Talk:Danik

Emma Bishop
Currently rereading Ruse. Does anyone know how Emma Bishop from Ruse fits in here? She has orange eyes at times but I'm assuming she is not an aspect of Danik, even though she is a mentor to Simon Archard. According to the plot synopses for Negation: War #3-#6 she was assigned to Simon mainly because of his cathedral, used as a safe place for all the Sigil-Bearers to meet up. She and Simon are allowed to continue their lives investigating the mysteries of Partington and Arcadia just as the others go to war. I don't understand what she is. A regular human? And what of Simon? He has Danik's avatar on his cane. And, I think, a tie pin. Is he the aspect of Danik? He was an orphan. Maybe a Transitioned Atlantean who fell from grace or whisked himself back into human society after realizing they Transitioned wrong? Wanted emotions again? Then we have Cassie. Too-Too is the Aspect of Danik. But Cassie recieved a sigil given to Atlanteans. The clarity sigil of Danik's. Can it only be given to Atlanteans or descendant's of Atlantis? Or is Cassie just a regular human and given the clarity sigil because she already possesses a gift and the sigil is for those with powers already, just as the Atlanteans, Capricia and her gang, already possess incredible powers? Hope someone reads this and can answer. Eauxry


 * Where did you get clarity sigil from?


 * Mark Alessi and Gina M. Villa wrote the entire crossgen history (over a million years of it apparently) before the first crossgen comic even went to print so there could be huge plot twists that were never published and that were just getting started. Emma could be anyone and we probably will never know. As for Cassie well thats just out of it, but given that Gammid could restore a Sigil-bearers powers in the negation universe (and he and cassie have the same sigil) it would make more sense (when fighting a war) to have Sigil-bearers that are kinda like doctors of sorts to help the warriors, it could be posited that Cassie was one of many whose purpose is to re-align Sigil-bearers in negation space.


 * Also, where did the Sigil-bearers as an army to fight transitioned atlanteans come from. I have every crossgen comic and have never heard mention of this. Hence my edit. Savre 06:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * On the CG boards, we called the Crux sigil (Danik's personal sigil): the clarity sigil, because Gammid said something about clarity in Negation (or was it Charon?)and it gave clarity to everyone's madness (the Australians) and everyone's powers (Atlanteans in Crux).


 * Yes, the sigil-bearer's were originally supposed to fight the transitioned Atlanteans, the group that etransitioned Danik removed himself from to ultimately go on his own and supervise Solusandra. Reread the last book of Solus.  Danik tells Solusandra this on one of the last five pages, I believe.


 * Saval has orange eyes in SIGIL. He is an aspect of Danik.  The creators killed him off in the first issue of Brath because they were anti-the Big Picture (sadly to say) and wanted Brath to be a comic that followed it's own course, so they killed Brath's mentor.  Stag-god is Solusandra.  Not Danik.


 * The Hound from Solus, Ghetan from Meridian, and Obo-san's mentor from The First and The Path are all aspects of aspects. They were all aspects that split off from previously existing aspects, i.e. The Hound from First-like Danik (who is NOT transitioned Danik, but an aspect that appears to be a god of the First), Ghetan from the Muse of Giatan, and Obo-San's mentor, the old monk, from Enson.  That is why I originally had them all listed as "aspects of aspects" and not just "aspects of Danik". I try to be very thorough and accurate in everything I write about Crossgen on wikipedia and also include what is speculation when it is speculation, as not to deceive the reader.  Those are not speculations, however.  It's in the books. : )


 * On a personal note: I'm glad more people are editing Crossgen stuff now besides Rewinn, you (Savre), and I.


 * Eauxry 07:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Crux11.jpg
Image:Crux11.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 13:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)