​The next set of temple relics are on the right side of the main hall. When the Mundanes renovated the temple, these relics were identified as significantly valuable to Fiosachd. My interpretation is that they each represent a unique quality of Fiosachd that distinguishes Him from his two enemies and opposite deity.  

Aosdan Magic Scope
​
​

This ancient device is a remnant of the great civilization from which it originated. It allows the user to observe the properties of an object that are invisible to the naked eye. The eyepiece lens is connected to a pathway that leads to the inside of the base. The object must be placed underneath the base of the instrument.

​The instrument is immensely useful for merchants who want to determine the authenticity of items for trade. Magic scopes such as this one allow the user to observe the magical properties of an object. It is unknown whether any other Aosdan scopes have been recovered or preserved. 

One possible interpretation of this relic is that it symbolizes the technological prowess of an advanced civilization prior to its descent into darkness. It can also be interpreted as Fiosachd's fascination with material value, which contrasts with with Cail's rejection of material value. From Cail's view, freeing oneself from their attachment to armaments and worldly possessions reduces dependency and increases natural strength. From Fiosachd's perspective, this lifestyle limits one's true potential.

​The thematic contrast between the temples of Fiosachd and Cail is quite striking. As seen blow, the Shrine of Cail is clearly symbolic of Cail's detachment from material objects: 

Cail's Shrine is replete with nature and biodiversity. This environment invites visitors to meditate and engage in self-reflection as opposed to appraise the value of material objects. It is also quite fitting that the large, light-pink lotus plant is grown here, as that plant is known to symbolize non-attachment to material objects according to many Cail worshipers and herbalists with whom I have spoken. Supposedly, this is because the plant is always clean and untainted by the muddy waters from which it grows. The muck represents the world that the plant has detached itself from, and by rising above it, the plant has grown naturally stronger and more beautiful ((to avoid plagiarism, I am acknowledging Buddhist philosophy as my source for the symbolism of the lotus flower: William E. Ward, ​The Lotus Symbol: Its Meaning in Buddhist Art and Philosophy, pages 135-146)).

Empowered Phoenix Necklace



​The Empowered Phoenix Necklace is an upgraded version of the Phoenix Necklace, which is obtained from Heavy Canal Treasure Bags. 

As previously discussed, many sectors of the Abel economy are prosperous, and the blacksmith trade is no exception. Steinar, the Abel blacksmith, endeavored to forge the plans needed to upgrade the Phoenix Necklace once it was learned that the necklace is uniquely malleable. To this end, Steinar enlisted the aid of wizards and rogues in Abel. 

The Fiosachd clergy members agreed to fund Steinar's ambitious project in exchange for the very first crafted Empowered Phoenix Necklace to be exhibited at the Shrine of Fiosachd. After Steinar graciously accepted the offer, the Fiosachd high clergy saw it fit to bless Steinar and his group of assistants with a Greater Geas. Steinar's assistants were even given privileged access to the Aosdan Magic Scope, which helped them to determine the items needed to upgrade the necklace.

Upon completion of the geas, Fiosachd himself consecrated the necklace with his touch, which explains the additional dexterity for this particular Empowered Phoenix Necklace (see below). When the Abel Mundanes renovated the temple, they sanctified the Empowered Phoenix Necklace as one of Fiosachd's Treasured Relics. Given its power, the necklace could one day prove particularly useful for young hunters if Steinar ever agreed to help Aislings craft additional ones. 

​Here is some lore about the Empowered Phoenix Necklace:

Statistics: 

• Level: 50    
• Armour Class: -2  
• Mundane Value: 30, 000, 000     
• Durability: 4,000    
• Weight: 1    
• Attributes: +30 Regen, +1 Dex (exclusive to the one exhibited at the Shrine of Fiosachd), +5 hit, +3 dmg
• Offensive element: (depends on element used in upgrade)

Items Required for Upgrade:

• Nadurra Necklace* (1)
• Basic elemental necklace of choice (Earth/Water/Fire/Wind/Dark/Light) (1)
• Finished Hy-Brasyl (20)
• Phoenix Necklace Upgrade Plans (1)
• Gold Coins (25, 000, 000)

* The Nadurra necklace is needed to transmute the properties of the Phoenix Necklace into a form that can be enchanted with an element.

In terms of symbolic value, this relic represents fortune and probability, and the interplay between those two concepts is luck. The Phoenix Necklace is obtained through treasure hunting (Aislings can obtain a Phoenix Necklace if they are lucky enough to find it in a Heavy Canal Treasure Bag). 

Similar to the Aosdan Magic Scope, the Empowered Phoenix Necklace can be interpreted in a way that contrasts Fiosachd with his enemy. ​Deoch's imaginatively unbound nature engenders chaos, which is defined as complete disorder and confusion. Chaos is the force that undermines probability and fortune. The nature of probability presupposes that there are fixed parameters in existence that dictate the outcome of events.

​Outcomes cannot always be predicted, but the probability of each outcome can be deduced from repeated observations. This is how treasure maps are created for certain hunting grounds, like Andor (e.g. it has been confirmed that Enchanted Earrings only fall on select floors). Without an underlying uniformity of nature--the idea that reality operates in a law-like manner--the pursuit of knowledge, and the application and exploitation of that knowledge to achieve one's ends, would be futile. Naturally, then, Luathus and Fiosachd are pitted against Deoch and drawn to Gramail.

Chaos is symbolized by the destructive force of fire that devours everything in its path. The ability to tame that destructive fire and bind it to one's will is what increases the chances of things to go one's way. Those who conjure fire must isolate the element from anything that would allow it to expand beyond its demarcated realm (a metaphor for the Darkness that actively seeks to expand beyond His Realm). 

This theory would find some corroboration in my research on the idyllic dreams experienced by Fiosachd Trinity worshipers from outside the temple. In my discussion about the external appearance of the temple, I noted how the scorching billow of smoke that emerges from the treasure chests in Asilon Prairies evokes images of Deoch--"the whimsical spark of chaos that would boldly dare to emerge from the chest to devour your health and fortunate." Fiosachd inspires his followers to do everything in their power to control the variables that may impede their progress, such as dropping one's gold to the ground and carrying Exkuranum before unlocking a Prairie chest.  When the rules of the game are consistent, one can learn to master the rules and understand the probability of each course of action leading to a favorable outcome.

Royal Crown



There is no other relic that is veiled in more secrecy than this crown, which appears to be a remnant on an older civilization. There is no leading or dominant theory about the relic's origins in this case, but the architects believe that it originated from Aosda.  

The Gramail clergy are exceptionally knowledgeable about the history of Aosda and the Aosdan deities. I learned this after attending one of Britli's masses. Britli gave an insightful sermon about Gramail's formative years. After mass, I picked the brains of some of the clergy members who were present to learn more about the Crown. Many of them found that the appearance of the Crown matched the description of the crowns worn by members of the aristocracy. 
​
I am more confident about my interpretation of the symbolic value of this relic. It would be very fitting if this relic truly did originate from the early stages of the Fall of Aosda. The purple, velvet cap on which the pristine silver arch rests serves as a premonition of the impending evil that threatens to corrupt an innocent, prosperous city. 

Building on this interpretation, the relic can also represent the contrast between Fiosachd and the deity that is opposite to Him on the octagram: Glioca. I am well-aware that I have just departed from what some might consider mainstream theory about the relationships between the Temuarian deities. It is necessary that I explain my rationale for why I presuppose that Glioca and Fiosachd are opposites. This sub-topic could turn into a stand-alone philosophy entry, but it is an inextricable part of my exposition of Glioca and Fiosachd's relationship.

On the Opposite Relationships:

The basis of the more commonly accepted theory about the opposite relationships of the deities stems from Chloe's seminal work, Reflections on the Interactions between the Gods. Chloe illustrated the following octagrams:

The only aspect of Chloe's interpretation with which I disagree is the opposite relationships (I do not contest the alliances and enmities, which are clearly well established). The theory that I support posits that there are four types of relationships between the deities: alliance, enmity, neutral, and opposite.

A neutral relationship is indicated by two deities sharing one mutual ally and one mutual enemy, which is neutralized by both of them being allied with one of the other's enemies. Unlike the other three types of relationships, an opposite relationship is unique in that each deity only has one, which means there can only be four in total. An opposite relationship is indicated by one of these two conditions: X is allied with the enemies of B or X is an enemy of the allies of B (if one condition is true, then so is the other by definition).

For example, Ceannlaidir is opposite to Cail, who is allied with Glioca and Luathus (Ceannlaidir's enemies) and an enemy of Fiosachd and Sgrios (Ceannlaidir's allies). Ceannlaidir's neutrals are Gramail and Deoch. Now, I did not invent this theory myself, as my siblings have heard it discussed by lecturers in previous philosophy classes. 
 
Since the theory above is not widely accepted, I must defend it. According to Chloe's interpretation of the octagram, Fiosachd is opposite to Luathus and Sgrios is opposite to Glioca. 

The first issue with Chloe's interpretation is that opposite relationships would change based on one's literal point of view. Suppose the octagram were drawn into the sand with a stick (as portrayed above) and one stepped right over to Glioca's position: Cail and Deoch suddenly become opposites. This may seem like a shallow criticism, but consider that the alliances and enemy relationships would remain unchanged; something here is inconsistent, and that should raise a red flag. But, consider more deeply 'opposite' in terms of the nature and virtues of the deities.

There should be a meaningful philosophical justification that justifies an opposite relationship. War and armaments are naturally incompatible with harmony and natural strength, and creativity is incompatible with rigid, steadfast adherence to rules. But what about the other two opposite relationships? Death and decay seeks to consume all, but the plant of knowledge is the one thing that escapes its clutches, continuously growing as it is passed down and nurtured from generation to generation. Knowledge is an eternal process that defies the cycle of death and engenders the progressive development of civilization (and, effectively, mitigates the influence of death and decay of all things and people within society). And lastly, rule egoism (a concept that I will elaborate upon below) is in constant tension with altruism.

These deeper, philosophical concepts appear to be lacking in Chloe's interpretation of the opposites: 

On Luathus' opposite: "Fiosachd, Pure luck. Heavenly inspiration, and its use, has no place for chance."
On Fiosachd's opposite: "Luathas, Divine Knowledge. The followers of Luathas are slow, steady, and reliant on the gods for their well-being, while Fiosachd prefers to take hasty chances and trust in the unsure." (Chloe, Reflections on the Interactions between the Gods).

The issue with the above interpretation is that it is tenuous and inconsistent (comparing pure luck and heavenly inspiration and then slow, steady contemplation and hasty risk-taking).  Why would Fiosachd encourage rash decision-making? Risk-taking is not necessarily out the equation, but blindly assuming a risk that one is unsure about is chaotic from Fiosachd's perspective, and it is a foolproof way of sealing one's fate in battle. 

I can anticipate some counter-arguments to my theory. Yes, I must concede that it would be intellectually dishonest of me to pretend as if the author would not have fleshed out more substantive arguments to defend her perspective if given the opportunity. And, yes, some of the readers may disagree with the philosophical justifications I have presented. Inevitably, we would go to class and engage in an epic battle of mental gymnastics by trying to make as many tenuous connections as we could to support our interpretations. So, are we forced to rely on the criminally underused phrase, agree to disagree?

No, I would preemptively argue that because of the importance we place on the nature and virtues of the deities as factors that determine their alliances and enmities (this is even implicit in Chloe's work), it is logical that each deity would be drawn to the enemies of their opposite deity. I would also go on the offensive by inviting my critics to account for the void that is left by rejecting my theory about the four types of relationships. There is a unique relationship that naturally results from the alliances and enmities: each deity is allied with the enemies of another deity, and there are exactly four of these relationships. What is the significance of these connections? We cannot ignore this giant Elemus in the room when theorizing about the relationships between the deities.
 
I am aware that other scholars have modified Chloe's interpretation, some of which defy the laws of parsimony. Dartanian Lestor interprets opposites on the octagram as deities that are directly across from each other (as have I, indirectly, as a result of my theory about the four types of relationships). However, Dartanian interprets the positions of the deities based on the location of their temples in Temuair. As Dartanian writes,

...it is sometimes difficult to see how it relates. It is important to remember, though, that the other is the interaction of the gods with each other. The mundanes building the shrines saw them as a bridge. The bridge was one that tied the gods with man. And thus this octagram creates its pattern and begins to make sense. (Dartanian Lestor, the Holy Star: Fall and Restoration of the Holy Temples).

Dartanian's interpretation makes more assumptions that involve the position of the temples--this does not in any way make his theory less true, but it certainly makes it more complicated. Dartanian also alleges that opposite relationships exist between allies. For example, Fiosachd and Ceannlaidir are opposites, with the rationale that "pure luck" is incompatible with "military tactics and planning". It is hard to accept that allies would be "diametrically different or contrary" in some fundamental way, which is the definition of opposite. One cannot counter this by arguing that these authors are using the word opposite in a different sense (e.g. only to talk about positions on the octagram) because they all clearly employ this understanding of opposite. They appeal to the nature of the deities to justify why they're opposite. 

Since I have belabored my theory about opposite relationships enough, I will move on. Let me just summarize: an opposite relationship should be indicated by one of two conditions: X is allied with the enemies of B or X is an enemy of the allies of B (if one condition is true, then so is the other by definition). Why should we follow this rule? Because of the importance we place on the nature and virtues of the deities as factors that determine their alliances and enmities, it is logical that each deity would be drawn to the enemies of their opposite deity. Overall, the benefits of my interpretation are that it is logical, consistent, and abides by the laws of parsimony compared to other interpretations. 
      
On Rule Egoism:

I will now return to my discussion about the symbolism of the Crown relic. Recall that I stated that Glioca and Fiosachd are opposites. In Fiosachd's case, He naturally embraces the nature and values of Gramail and Ceannlaidir, but there is no compassion to be found in a strict application of the law and the survival of the fittest in the battle (both in terms of strength and ingenuity). 

The cultivation of wealth and treasure naturally invites one to emphasize their own welfare and interests. From Fiosachd's perspective, selflessness is irrational and unproductive. The path to damnation is paved with good intentions--this is the adage that is symbolized by the Crown. Recall that the purple, velvet cap on which the pristine silver arch rests serves as a premonition of an impending force that threatens to corrupt an innocent, prosperous city. ​The prosperous and industrious town of Abel was built on the self-interest of merchants and tradespeople.

Fiosachd's will is driven by rule egoism. While egoism is the idea that one's own interests should motivate their actions, rule egoism is a refinement of that theory: one ought to observe the established rules because their adoption would be in one's interests ((to avoid plagiarism, I credit John Hosper for developing the concept of rule egoism in ​the Personalist, page 393; however, the definition that I articulated above is a different version of the concept, which I call strong rule egoism (not to be confused with strong rule utilitarianism))). Recall that we place importance on the nature and virtues of the deities as factors that determine their alliances and enmities. Also recall that I demonstrated why obeying laws and codes of honor flows naturally from an Fiosachd's alliance with Gramail and Ceannlaidir, respectively, in my discussion about the Trinity Relics. As Wuhao eloquently explained:

What is wealth without a society to place value on it? What good is gold if it cannot be spent somewhere? What good is a mansion if it is going to be burned tomorrow by looters? Which would explain Fiosachd's placing of importance on abstaining from theft -- if one does not follow laws, they contribute to the death of society. And with the death of society comes the death of wealth. (Wuhao Mythrin, A Beginners Guide to Theology).

Now, everything comes together as a neat formula: Gramail + Fiosachd + Ceannlaidir = rule egoism.

​The merits of prioritizing self-interest might be difficult for some to grasp, so I will take the opportunity to expand on the theory. When everyone follows their self-interest, they are guided by an invisible hand that leads them to unintentionally and efficiently accomplish what altruism fails to do. For this reason, the poorest of a richer society are generally better off than the poorer of the poorest society ((to avoid plagiarism, I am acknowledging Adam Smith's the Wealth of Nations as an obvious inspiration for my work)). 

How many archers were loured to the high floors of Andor because of egoism vs. altruism? The former should include one's personal connections (e.g. lovers and siblings), but I understand that not everyone would agree with that categorization. At the very least, egoism and altruism can be treated as a spectrum rather than black-and-white categories, and that would better represent the tension that exists between these two tendencies. Suffice it to say, hunters did not spend countless days in Andor to anonymously donate their items to random strangers in Pravat.

Fruitlessly begging on streets in an attempt to pull the heartstrings of strangers is generally ineffective (and outlawed in all towns). Not only is begging dishonorable, but giving away our wealth away to random beggars with whom we have no personal connection is inconsistent with our natural tendencies. Furthermore, wealth is not created when beggars are given what they have not earned. When the price of Green Tonic increased, many Aislings were motivated to generate more wealth by either competing (which would bring the price of Green Tonic down) or exercising their comparative advantage.

​By comparative advantage, I mean finding some profit-generating endeavor that, while perhaps not as profitable as hunting deep Andor, is the best alternative option. Pursuing this alternative option would enable one to eventually generate enough resources (gold or other tradeable assets) to buy treasure from the Andor hunter. Perhaps the best alternative for one Aisling is making Creant sets or hunting gold. If the Andor hunter spends their time hunting Creant sets, then the Andor hunter loses more value. Why? Because the Andor hunter would be sacrificing the opportunity to do something comparatively more valuable: hunting deep Andor. Again, this is the invisible hand that guides the self-interest of every individual to create more wealth in society. 

No matter which perspective (altruism or rule egoism) you believe has merit, my goal here was mainly to establish the tension that exists between Glioca and Fiosachd from the perspective of Fiosachd.