It depends on the exact tenants of the Two-Fold but I consider myself solidly Lawful so I would have difficulty performing pure chaotic action without a purpose. Will be neat to see worshippers running around and having their secret meetings.
It depends on the exact tenants of the Two-Fold but I consider myself solidly Lawful so I would have difficulty performing pure chaotic action without a purpose. Will be neat to see worshippers running around and having their secret meetings.
I don't believe that good can't exist without evil. It's not a choice between one or the other. If you look at your day to day life you'll see that many choose the more neutral path of apathy and indifference. It is possible for someone to step off of that path and do something good without a hint of evil in sight.
At the same time doing what is acceptable is not good or evil, it's the norm. Killing someone you randomly come across would be considered evil by many but not killing someone is acceptable behavior. That doesn't make you good, it just means you didn't go over the edge and commit an evil act.
So....
Go forth and fight evil. It won't bring more good into the world but it will make everyone feel better.
Yes.
No religion should be viewed as above another. To do so is a delusion born of a simple mind. Each man is born and programmed with a different cultural and religious ruleset. Each is told their beliefs are the true ones. Brainwashing from an early age. Each set of beliefs seems to contradict anothers yet rather than question all of them, man so often learns to lash out. Those beliefs are all too often used as an effective tool for man's unquestioning manipulation.
The world is full of contrast and the blind, not questioning what they have been told or how little grounding they have. Where they do question they are often led to believe they are doing the wrong thing. Without blind obedience there is no control.
Man needs to recognise the value of diversity but also of unfettered thought. If you seek truth, you won't find it through brainwashing. Even balance though has its price.
There is no good and evil. Only that which benefits and that which harms. Sometimes even these can be misunderstood, yet guidance is all too often misplaced. Society and culture all to often provides all the answers for what should be viewed as good and evil yet these messages all too often conflict within individuals and groups.
It is in mans nature to seek comfort and perceived benefit, yet too much is a bad thing. Chaos and adversity have their own roles to play in mans growth. Without darkness most do not recognise light.
Is entropy evil? Balance wouldn't be a creation of bad or good but i think just empowering what is most neglected.
Neither Karsha nor Negrath will be likely to go out of their way to fight evil. Negrath will cast his vote in local affairs when given the chance, and otherwise perform his trade to the best of his economy and ability. He will, however, try not to be one of those people who walk past a person in the street to avoid 'getting involved'. Karsha will be likely to choose the better part of valor should she stumble across an altercation, Unless unarmed women and children or small animals were in danger...and she should stand a decent chance of surviving an engagement with the endangerers.
Your disgusting heathenish degeneracy will fall, and Virtori will remain as the true religion.
The one thing I can say is that I do want to PvP (in the traditional beat someone over the head sense). I will get bored without it eventually.
So, whilst I would prefer to hunt murderers and defend my territory, if it comes down to it I will raid neighboring kingdoms if I am not getting the fight from elsewhere.
Idle hands are the devil's playground.
Posted By Oracle at 01:44 AM - Tue Apr 11 2017
Yes.
No religion should be viewed as above another. To do so is a delusion born of a simple mind. Each man is born and programmed with a different cultural and religious ruleset. Each is told their beliefs are the true ones. Brainwashing from an early age. Each set of beliefs seems to contradict anothers yet rather than question all of them, man so often learns to lash out. Those beliefs are all too often used as an effective tool for man's unquestioning manipulation.
Couldn't disagree more.
Some beliefs are acquired by life experience, not what we're taught. Sometimes a person perceives life experience validating what they were taught. Sometimes refuting it. We can question their passions and reasoning all day. The 'cultural and religious mindsets' you mention are not static things, but changing. Changing from individual personal experiences. And very often simply trading them from different cultures and religions. None of that falls under "brainwashing at an early age."
You can be a Unitarian and believe all faiths attempt to articulate aspects of Truth. That doesn't obligate you to be devoid of discernment to see some philosophies do a better job at it than others. One can have the wisdom to be humble & admit not knowing which is true or which is 'better.' But there's some obvious irreconcilable differences between belief systems that to declare none can surpass the other implies a lack of logic.
Tradition X believes 'forgive' and 'love thine enemy.' Tradition Y believes 'Banish those wicked from your heart,' and 'to hate them is no sin.' (The traditions themselves are held to be in contradictory context by the tradition holders, so you can't play semantics or theologize a middle ground for them. It's their Traditions and Philosophies, not yours. They're logically inconsistent with one another.)
I don't have to beat you over the head with which one I think is correct. (If either or 'Z' which is something else entirely.) But I respect X, Y, and Z a heck of a lot more than someone who judged others as "simple-minded" and "delusional" when they're the one committing the worse logical fallacy. If it's impossible for any comprehension to be 'above' another, then there is no Truth to discover at all...in which case there's no Truth of Morality either and so no logical utility of the word "should" in language (unbound without 'in order to_.')"
Whatever the solution to blind zealotry is, it sure isn't the intellectual vacuity of moral relativism. It's clear by the rest of your post that you understand that, too. Since you're criticizing zealotry on moral grounds, you've stopped questioning yourself and put your moral beliefs as superior to theirs, contradicting the declaration of your first paragraph. So I hope that's the part of your post you decide to disavow, rather than the rest.
