I'm bored! So here we go. I was thinking of How Oneiros could be the 'God of Peace' without being a pansy and ignored. I've figured it out!!

The Pillars of a Peaceful Society

Peace is not something easily attained. Once it is attained, it is even more difficult to maintain. In Order to maintain a peaceful society, one must first build the supports necessary in order to do so. These supports are the Pillars of Society: Values that will serve to uphold and protect Peace. The Pillars of Society are as follows: Order, Benevolence, Integrity, and Wisdom.

Order

Order is vital to maintaining Peace. Disarray breeds dissent, a lack of trustworthiness in leadership, and inefficiency. Those who would strike out against order must be harshly dealt with, for they are a detriment to growth and progress. Order must be kept by whatever means necessary.

Benevolence

People have nothing to fear from a Benevolent leader. Provide necessities for the people, and allow them to grow and expand culturally, and they will have no logical reason for dissent. A benevolent leader puts his people first. He responds to their needs accordingly, and grants their wishes within reason, if he is able.

Integrity

In order to maintain his leadership, a leader must be beyond reproach. Leaders must not allow poor moral choices to remove the trust of his people. Without Integrity, a leader is naught but harbinger of disorder. In times when a leader's integrity has been compromised, he must be accountable for his actions and humble himself before his people. If he has been benevolent, his people may grant him a second chance.

Wisdom

Wisdom comes with time and experience, but is very necessary to maintain peace. Wisdom is what allows one to know the difference between right and wrong, to preserve his integrity. Wisdom allows one to maintain order and make healthy decisions for his people. Unwise leaders may attempt to practice the other three pillars, but without Wisdom on their side: even if it is the wisdom of an Elder or a trusted ally, they will surely fail.

-------
-------

I imagine Oneiros not going out of his way to fight anyone, but he will seek and encourage fighters to join him, as they are necessary to 'maintain order'. If this Oneiros to awaken, I can see him quickly being pasted as 'weak' by Shaitan and Appolyon. Rather than saying 'It's peaceful to not fight back' he'll be like 'You are a detriment to Peace and must be eliminated.' On the same note, Shaitan and Apples might not care so much, as with everything but the Benevolence part, Mhaldor pretty much has get it covered. I can see him not liking Pandora and being indifferent to Babel. Chaos, unlike chaos, doesn't Inherently disrupt order (and thus peace), so he'll let it be.

if I think of anything else, i'll add it. Enjoy!

I was pleasantly surprised.

So your answer to how to make peace viable while not weak is to make it a stalinist peace.

Oh no! You mean, someone could possibly roleplay a character in Achaea that may cause negative consequences to himself while still having fun? This is an outrage! I suggest you try to undermine their authority and re-establish your status quo.

On a serious note, I actually was surprised by this as well, but I don't see it as being compelling enough for the average Achaean to work toward becoming one of his followers.

Wait... what is everyone surprised about?

My first thoughts when I saw a former Ouranian Cyrenian posting about Peace was, "oh great, he's gonna denounce all forms of violence despite this being a combat game and say some mumbo jumbo about kindness being the highest goal of any sane person".

You didn't say any of that at all!

I think that was a cheap shot, but I'm not sure about what or why. The character portrayed is a dictatorial style of peace. Leaders above reproach for any actions because they do it in the name of peace and order by silencing any form of dissent. I think a Divine to have teaching that support all forms of brutal dictatorships is as needed as using the teachings of Strife to promote griefing.

Right, because a brutal dictatorship has never gotten Achaea anywhere.

... Nowhere at all, right?

It hasn't created any avenues of potential roleplaying?

Some might hypothesize that... if a brutal dictatorship were to exist in Achaea, it could possibly be fun for a certain archetype of character...

No, I bet you're right. The only thing that can and should exist in Achaea is Shallam, led by the Crystalline Circle.

I think you misinterpreted a huge part of the ideals. There's no dictatorship mentioned in the post, he specifically said that leaders should be benevolent, and held accountable for their actions.

I also don't understand why you think having divine that endorse brutal dictatorship is a bad thing. Wouldn't that describe Mhaldor and the evil gods?

I don't really see the need for the Order of Peace to go around to go around asserting its will. There are plenty of other potential divine who could (and should) be doing this.

There is a reason Dralian is (was?) Shallamese, and it's not because he wants to be Good.

Enough Dralian-bashing, I suppose. My point is, I don't understand why people consistently stand in the way of people creating roles in this game that may only potentially harm themselves. Those who were against Rho, save a few select people, almost constantly whined about him here on the forums. "He'll ruin the game! I didn't spend all my money on skills just to be excommunicated by a madman!" Few people realized that Rho could care less if he was deposed, as long as it took place in-game and perpetuated a storyline and a series of changes that he created. I'm sure he was bitter for a few days afterward, but let's face it... whose story is more compelling, the guy who resigned peacefully after making a few cosmetic changes to the Church, or a guy who swept in, revolutionized an entire facet of the game and was then promptly chased down with torches and pitchforks?

If a person wanted to someday run with this role and be a guy who advocated some kind of brutal dictatorship, with the ideal of a "greater era of Order and Peace" in mind, good for them! If it fails, it fails. It didn't hurt you one bit.

Ninja'd by Sena

You're being a whiny little - and I'm trying hard not to go to 4chan and get material to picture grief you per my initial leanings. Last I checked, I was Crystalline. The House isn't even sure of that, I doubt I've said more than a sentence or two in a couple decades. You can justify anything by calling it roleplay. Griefing orgs because you can could be roleplay if you call it that. Robbing newbies once they hit level thirty because you can is roleplay if you call it that. Brutal dictatorships are roleplay but they serve to crush others, even on their own side, for the flimsiest of reasons. That is roleplay, but it doesn't tend to be useful. Working with allies or not is each roleplay. Are you getting it through your head? Maybe? Roleplay is playing a role. Anything can constitute roleplay or other avenues of such. Dictatorship are fun for a few but not most because the dictator is using their constituents to crush everyone else. Dictatorships did not get Shallam anywhere. I was opposed to war with Ashtan not because it wasn't a good stance from an rp perspective, but that we weren't prepared to do so. We didn't have the bodies, much less the trained bodies. We didn't have any supplies stockpiled or any plans thereof. Shallam's current level of strength in the world has as much to do with 90% of Mhaldor's skilled players going dormant than any great strength of a Dictatorial stance.

Aww man, and I really didn't want Dralian to get flamed anymore, either.

Sure, that would work for Evil, but it seems very out of place for Peace.

@Danith You started the flaming. I don't mind a good argument now and again and the forums could certainly use one.

There are two problems with that, Dralian.

1) This forum isn't supposed to be for flaming, hence why I backed off.
2) Your last "point"? It was full of so many flaws that I'm afraid you will be picked off like a piece of roadkill for even posting it.

I agree, brutal dictatorships wouldn't be the best choice for Oneiros. But you're the one who brought up dictatorships, the OP suggested the exact opposite.

The forums are very boring now. Per your second response, you just accused me via PM of spending time in a house in Hashan. My subdivision house is in Cyrene. I didn't want to walk to Eleusis or be a security liability in Shallam so I built there. I hate Hashan. If they would make darkbrew in Cyrene, I'd be just fine with dropping a meteor on that city. I really can't stand it.

Well, Neraeos, I tried to get him out of your forum and into something more private and accommodating, but apparently he wants to keep humiliating himself. Next, I bet he's going to say that autoclass is good because you shouldn't have to hate Mhaldor just because you're a Priest.

Your kind do amuse me. There's your way or snugglebunnies and you must have some sort of epileptic fit if you think of there being anything in between.

Oh god shut up

You wouldn't say those nasty things, Gorlasintan, if you hadn't been raised in a brutal dictatorship.

You did quit in a fit of rage after you didn't get enough support for your hard line. We really thought you were going to go Empyreal. Instead you went Mhaldorian and quietly tried to get your friends to quit the House and join you. I think Eldar did.

What does that have to do with anything? o_O

EDIT: My leaving had very little to do with the Crystalline being useless.

And now we disillusioned many live charmed lives drinking kitten blood over in Mhaldor.

Mhaldor's population is made up at least about 80% of malcontents from the other cities.

Patches?


Patches!


NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

"Outer fighting is necessary to maintain inner peace." I like it. I could see Him opposing Pandemonium.

This.


Also, Talesinger, why I am surprised was Mardosi's stance against celebrating fighting in Cyrene, and it sounds like Oneiros would be all about celebrating, not only the upholding of peace, but the destruction of disorder. You just kind of showed me that you are not always your character, and it was a genuinely spectacular new twist on something most people take for granted to be boring.

Oh, okay I see. Thank you. I'm glad you enjoyed it.

It's a well thought-out idea and in principle I like it. I'm just not sure why it's something that must be applied to Oneiros.

The diagnosis this idea seems to come from is: 1. Oneiros is the god of peace who is against violence. 2. Achaea is a game that draws interest from conflict, part of which is violence. 3. This form of conflict/violence must therefore also subtly be brought into Oneiros' realm.

While this is certainly a reasoning that makes some sense, it still doesn't quite fit for me. If "peace at all costs" is principally inconsistent with the Achaean world, just let the god and order die, rather than reducing the realm of peace to a theoretical goal, while practically consisting of the same setup of fighters and non-fighters as other orders, doing essentially the same amount of fighting. If "those who strike out against the order are harshly dealt with" and order is kept "by whatever means necessary", there will be almost no actual differences in the behaviour of followers of Oneiros and followers of other (neutral) gods, except using the phrase 'You are a detriment to Peace and must be eliminated.' instead of 'You are a detriment to Nature/Evil/Freedom/Goodness and must be eliminated'.

I think -if- there is a god/order of peace, they shouldn't care about being called "weak", they should seek a non-violent solution to all forms of conflict, etc., even if it means they are hunted and killed a lot. Sure, it may not work out in the long term and die out, but I'd rather have this than every realm being washed down to some normal middle ground. I'm not saying it should be absolutely violence-free in all cases (even though it may be). I -could- also imagine a form that seeks a non-violent solution in every case and only uses violence when there's really no other possibility. But 'You are a detriment to Peace and must be eliminated.' and the "order at all costs" ideas seem too extreme to me.

This Oneiros idea, with a little tweaking, would be the perfect patron of the Dawnstriders (as far as alignment of ideals, not practicalities yet). Out to destroy all that challenges the peace, which they struggle to maintain, and prepared to stand as silent sentinels to guard said peace, it would allow for another strong RP divine who would be able to take an active role in world conflict.
The more I think about this idea, the more I like it.

@Iocun: I agree that is one way that the order of Peace could be played; however, Mardosi's idea seems to bear more merit in the scheme of Achaea's actual political and combat climate. He would be this militant good that so many people are so desperately wanting. It's kind of the idea that when you want something, you have to work towards it - if Oneiros wants peace, he'll have to fight to get and maintain it. (Not feasible from an OOC standpoint, but Oblivion isn't either, really.)

Yes, as I said, I agree with the concept, just not that it must be Oneiros this is applied to. Militant good definitely has a place in Achaea, but the combination of "God of Peace" and "militant" just makes as much sense as a pacifist god of war. If you reduce the realm of peace to "ultimately wanting peace, but using whatever means necessary", then a great number of Achaean gods could be called "gods of peace" in a sense. All the Good gods are pretty much for peace, as far as I know - just with the condition that for this to happen Evil must be eradicated first. They are ultimately for an ordered, peaceful society, pretty much like Mardosi described, they just are ready to use violence against Evil to obtain it. So if Oneiros is to be more a "god of peace" than all the other Good gods, he should also set himself apart in his means, not -merely- the goals.

But as I said, I find Mardosi's concept very good. I'd just give it to another god, with another name and a differently named realm, and let Oneiros rest in peace (lolpun).

We disagree, but I yield to your excellently crafted pun .

If this could be somehow implemented as the ethos of Cyrene, or at least an ethos with some influence within said city-state, it could surely work wonders. If Oneiros came a-ragin' in with this as His stated policy, and allied Himself with Neraeos or something...well, I don't know, maybe that wouldn't work, but...something along those lines, anyway...

This has deliciously Orwellian possibilities. Kudos, Mardosi!

How about a Pillar of Diplomacy?

No.

Being 'Diplomatic' isn't inherently a good thing. Someone can be a horrible diplomat. But by practicing the Pillars as they are, Diplomacy should fall in line, because how you interact with others will affect your people, so your relations with others must benefit your people somehow, or there's no point in it.

Naturally, as the God of Peace, Oneiros (as I see him) would at the very least attempt diplomacy before violence. Once you say no though, it's on like donkey kong.



Thank You!

I tried to do this for Scarlatti, but I couldn't think of anything. Though, as it stands, I think Scarlatti is fine as he is. It's okay to have one completely neutral god.

Bambi would have a fit.

You don't define what Peace is in achaean terms, only certain attributes that might or might not lead to Peace and are not specific to that realm anyway. It is not really a sufficient set of beliefs upon which to base a character's life philosophy.

And what could she do to us?

And I think Alban has the right idea. A God and a group of followers taking steps TOWARDS an era of absolute Peace is more compelling than a God coming right out and saying "don't hit, children". That's where you could incorporate some of these strange "Orwellian" concepts to what you do in-game and in your organizations.

I meant that as a plus.

I think it would be cool if there were a divine like Oneiros who was publically all about peace and love and snuggling and happiness, but was really pursuing some hidden nefarious agenda known only to a select inner circle. He'd then wield his army of devoted snuggle-bunnies to bring the world crashing down, and they wouldn't realize until it was too late.

The whole thing would shoot round AIM in about 5 minutes.

I like that idea as well, but not so much people behind a god, as a select few unexpected people who have been silently manipulating things behind the scenes. Being behind a divine, regardless of Benevolence, seems to overt.

You could call them "The Nerai".

THERE IS NO CONSPIRACY!

The Nerai are the Achaean Illuminati?

Who is the Achaean Hulk to smash them?

Yeah, I suppose it'd be pretty easy for word to get out and have everything come crashing down. Still, I like the idea of people being tricked into working for a cause, and then having the rich roleplay opportunities that come with realizing what's going on when it's almost too late or is too late.

Me too, I'd love it for this kind of thing to be possible. I guess it still is, but you'd have to be super-careful with who you chose to be a part of it.

Yeah, but I think you're right: the probability of it ending in lameness is pretty high compared to the probability of awesomeness.

lol, Achaean slogan.