Rilandria, you act as if the Fae and Serenwilde are "good", there to be protected and certainly not harmed, why? The Fae aren't good- or light- oriented. The Fae and the ones that use them in battle are the people that could have saved the entire population of Old Celest...when Princess Marilynth of Celest destroyed her city to protect the Holy Supernals and Celestia, Serenwilde's high priestess only saved a single furrikin, while she had the power to save the entire city, with all its denizens and citizens, she let your entire city burn in the explosion without lifting a finger.

She said: “With Celest gone, the last of the Empire will be too. The time for the ‘civilized’ age is at an end and we can go back to the purer time when the forest communes oversaw the healing of the Basin of Life.”

So I can't really understand your point of view of it being outrageous Erion and his followers acted as they did.

The view of the Serenwilde ancestors is that no one is innocent, I could give ya some quotes to prove that .

A child possesses innocence whether Tainted, Celestian or Serenwilder/Fae. Prove me wrong other than one line of the Priestess that was most likely intended for city folk as well as adults because every time Lolly mentioned city folk is when she would state no one is innocent.

good and evil is a matter of opinion and perspective.

No. It's not.

Yes it is Rafael - its only in books and online games that there tends to be a "solid" definition of Good and Evil, that usually comes only halfway close to OOC terms for it.

No. You can't make up good through your own opinions. Good is one thing that's the make-up of many deciding factors. Good is someone who's polite, someone who looks after others, or defends those others who're Good or Innocent who cannot do so themselves. It's these things, or parts there of, and many other factors that make someone Good.





By this faulty logic I could kill an innocent, and say it was my opinion that it was the right thing to do, or that I didn't see it as being Evil, and still be considered Good. That's wrong, you cannot damn or kill, or otherwise harm the innocent. There is no cause for killing an innocent in any situation. You do not define Good, what you are defines if you're Good.

So then by your own statement, Magnagora could be good because we defend the villages that we control whether they be Stewartsville or Delport or what have you? Surely you can't consider them evil merely for pledging resources to Magnagora? Good and evil truly is opinion. If I defend Mangagora and the Plane of Nil then I am good because I have fought for my cause but to you my cause is evil. We could debate theology all day but really we are just running in place.

So then by your own statement, Magnagora could be good because we defend the villages that we control whether they be Stewartsville or Delport or what have you? Surely you can't consider them evil merely for pledging resources to Magnagora? Good and evil truly is opinion. If I defend Mangagora and the Plane of Nil then I am good because I have fought for my cause but to you my cause is evil. We could debate philosophy all day but really we are just running in place.

I don't call villages evil for supporting you. Save for Acknor and Angkrag, which is why I'll be leaving Celest if they ever influence them. I agree, they're not evil for resourcing you, I think they're misguided. Further, your cause is not Good in respect because the eventuality of it is to see the end of all life in the Basin, whereas the end for my goal is prosperous life for all who serve under the same cause, or take a neutral stance. If you can give me conclusive evidence the Light is aiming for something else, I'll find a new place to go.

I think that Celest should not and does not fill the role of "good". In many ways, I would ascribe the role of "good" to Serenwilde moreso than anywhere else, since they don't go around killing every nonSerenwilder in sight -- yet. As a Celestian zealot, Iridine will not pause at brutally slaughtering the Tainted, and if need be, she will slaughter those who work for the Tainted or even those that get in the way of the goal of spreading the Light. As far as Iridine is concerned, Rhysus is the perfect leader for Celest, he holds a no tolerance policy against the Taint, he's arrogant, good at commanding people around, and yes, he seems a little bigotted... I've had trouble figuring out how Iridine feels about that, but it certainly doesn't impede the fact that he makes the perfect leader for the ideals that Iridine would like to see Celest follow.

As a player, I've pushed no tolerance against the Taint because I don't want to be a part of a snuggly huggy city that wants to frolic in the sun all the time. If the Taint ever ends, Iridine will lose her purpose. Luckily for me, that's very unlikely.

Something I've had trouble with, a lot of trouble, is the fact that because of this no tolerance and constant fighting and defending... There's no time to actually develop or spread any of these ideas. For weeks, I'd written no description of Iridine, only had a general idea of her background, and had had no time to develop anything about her beyond the fact that she really really wants to fight the Taint, and will give her life over and over again to do so. As time goes on, time is becoming even shorter and shorter for these kinds of things. Iridine never stops fighting, questing, or guarding. That's all she does. And in a way, it fits her character, but it makes it extremely hard to find anything else that fits her character. Because of all the conflict, which can create great RP opportunities in smaller doses, we are losing the ability to RP. This is even an issue for a zealot that wants to fight, god forbid somebody actually try to RP a pacifist in any of the cities.

Define good and evil? I believe good is idea that others needs/wants/rights/whatever are as, if not more, important than your own. Evil is putting the rights/needs/etc. of yourself above those of others.
Every action has a motivation, and from that it is determined whether the action is good or evil. It is not the action that determines good or evil, but the motivation.
If I defend a village because I believe in and wish to uphold the villagers right to exist, that is an act of good.
If I defend a village because they are too damn weak to do it themselves and as soon as the fighting is over they had better get back to work and provide me with an income, then that is bordering on evil.
If I don't defend the villagers and allow them to be slain because I know that when the fighting is over I can hop in there and raise them as undead, and that is better for me seeing zombies don't eat much of my profits and they don't need to take breaks for things like sleep, then that is definately an evil act.
As Rafael said, you don't choose what is good or evil, it is something that is independant of you and your opinions. The only people outside of good or evil are the completely insane, they act WITHOUT motivation, and that is the basis of such things as the insanity defense.

Although I certainly can't speak for her, I don't think that is what she has been saying at all. Celest is under nearly constant attack from Magnagora. It seems incredibly unwise to provoke Serenwilde into action against us at a time like this.
This whole mess was an incredible mis-judgement by the Celest leadership. It was hasty and poorly thought out. The only thing that was going to be certain about this ill concieved plot was that killing fey was going to make Serenwilde very mad. This was not difficult to see. It was a grievious error and someone must take responsibility. The responsible parties must be punished and restitution made to Serenwilde.
If we are true servants of the light, justice will be done.

Good and evil is all in perspective - there is no inherant good and evil, its just what people think of as good and evil. If you slaughter a random person, you may think it is good. Therefor, it could be perceieved as good.
However, ones oppinions do not change others. A passerby may perceive this act as evil, and to him it would be evil. To you, the act would be good. In reality, it would be neither good nor evil.
Many people have roughly the same thoughts about what is good and evil.
Just my oppinion. Everyone entitled to their oppinions, even if they are wrong -g-.

Good and Evil are concepts, not opinions. You don't decide what they are just as you don't decide what color the sky is.
Ever heard the term "a necessary evil"? If good and evil were just perspectives that term would not exist, simply because anyone who's opinion it was the the evil was necessary would feel that it wasn't evil at all but simply necessary.
I don't want to get into a philosophical argument, but good and evil is the realm of philosophers, not psychologistists. That should tell you something about it straight off.

Anyone else notice how Celest and Magnagora topic degenerates into Good and Evil?

Good anbd evil are relative terms/concept until you have a higher power defining the two for you.

Just becasue most of the world sees most thinsg teh same way, doesn't make them to be that way.

you may call murdering a man and eating him evil, but a canible would surely see it as proper.



Yea. Unfortunate isn't it.

Everyone has their own perceptions of good and evil. It just so happens that a lot of the world have a relatively common perception of what is 'good' and what is 'evil', with some minor exceptions. Your second example that is "bordering on evil" nearly perfectly describes feudalism, the prevalent government choice for several centuries. So everyone in those centuries were "bordering on evil" because of the government system? Doubtful, a lot of them viewed as quite a reasonable exchange. They get protection during times of war for part of their produce. Times change, values change and with them people's view of good and evil. You are taking your OOC views of the subject and applying to IC situations.

Sorry, but I feel I need to disagree. Good and Evil are eternal, archetypal, symbolic concepts. Individuals, societies and cultures determine what is right/wrong, acceptable/unacceptable within the framework of Good and Evil.

As for the Celest/Magnagora debate "degenerating" into good vs evil, that is only natural. Most players are from "western" countries with strong judeo-christian backgrounds/cultural influences. The creators have chosen to present this imaginary world with particularly strong emphasis on the symbology and imagery of this culture.
We see references to the Light, Angels, Good Works, Justice and Harmony, Sacraments, Holy Powers.
On the flip side we see references to Demons, Taint, Conquest and Domination, Necromancy, Disease and Destruction.
All these things have very strong connotations towards good and evil within this cultural framework. The "degeneration" is only natural.

I ALWAYS find it funny how people can take IC conflict and take it seriously on the board. I hold no hard feelings against any IC enemies here, or against Celest, etc.

Although not a city leader, I've been, since the beginning, trying to steer Magnagora away from the Mhaldor/Stavenn stereotypical evil city. Hell, Rexali doesn't bash at ALL, he influences.