SPaG
Where are you taking us?, you think of asking, and of refusing to follow without more clarity.
Improper punctuation.
"Where are you taking us? you think to ask, to refuse to follow without more clarity."
So, head bowed, you come forwards.
Incorrect verb tense, and "forwards" is incorrect.
"So, head bowed, you move onward."
Consistency/Flow
There is always that one, solid foundation to retreat to, when you find yourself questioning the nature of whatever thrumming thing has kept you here, in his service; kept you faithful who knows the futility of belief.
This sentence is fairly awkward. It telescopes into two separate ideas at the same time, so it makes it difficult to follow the actual thread of the sentence.
"There is always that foundation to retreat to, the foundation that has kept you faithful." This is the central sentence, but it is lost amidst the flurry of words. In an attempt to make it more descriptive you have succeeded in obfuscating the meaning. This is a very pivotal moment, it is this faith that sustains the protagonist throughout the piece, so this needs to be clear, succinct.
It is critical in tales that the first few sentences hook the reader, give the reader meat to chew upon, a reason to continue. If you make the opening stanzas too labyrinthine, you exhaust the reader before the tale has even begun.
Neither does he look back over his shoulder to check that you are still there, as you turn onto a second corridor, then a third, passing doorway after doorway without even a glance.
This is also awkward. Consider:
"Neither does he look back at you to check and see if you still follow, passing through the palace/complex/building/castle/fortress without even a glance. He knows the merit of those that he leads, he doesn't need to verify that his request has been followed."
Occasionally inscrutable, if he has drawn himself into a complex web of plans and considerations and temporarily forgotten that you do not follow every path of his thoughts; that you take as a sign of trust, that he believes your thought processes so close to his own.
This is also awkward and run-on. It is difficult to follow and it doesn't appear to be very coherent. YOU understand what you mean to say because you wrote it, but it isn't always clear to your reader.
Closing Remarks
Overall I rather enjoyed this piece. The glimpses of Ion's mind as he tries to battle with the corruption despite his understanding that he cannot win.
The question remains, however, is that why he would entrust Nälkä to Nadox, knowing that to embrace it as he did would only lead to the birth of another Archon, that the corruption would spread. There is no real plan here, merely the "hey, I can't do this, so I'm gonna die", so it either leaves me with the impression that Ion simply didn't HAVE a plan other than to suicide.
OR Nadox was so inept at handling what Ion gave to him that Nälkä has devolved into the rather piteous version that exists today.
OR that was the plan all along, and thus Ion and/or Nadox betrayed everyone that followed them. "This is wrong, thus it must die, and in death, my people are consigned once again to suffering and death?"
My final piece of advice is to consider how purple the prose is. I am a big fan of this style of writing, but there are many places where the descriptors get in the way of what you're actually trying to say. Take a bit and read it out loud as if you were reading it TO someone. Take a moment and consider every place where you stumble, you might need to revise a bit.
