Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
- 6.2K All Categories
- 3.1K Everything Achaea
- 1.5K North of Thera
- 26 Archives of the Terraformer
- 257 The Matsuhama Arena
- 885 The Golden Dais of Creation
- 299 The Scarlattan Theatre
- 149 The Blank Canvas
- 2K Getting Help
- 412 General Questions
- 258 Quick Class Questions
- 1.3K Tech Support
- 313 Client Help
- 486 Curing Systems and Scripts
- 841 Off-Topic
- 255 The Wander Inn
- 586 The Universal Membrane
- 298 Class Discussions
- 298 Individual Class Sections
- 20 Alchemist
- 9 Apostate
- 30 Blademaster
- 9 Depthswalker
- 14 Druid
- 4 Infernal
- 20 Jester
- 19 Magi
- 34 Monk
- 11 Occultist
- 8 Paladin
- 7 Priest
- 29 Runewarden
- 18 Sentinel
- 26 Serpent
- 20 Shaman
- 9 Sylvan
Comments
Your statement about there being nothing "forcing" things to be hostile between loosis and targ can be said for Mhaldor and Targ, or Targ and Hashan. It's painfully obvious, and I feel dumb for having to point it out. All my sighs
There is no such obvious and justifiable explanation for conflict between Targossas and Eleusis that does not require a rather large stretch of justification to make it work. Yes, there are justifications for it, but each one eventually results in a question that has no answer other than "cuz we felt like it." If you can come up with a justification that can give a reasonable and decent answer to any question I have about it, then I'll be glad to go back to the Zelda hole I've crawled out of to argue about this.
That you think that Good's actions are beneficial and see Chaos' or Evil's as not doesn't change how Nature feels about them. If Good is potential like Daeir said then you could easily subvert the current sort-of-neutral-to-Good attitude Nature has by saying the potential Good espouses is an unNatural diversion and must be eradicated.
You don't have to force the antagonism, you just have to realize that the things your see as essential to the world in your RP aren't even seen as a positive at all to some people. It reminds me of the old Church who would go one about protecting all of Creation and Forestals saying if everyone just went away we wouldn't need protecting. There are valid arguments that any non-Nature organization is actively harming Nature merely by its existence, so in the mind mind of Eleusians Good and Nature shouldn't be co-existing in the long term, though granted the are practicalities to observe.
Following through that, it's actually Targossas who caused the most harm in recent times by subverting a river and building a huge and lavish city on the land. In comparison, Mhaldor exterms now and then, but even without rejuvenation the forests would recover in half an IG year.
Now you can talk about Good all you want, but it all boiled down to a theocracy subverting Nature and then harming it to build what is essentially a massive tribute to their Deities. There's really not that much difference between Targ and Mhaldor from an Eleusian point of view, with the exception that Mhaldor is openly hostile and Targ instead used PR to turn Eleusian pacifists against the leadership (whether intended or not). Both have aspects that can relate to Nature, but the main obstacle will always be that Targ built a massive city, displaying they don't care about Nature enough to show moderation.
As I said before, most people don't comprehend Nature's ideals, or their endgame. If the Nature faction 'won', it'd mean the end of 'civilisation'. As much as there are carebears in Eleusis, there's no denying that Nature can be unforgiving, it wouldn't be just prancing around the forests in the nude. If you wanted, you could argue this wouldn't be much better than Evil's endgame. The strong devour the weak in Nature, after all. You just need to look past this idea of Eleusis just having a "death cult" and understand that this is what the Nature faction really means.
Lastly, @Aegoth is either trolling or just wrong, but Nature sided with Yudhi in the Reckoning because Maklak froze the entire natural world, slowly killing all natural life. Yudhi's burning didn't make us switch side, it made it harder because a lot of Eleusians refused to help an "arsonist" even if it meant watching their charge slowly die to the frost. It's not like they didn't know, they were told this by Gaia, by the dryad queen, by the forest spirits. They just thought they knew better than all of them or thought they could find another way. The Sentinel HL actually prohibited his entire House from participating for the first few days. What a time.
- With sharp, crackling tones, Kyrra tells you, "The ladies must love you immensely."
- (Eleusian Ranger Techs): Savira says, "Most of the hard stuff seem to have this built in code like: If adventurer_hitting_me = "Sarathai" then send("terminate and selfdestruct")."
- Makarios says, "Serve well and perish."
- Xaden says, "Xaden confirmed scrub 2017."
Daeirs point is that a divine mandate has to be made because there has to be a mandate from our divine that this is worth the time or effort. So the best way for that to happen is Artemis and Deucalion calling each other twats and having a dick measuring contest.
Penwize has cowardly forfeited the challenge to mortal combat issued by Atalkez.
If it's not obvious, the real reason was just that you did the shrine thing after I became Dawnlord and the other things before I was Dawnlord.
Some people tried to react to the shrines with the same typical response of "they're not our real enemies" and I just shut it down and said that you are.
Targossas's hesitance to fight a city that wants to destroy them never made any sense to me though. Not a change of heart, as much as a change of leadership.
This is just BS. It's been made VERY clear that everything Eleusis does aggressively is the will of Gaia and Artemis. Targossas just chose to repeatedly ignore it because there are pacifists in Eleusis who don't believe Gaia and Artemis should rule them. Eleusis has done pretty much everything they could to escalate. Targossas just needed to respond.
Some of this discussion seems out-dated though. If people haven't noticed, we raid Eleusis regularly now... and Deuc seemed okay with it.
Daeir, on the other hand, is saying that Targossas is a theocracy and so if you want to change Targossas' IC direction you have to go through their Gods to do it, because the Gods are the one who determine that.
I'll say again that yes, Eleusis has done everything it could to make Targossas an enemy. And we did respond, we raid you guys plenty and have at least raided once in a blue moon since you started attacking us. However, none of that is ever going to get Eleusis written into our canon as a main enemy, and thus, Eleusis will continue to remain bottom priority from an IC stand point, even if we raid them more often due to their superior numbers, like Farrah stated above.
I'm not really sure what we're arguing about anymore. I think what people disagree with is this:
Targossas used to refuse to raid Eleusis because it asserted they weren't enemies at all. You seemed to be saying that's reasonable and is still the case. People are saying you're wrong: they are an enemy and we acknowledge them as such now.
Nobody is saying they're the #1 enemy, though. Neither is Evil, imo. We just aren't in a "retaliate only, and beg them to be friends" relationship with Eleusis anymore. They're enemies.
When it comes to "canon," I think we've been trying in general to not define our ideology based on our enemies, so I don't really like the idea of "canonical enemies" I guess. I'd say Good is what it is, anyone who gets in the way of what we want to achieve is an enemy.
But I don't think anyone is really disagreeing with you on that to the extent that we do have "canonical enemies." I just don't think that really matters, or even influences who is a priority for us. Who is a priority is dictated by practicality and present circumstances. So if Eleusis presented an imminent threat, they could easily be our #1 priority with the idea being we dispatch them to remove the problem so that we can then get back to dealing with Chaos, Evil, and Darkness, which may present consistent threats, but not necessarily the "most imminent one" at any given time.
I don't understand how the city I lead operates on a leadership/city direction level? Now you're just being an idiot and insulting me.
A theocracy doesn't require divine action for everything. It just means the gods are ultimately in charge. The Dawnlord is literally appointed to be the mortal representative of their will. The Dawnlord can definitely make changes to the city. Otherwise, the city would be utter crap if its gods ever went dormant.
If the gods tell the Dawnlord no, then yeah, it's out. But they don't need to declare war or shit to make it valid.
I literally called Eleusis an enemy directly in Targossas news, and Deucalion said the typical "your reasoning is sound, I am pleased." So how are you telling me we can't call them an enemy? That makes no sense. Don't "yikes" me.
In the event of a situation that you speak of the hands of Eleusis and Targossas, or any other city, are now tied. We are enemies and to oppose that idea is antithetical to the oaths one takes. It's black and white, no takebacks. By leaving it up to the individual cities about how they undertake the nature of this conflict you have more options.
You can have people in Eleusis and Targossas both that rally for peace on both sides, you can have warmongers who begin conflicts with their counterparts in the other city, and you have the ensuing conflicts between the peaceful types and the warmongers. The dynamic can be fluid, and graceful, and fun. Our inability to recognize that and seize on it isn't a testament to the weakness of the conflict, but to our necessity to be spoon-fed content.
Let the situation evolve naturally, as it is now, and you can look back on the unfolding story and say 'I helped make that'. Rather than @Deucalion coming out with a flaming pitchfork and shoving it into places that don't shine and forcing your hand. I prefer the first option.