: Okay, in one of the threads below SiliconDream, in a fit
: of pique, demanded to know what my theory about the
: Leveller and the champions was. Personally, I think he
: was just afraid that I was going to blow his theory
: out of the water altogether. (j/k), ;-), etc.
: In point of fact, I like SD's theory a lot--it holds up
: pretty well even after I've spent days trying to poke
: holes in it. And, frankly, it doesn't contradict my
: theory one bit. For the sake of completeness, however,
: I'll outline my ideas here and anyone who wants to can
: fire at will.
And let me just say...ouch. I thought you were proposing some relatively minor variation on my own theory, not a completely different theory that turns out to be very convincing. Ouch again. :-)
Now, there was lotsa storytelling stuff in your post, which was great, but not something I could really respond to point by point. So you'll have to forgive me for snipping the rest and just listing a few points of your theory--some big, some small--and responding to them. Let me know if I'm misrepresenting you anywhere. My arguments generally concern relative probabilities, since you (very impressively) never put forth anything which is immediately disprovable by textual evidence.
Your points:
1. The Leveller's agenda is to effect zero population growth and a balance of power between the Young Races on the Mythworld.
Now, the most obvious evidence for this theorized agenda is that the Leveller periodically tries to kill almost everyone--but then, that's the evidence for pretty much every theory of Leveller psychology, since that's what he's famous for doing. :-) So two important questions are: does the Leveller take actions that might promote a balance of power and retard population growth *besides* killing a whole lot of people, and does he refrain from taking actions that disrupt the power balance and increase population growth?
With regard to the first question--it seems to me that there are many things the Leveller could do to further his hypothetical aims without behaving like the psychotic Lord of Darkness he seems to be. He could encourage zero-population-growth-promoting cultural qualities--availability of contraception, glorification of abstinence, a legal limit on the number of children one could have--either by possessing a cultural leader like the Great Hero and influencing him to work for societal change, or by selectively attacking and destroying the cultures which possess such qualities to the least degree. The Leveller could encourage a balance of power by attempting to sow discord and distrust between *all* the younger races, so that no race was inclined to ally with any other. This, he does not do.
Concerning the second--the cycle itself destroys the possibility of a balance of power, I think. Every thousand years a big mean guy appears, takes control of certain races, and attacks all the rest. It's inevitable that a) the races he took control of will remain politically affiliated, as the Dark, and that b) the races he attacked will band together for defensive purposes, as the Light. Thus the Leveller promotes political polarization and the development of two main power blocs. Furthermore, it's thanks to his wars that the Light and Dark races are determined to wipe each other off the face of the earth. The Krids would never have been exterminated if Moagim hadn't made them such a threat that their extinction was a matter of vital import to the humanoid races. With respect to the matter of population growth, the Leveller's attacks generally hit the least technologically advanced segment of the population hardest--the city folk, armed with cannons and magical artifacts and whatnot, have a much better chance for survival than the poor peasants, who get wiped out every time a Krid pack wanders by or a necromancer wants to combat-train his undead. In this way the Leveller indirectly encourages a high-tech culture which is most capable of exhausting the resources in its environment and, therefore, is most likely to experience a population spike followed by a crash and ecological disaster. I'd also point out that while the Leveller does admittedly use more non-reproducing beings than the Light (Trow, Fetch, undead, Mahir), he also encourages the races *most* likely to undergo disastrous population growth--Krids and Ghols. Both, if made dominant, could very quickly and easily exhaust their entire resource base, due to their high mobility and rapid rate of reproduction (according to GURPS, both Ghols and Krids achieve maturity at an early age.) Yet the Leveller repeatedly works to provide these races with dominance in the Dark Ages--he gives the Ghols the Dwarven lands, and hands the entire continent over to the Krids, who have a high probability of eating everyone else, then eating each other, then not being there anymore. It doesn't seem safe to me.
2. The Leveller does not provide its host with physical power, nor does it convey information to him symbolically; rather, it provides him with visions and enhances his perceptions.
Though GURPS doesn't say that all the Levellers were in some sense the same being, the Epilogue does. I don't see how they could have arrived at this conclusion (after all, they don't consider the Heroes to be the same being) unless the Leveller avatars considered *themselves* to all be the same, and expressed this at some point, and also clearly shared some common knowledge. Which means that the Leveller probably conveys direct information to its Avatar, on what it is and what its purpose is.
I agree, though, that the Leveller doesn't provide its host with power. In fact, maybe it drains him a bit! That would explain why, when a young Leveller and young Hero fight, the Hero always wins; and why, when a young Hero fights an old and extra-powerful Leveller, the Hero's at least able to accomplish their mutual destruction.
3. Connacht was the Mythworld's greatest hero ever.
I dunno. Tireces seems to me to have accomplished more; he pioneered the use of sorcery against the Leveller, founded the first city in the Mythworld and enabled the creation of the Cath Bruig empire. Connacht simply preserved the empire. The Trow were already weak, and wouldn't have been a major power in the future anyway, since they were regressing technologically and did not breed; the Zerks were fighting alongside the Bruig before Connacht appeared and the Dwarves were already allies of humanity back when the empire was founded. In fact, Connacht seems to have done very little, politically--he only ruled for a year before turning his attention to the matter of magical artifacts, and 29 years later he stepped down. (Compare that to Alric, who's ruled happily for 60 years so far.) It's pretty unlikely that he wanted to keep ruling but left to avoid the Leveller, since he must have known the Leveller wasn't supposed to reappear for at least a few centuries
But I suppose you're speaking in terms of what power level each of them ended up at. Connacht did have more stuff--all the artifacts Tireces left behind, probably, plus the new stuff he had made--and he did oversee an empire, even if he didn't do more to achieve it than Tireces had to achieve his goals. I guess I'd say that Tireces was a more capable hero, but Connacht had more to work with. I don't know which the Leveller would prefer to inhabit.
4. Connacht changed his name to Balor in order to elude the Leveller. Hey, I told you some of the points were small. :-)
Why did Tireces change his name? And why didn't Connacht go back to his original name once the Great War started?
5. Balor thought he was a nice guy.
I still don't buy it. Balor destroyed the entire empire because he needed the Ibis Crown? Why would he attack anything other than Muirthemne? It's not like some farmer off by the Cloudspine was going to help hide the crown from him.
I grant you that he wasn't completely evil--he didn't actually *want* people to suffer, it just wasn't that important to him--but I don't think he was ever planning to rule a grateful populace. If that's what he wanted to do, he could have just come back as Connacht. Or knocked out a few centers of government and claimed the commoners; it's not like they would have dared to say no.
6. Alric exploited Balor's weakness by using an unprecedented strategy.
You make a good point that Balor didn't expect his opposition to be wily tacticians, though I think that applies equally well to any Leveller--they're all former Great Heroes who triumphed over a more powerful foe through intellect. But I don't think Alric did anything unusual by amping himself; every successful Great Hero that we know of has enhanced his own power through magic, as Connacht did with the Tain and Tireces did with...whatever he used to immobilize the Leveller. All are momentarily the Leveller's equal--that's how they manage to kill him, right? Connacht slew his Leveller personally, so I'd say that he was, at the time, superior to the Leveller. Nor was Alric's sacrifice of his army surprising--given that the Leveller always dies, pretty much every pre-Dark Age Great Hero must do the same thing, desperately sacrificing his remaining forces so that he can dispatch the Leveller before dying himself.
In fact, nothing of the Great War was really surprising except the bit right after Balor's death, wherein Alric unaccountably failed to die. Whether this miscarriage occurred because he was smart enough to evade The Head's trap, or because Balor, subconsciously hoping for a Light Victory, bound his forces to himself, I dunno.
7. The Sword Age is a Dark Age for Ghols.
I disagree with this. The Ghols own half the Dwarven lands, and according to GURPS they're planning to improve their quality of life--something they never thought to do before. They've also got a major technological boost and the freedom to range over the deserted Cath Bruig. If they play their cards right and behave themselves, they might be a major and accepted power by the end of the millennium. Or they might just piss everyone off and get stomped on, of course. But then they'd only be back to where they were before Balor appeared.
Well, that's all I have at the moment. Obviously, nothing that threatens to destroy your theory--just assorted possible weak points. I'd like to say that's because I'm a big fan of constructive criticism, but I must admit that I just wasn't able to find a way to cripple you. Grrr...
On a side note, you've got reams of talent at telling stories. I'd be interested in seeing that novel of yours once it approaches completion.
--SiliconDream
