There is no contradiction between Myth I and Myth II Avatara and Shades. We already worked on melding the Shades, now let’s see about the Avatara.
Avatara:
Myth I:
“The Nine powerful sorcerers who lead the Legion against Balor and the Fallen Lords. Because of their years of training as magic-users and strategists, they tend to avoid melee combat but can be vicious when they have to be. Each Avatars carries a sword, and knows how to use it. Each Avatar has a unique magic ability.”
Myth II:
There isn’t anything so specific as a reference manual, which sucks (damned Bungie…), so we can only gather from some basic information. Basically, it seems to indicate that only the Nine can be Avatara, and Avatara can only be the Nine. The Nine were groups throughout the Four Ages. This does not contradict with the TFL definition in the slightest.
Shades:
Myth I Manual:
“The reanimated corpses of long-dead sorcerers, Shades take great pains to avoid running water (since they can only cross it by using a bridge) and act as a conduit for the evil magic of the Fallen Lords.”
Myth II Strategy Guide:
“These reanimated Avatara corpses are very tough customers” is the first line here, and essentially the same in the Myth I Strat. Guide.
I believe, as some, this is a misinterpretation of the Myth I line, the same that most make, as we have. It seems more likely that evil sorcerers, long ago, agreed to be made into Shades. The process rendered them dead then made them undead, reanimating them. Everything coinsides now with Turquine’s flavor, that of Shades being originally evil sorcerers.
These two things are pretty great victories we Asylumites have recently accomplished in coming one step closer to an ultimate goal of a fully continuitous storyline. Forrest, can you make some kind of sub-site where these things are listed? It’d sure be easier than looking through Delusions, which doesn’t exactly show a complete accomplishment list. Are there any other offhand victories or barriers that have been broken by the Asylum in the past anyone can think of offhand?
