<<< Don't they need a role model, protector, and leader as well? >>

Not if they are on the side of chaos.

Daython

This always degenerates into an arguement based on relativism. Which is a fancy word for doing whatever you wish to do because you want to. You can dress it up all you want by making "rules" or a "code" for it. But in the end it is still relativism. At the beckon call of anyone who wishes to dismiss anything they do not care for.

So, I pose the simple question. What was meant by the term chaos in the guild leader speech? What is your basis for determining this? What in game material do you have to back up your position?

Daython

<<This always degenerates into an arguement based on relativism. Which is a fancy word for doing whatever you wish to do because you want to. You can dress it up all you want by making "rules" or a "code" for it. But in the end it is still relativism. At the beckon call of anyone who wishes to dismiss anything they do not care for.>>

This sort of argument is rather circular, as each side does the same thing. Side one says "This is what I have concluded from such and such a perspective." Side two states "Well your conclusions are incorrect and invalid because my conclusions from a different perspective are correct." Side one states "But isn't the fact that you needed my side to even make the comparison make my side valid?" Side two states "no your side is not valid because, my side shows it is invalid." -- Sounds to me like the Gouldian arguments against adaptationism...

<<So, I pose the simple question. What was meant by the term chaos in the guild leader speech? What is your basis for determining this? What in game material do you have to back up your position?>>

The question can go both ways. Everyone interprets things the way their worldview, or cranial functioning allows them to. What makes one perspective more valid or "correct" than another is simply the majorities decision, or that which is sanctioned by the government.

--Just a Squire

>> Don't they need a role model, protector, and leader as well?

This was exactly the point I was trying to make with my previous thread... personally I don't see why only some gods are the "correct" ones to have champions and protectors.

Chaos is the absense of order, as in no structure or rules. However, every god in Elanthia has goals and preferred behaviors, so although they may clash, they all would have their own rules for followers. Even those who wish to bring down the established governments or agencies have their own order, it is just different than the existing one.

>> What makes one perspective more valid or "correct" than another is simply the majorities decision, or that which is sanctioned by the government.

Wow, that is a very dangerous attitude. Take a look back at places like Nazi Germany, where the government and majority deemed it right to persecute and exterminate people based on their religion. Or look at slavery in colonial America. DeToqueville warned of "the tyranny of the masses" for just this reason. Just because a belief is sanctioned by some established order or supported by the majority in NO way makes it correct. Be careful what you buy into...

<If you take the time to read my post in its entirety, rather than look for
something to react towards you would see my points were backing up yours, not
opposing them. In fact wade through the past 2 years of posts between myself,
Daython, Brittony, Blasword, et al. and you will see you are on the same page
as me.>

unfortunately they just recently deleted the archives :(

OK so it seems you cannot wade through previous posts on these issues. That really sucks, I was going to collect them when things died down in RL and work on getting an in game book published on the topics at hand. Ahh well such is life.

--Just a Squire

was going through some files and found this old post of mine. i edited it a bit but its pretty much the same as when it was posted (though there might be something cut off):

********


before i start out, a couple of things

1. dark is not evil. evil is not dark. dark might not be a desirable thing in society, but its something that must be part of life. why should the gods care about society.

2. there is a difference between justice (according to the gods) and justice (according to mortals).

3. in none of the holy scripture is there ever any mention of any god actually being against |stealing| (read what i said closely). it isnt said that Chadatru is against stealing, nor Rutilor. it does however have parts where stealing is advocated by certain gods. the only thing in which stealin is denounced is mortal justice. and mortal justice is incredibly flawed and open to abuse.

4. there is a difference between a guild, a guildhall, and a paladin. the difference between a guild and a guildhall is that the guild is an organization under provincial (mortal) rule, while a guildhall is a building linked to said organization and ruled over and presided by a certain person. the guild is supposed to legislate things for its members to require and do. the guildhall can further determine things of people linked to that one guildhall by preaching its own style of teachings (and said teachings are not neccessarily right or wrong). a paladin is considered a member of the paladin guild, however, the paladin also exists without having to be linked to the guild as an organization. if the organization has become corrupt, or even if it becomes a tool of another being (ALL guilds are bound by contracts to provinces because the provinces allow them a place to teach and stay) then the paladin can choose to shun the orders of the ruling members of the guild or guildhall.

with that said, lets dive into my jibberjabber blah blah shackitysmackity talk.


A paladin is a holy warrior. not a town guard, and not soley a protector of the people. not a servant to the city/province/grand puba/whatever. In the end, the paladin only answers to the gods. A cleric of worth can have a special connection with a paladin, as that paladin can devote his/her duties to making sure that said cleric can rise incredibly high and keep away any enemies that would try to hamper the cleric. usually said cleric would be a high priest/priestess. the paladin is NOT obligated to protect anyone from theft, nor chase down anyone for stealing, with a few exceptions: if an empath has been stolen from, and they had not done anything to warrent the action against them, then the theft is an action that disrespects not only the empath and the path they took, but disrespects Hodierna as well. Also, if theft is commited agains the gods themselves (IE, sacking of a temple or of a holy relic) then it is the paladin's duty to chase that person.

Paladins are not required to be courteous, chivalric, etc. However, serving a dark god does not entitle you to disregard any of the responsibilities and duties of a paladin, not even if you serve Botolf. To use any god as an excuse like that is blasphemy and may even put you in a position to suffer the wrath from said god. A paladin is to protect the shrines along with the clerics, kill the undead (which are abominations to the gods) (undead are explained by Alnilam),

****

its a bit messy but it makes its points.

-Blasword

<<< Actually, nothing is further from the truth. With total agreement there is no science. >>>

I didn't say total agreement. My point focuses on those things that must be true and consistent to have science. You can not have science of measure without agreeing on what the measurements are. You can't build on someone elses work unless what they did is written to a standard framework that you can understand, duplicate, then refine.

<<< adaptationsists were able to fashion more riggorous methods to test their hypotheses. >>>

An agreement by those in the know of what something meant and how it would be judged. Which is a fine example of my point.

<<< Saftey on the cliff affects only you (unless you fall for 1000 feet and land on someone else). What is moral, just, evil affects everyone. >>

Speaking of not reading the point. The point is you want an agreed upon definition of the term "SAFE". If you question it further, you want an understanding of what the person telling you means by "SAFE". I agree some words and concepts are much harder to reach a consensus upon, but that should not stop the endeavor, nor end the need to find out what is meant. Which is exactly, precisely, undeniably why I ask the question, "What do you mean by chaos, what did the guild leader mean by it and how do you come to this determination?"

<Yet, those who oppose this viewpoint simply argue "no it can't be that way because thats not how it works" >>

I mostly oppose the viewpoint, yet that is not what I have ever said in anyway shape or form. I have focused mostly on what must be true for some veiwpoints to exist and be believable. As I reference the Hodierna RP with the light cleric "FORCED" to serve a dark aspect. That is the most inhibiting occurance yet in the realms. It forces the concept of grayness. It stated simply that in order to have the positive aspect the negative aspect "MUST" be appeased, not maybe, not possibly but "MUST". Even if this is a DR "truth" it certainly should not have led to the "FORCED" service, there were plenty of negative aspect folks chomping at the bit to do the deed. But, they made it essential to the RP that a light, positive, must become dark, negative.

Daython