looked for secret colonies, which probably means resources as well as new planets to thrive on (like any expanding space faring civilization). Would the Caldari have come if they knew that they eventually were not going to actually get the planet since they just dealt with the Achur like that ? I mean, we are talking about the ruthless, pragmatic SuVee. What are they getting else than just little Achuras ?

I don't have precise numbers for the Caldari when they fled Caldari Prime and had to go into exile... Would that only be counted in mere millions ? Or billions ? I could understand the need for the Caldari to actually sway a few millions of Achur (at best) to bolster their ranks if the Caldari themselves are not billions... But what if they were ? Then a few millions, while appreciable, is rather irrelevant for manpower and it hardly qualifies as an interest in the planet. Unless they wanted them for very specific tasks ?

I suppose that the SuVee actually is interested in the natural resources that can be harvested in some places on the planet and just cares for the rest at a minimum just to keep the population in check/happy ? So they never really bothered to go further in the assimilation process ?

What is to be gained for the Caldari on that planet ? Or maybe they actually came full of hopes, and got full disillusions instead, not finding what they were looking for ? So they had to deal with a native population and not much else ? Which could explain why they took the minimal approach here and left it that way ?

Please note that I don't find the question detrimental to your text actually. It is just that I think, it is not really explained or fleshed out (maybe willingly), and so the question naturally arised for me.

[Aria Jenneth]

Sorry to be so late to the conversation.

Really neat effort, Gwen. Let me see....

Looking things over, there are two things that jump out at me as issues.

(1) The bit with the Creator letting humanity borrow his Rod and humanity bollixing it all up strikes me as a "fall of man" story analogous to the Garden of Eden. I'm not sure the Achura would have such a thing; the point of a story like that is partly to point out how unworthy and sinful people are, and I think the Achura are more interested in cosmic truths than in moralizing at each other.

(2) Do we really need a global empire at any point? Admittedly the Achura are sort of monocultural, suggesting either that they were united or that there was a LOT of cultural exchange, but The Caldari turned up while the Achura were still in their Iron Age, IIRC, which means a global empire would have to function with horses and carrier pigeons. The Raata was pretty unique to the Caldari, and it seems like maybe it would be best to leave it so. Could the cultural mixing have happened more as a result of routine natural disasters? --> lots of refugees at any given time?

[Nicoletta Mithra]

In regard to (2):

All circumpolar cultures on earth are quite similar. This is probably not due to intensive cultural exchange, but rather due to environmental constraints. I think that such constraints arer a better explanation than 'routine natural disasters', as those would need a pretty big population to assure a robust population in the face of such disasters as well as means of travel which allow for high enough numbers of people to cross geological seperators like mountains and seas up  to the extent of intercontinental exchange of a level that surpasses usual iron age modes of travel.

As to (1)... well, I'd geuss that 'moralizing at each other' is just one of the forms that the need for norms to regulate a society and search for those takes. I dunno if the Achura need a "fall of man story", nor am I sure if the 'borrwed rod-story' is such, but I think it's be highly unlikely - even for a people "uninterested in moralizing at each other" - to go entirely without it.

[Aria Jenneth]

In regard to (2):

All circumpolar cultures on earth are quite similar. This is probably not due to intensive cultural exchange, but rather due to environmental constraints. I think that such constraints arer a better explanation than 'routine natural disasters', as those would need a pretty big population to assure a robust population in the face of such disasters as well as means of travel which allow for high enough numbers of people to cross geological seperators like mountains and seas up  to the extent of intercontinental exchange of a level that surpasses usual iron age modes of travel.

As to (1)... well, I'd geuss that 'moralizing at each other' is just one of the forms that the need for norms to regulate a society and search for those takes. I dunno if the Achura need a "fall of man story", nor am I sure if the 'borrwed rod-story' is such, but I think it's be highly unlikely - even for a people "uninterested in moralizing at each other" - to go entirely without it.

On (1): sure, norms tend to be needed. However, if you look at most Eastern religions/philosophies (with which both the Caldari and Achura seem flavored), there's a notable lack of emphasis on divine perfection or human lack of same. The main criticism of humankind generally is a failure to understand and a tendency to act blindly. Taoism criticizes society for moving too far away from nature. Buddhism criticizes materialism and attachment as sources of suffering. Zen ... well, doesn't criticize much, maybe, but it's ultimately about embracing your own impermanence.

None of these blame humanity for the state of pretty much anything but humanity. Of course, the state of humanity can produce plenty of blame.

On (2): Sure. However (a) the Achur religion's pretty much one faith with a bazillion sects, which suggests more than just convergent evolution; (b) we already needed a reason why the Achura are so antimaterialistic (in contrast to the Caldari). Our existing quasi-canon on the subject is that Achura (the planet) likes breaking stuff, which plays nicely into a "Welp, there goes our fishing village. Where to now?" pattern of people ending up meeting other people.

Edit: of course, not all disasters that result in displaced populations need be natural. War does a pretty good job of moving people around, and the Achura seem not to have historically been at their best when at war (is anyone?).

That brush....

[Gwen Ikiryo]

Sorry to be so late to the conversation.

Really neat effort, Gwen. Let me see....

Looking things over, there are two things that jump out at me as issues.

(1) The bit with the Creator letting humanity borrow his Rod and humanity bollixing it all up strikes me as a "fall of man" story analogous to the Garden of Eden. I'm not sure the Achura would have such a thing; the point of a story like that is partly to point out how unworthy and sinful people are, and I think the Achura are more interested in cosmic truths than in moralizing at each other.

(2) Do we really need a global empire at any point? Admittedly the Achura are sort of monocultural, suggesting either that they were united or that there was a LOT of cultural exchange, but The Caldari turned up while the Achura were still in their Iron Age, IIRC, which means a global empire would have to function with horses and carrier pigeons. The Raata was pretty unique to the Caldari, and it seems like maybe it would be best to leave it so. Could the cultural mixing have happened more as a result of routine natural disasters? --> lots of refugees at any given time?

I kinda agree with you on the first point. To be honest, I found the canon that a conventional creator god exists for the Achura at all to be a little eurocentric on the part of CCPs writers - Even with the achur-faith-as-shinto rather then the achur-faith-as-taoism/zen buddhism interpretation that the devs seem to favour sometimes, it would make more sense if there were atleast multiple parties involved, and the whole process was a bit abstract. But it's pretty blunt about it, so I made do.

I admit how it turned out wasn't ideal. To make sure the flavour was right for the article, I tried to loosely base everything I wrote on actual asian mythology or historical events. The problem was that there aren't really many sources to look at when it came to eastern monotheism, so, though I tried to avoid it, I think I defaulted a little bit into the Judeo-Christian archtype, maybe with a bit of gnostic flavour thrown in. It wasn't my only idea - I had some drafts where the Creator just got bored and left, and one where he screwed things up himself - But it was the only one that seemed to flow right thematically for the ideas behind the Achura religion. Rather, not about human "sin" in the western conception, but more sort of... Human immaturity? Ignorance? That fits with the extreme emphasis on knowledge the faith has.

I hoped having the Creator be obviously fallible would help this, but I dunno if it's worked. Needless to say, I'd be open to alternative suggestions.

As for the second, though, that wasn't really my call to make. The Caldari Demographics article makes it clear there was atleast a dominant if not completely absolute Achura Empire at the time they arrived, and a few other sources atleast suggest this strongly. I didn't think it would be paticularly helpful to disregard that just because it's a bit of a tired trope at this point.

By the way, Lyn, if you're reading, I did see your comments. I'm still mulling them over at the moment.

[Aria Jenneth]

(2) Hrrrrm. I see there is indeed the implication of a single, dominant Achura Empire. Ah, well. The tendency to treat entire planets as single countries marches on.

... Wait. Reversing that last grumble, could it be that only one, mid-sized continent on Achura had a civilization worthy of the name at the time?


(1) Considering the infrequency with which the Creator is mentioned elsewhere, maybe we shouldn't consider the Achura monotheistic? The Creator is surely a god, but need he be the god, or even the most important god? Hindu belief is ... complicated, but sees gods within gods within gods (from certain points of view). Buddhist thought allows for the existence of gods, but considers them a part of the world of illusion-- something to be transcended. Taoism, at least in its folk variant, virtually allows for apotheosis.

(Taoist "outer alchemy" involves trying to make yourself an immortality pill-- typically out of cinnabar, which, being as it's essentially mercury, will help you abjure the flesh, all right.)

Anyhow ... as a thought, considering the number of Achur sects, why confine ourselves to one creation myth? There could be dozens.

As a thought, the rod could be presented as a metaphor for the wholeness of the Totality-- in creating the universe, the Creator himself shattered the rod. By breaking the rod, the holistic oneness of the universe was shattered, and disparity came into being. Some sects might regard this as a story about how the divisions that define the universe came to exist. For others, such as the Shuijing sect, the disparity isn't real, and the rod is truly whole-- but only someone who can see past all illusions can see that!

In that case, "To see the rod broken" is to be lost (along with just about everybody else) in the illusions of the world. "To see the rod whole" is to achieve perfect insight into, and unity with, the Totality.

[Lyn Farel]

Most civilizations in Eve, are united in one way or the other every time, according to what I have read from CCP. Caldari when they meet the gallente, Minmatar when they meet the Amarr, etc... Especially weird for the Achur since they still haven't even reached industrial revolution... But that's indeed PF.

[Gwen Ikiryo]

(2) Hrrrrm. I see there is indeed the implication of a single, dominant Achura Empire. Ah, well. The tendency to treat entire planets as single countries marches on.

... Wait. Reversing that last grumble, could it be that only one, mid-sized continent on Achura had a civilization worthy of the name at the time?

Actually, that's what I sort of assumed. The brush description, for example, specifically mentions an "Achuran continent". I reflected this in my writeup with only one being civilized and settled at the time of the Caldari arrival.

(1) Considering the infrequency with which the Creator is mentioned elsewhere, maybe we shouldn't consider the Achura monotheistic? The Creator is surely a god, but need he be the god, or even the most important god? Hindu belief is ... complicated, but sees gods within gods within gods (from certain points of view). Buddhist thought allows for the existence of gods, but considers them a part of the world of illusion-- something to be transcended. Taoism, at least in its folk variant, virtually allows for apotheosis.

(Taoist "outer alchemy" involves trying to make yourself an immortality pill-- typically out of cinnabar, which, being as it's essentially mercury, will help you abjure the flesh, all right.)

Anyhow ... as a thought, considering the number of Achur sects, why confine ourselves to one creation myth? There could be dozens.

As a thought, the rod could be presented as a metaphor for the wholeness of the Totality-- in creating the universe, the Creator himself shattered the rod. By breaking the rod, the holistic oneness of the universe was shattered, and disparity came into being. Some sects might regard this as a story about how the divisions that define the universe came to exist. For others, such as the Shuijing sect, the disparity isn't real, and the rod is truly whole-- but only someone who can see past all illusions can see that!

In that case, "To see the rod broken" is to be lost (along with just about everybody else) in the illusions of the world. "To see the rod whole" is to achieve perfect insight into, and unity with, the Totality.

Well, I probably shouldn't have said "monotheistic" - There's a couple mentions of lesser gods in the PF, in the death article for example, which I tried to reflect in the creation story - But rather, it seemed evident that there was one central ur-deity at the top of the pyramid.

Or maybe not? You make some good points about the fact that they created the world not per-se making them paramount, despite my assumptions. In Japanese folklore, for instance, Izanagi and Izanami were pretty high up, but far from the most important gods, and were themselves heavily tied to some prestablished rules of the cosmos beyond the physical world. (Let's hope using the Shinto example doesn't lose me too much cred, heh.)

And I find your ideas really interesting! That does seem to fit the core concepts of the faith a little better. Honestly, thinking about it, guessing at a concrete creation myth at all was probably a bit out of the scope of the article. It seems a little pointless to remove it now, though, since most people who were interested have probably read it already.

[Aria Jenneth]

Well, I probably shouldn't have said "monotheistic" - There's a couple mentions of lesser gods in the PF, in the death article for example, which I tried to reflect in the creation story - But rather, it seemed evident that there was one central ur-deity at the top of the pyramid.

Or maybe not? You make some good points about the fact that they created the world not per-se making them paramount, despite my assumptions. In Japanese folklore, for instance, Izanagi and Izanami were pretty high up, but far from the most important gods, and were themselves heavily tied to some prestablished rules of the cosmos beyond the physical world. (Let's hope using the Shinto example doesn't lose me too much cred, heh.)

And I find your ideas really interesting! That does seem to fit the core concepts of the faith a little better. Honestly, thinking about it, guessing at a concrete creation myth at all was probably a bit out of the scope of the article. It seems a little pointless to remove it now, though, since most people who were interested have probably read it already.

Actually, I don't think Shinto's a bad example, if only because it's an Eastern animistic faith that people tend to be more familiar with than, say, the Korean variant.

And ... there's no reason not to tinker!  It's Fanon, anyway, right? And people will likely want to refer back.

Just add a note at the bottom explaining any changes.