RuneScape Forum Archive | The Defence of Saradomin

Nerevarine x

Posts: 5,941 Rune Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile

Cybernet377 said :
Lego Miester said :
Sigilius said :
I must admit, I am impressed: you have amassed quite an exhaustive list of justification and propaganda. There is no need to defend Saradomin's actions, the term implies that they are excusable and that he needs to be protected in some way. If he is truly the paragon that he claims to be, let his victims air their grievances and let the chips fall where they may.

But then again, that won't happen, will it?

That's really the sixth age in a nutshell. Saradomin isn't objectively good, Saradomin isn't objectively evil, he just is. We get to come to our own conclusions about him, and decide whether he's a positive or negative influence on the world as world guardian.

B-b-b-b-b-but, what about my opinion?

If we're supposed to individually come to our own decisions about things, how can I force my personal opinion on others by distorting the facts, conveniently omitting information that disagrees with my headcanon, and ignoring arguments that I don't want to answer by accusing the person making the argument of having bad grammar?

I mean, if what you say is true, then the lore forum should actually be discussing lore rather than working towards the noble pursuit of squabbling like children with each other over whose ~~dad~~ god could totally beat up everyone else's ~~dad~~ god.

If you're referring to this thread, the 'Defence of Saradomin', you're misinformed.

I am providing justification for Saradomin's actions with lore or defending him in some way, and as such I do not distort facts (there is clearly quoted lore throughout).

I have also provided all details and information about him, which is why the thread is so long.

If I were to ignore details or omit information then I couldn't defend him very successfully.

16-Dec-2013 07:29:13 - Last edited on 16-Dec-2013 07:30:10 by Nerevarine x

Nov

2023

Lego Miester

Posts: 35,339 Sapphire Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile

Nerevarine x said :

If I were to ignore details or omit information then I couldn't defend him very successfully.

I wouldn't say that you do that anymore. It's shifted since the first thread from "blatantly ignoring information that does not support my main point" to "acknowledging that information, and promptly weaving convoluted excuses and justifications for it"

I don't like the latter either, but it's a huge improvement.

Just one example off the top of my head is the justifications for the wingless icyene's treatment. Everything we have right now is sympathetic from her point of view, and yet you've twisted it until you can justify that she deserved it.

I wouldn't consider that a reasonable course of action until we talk to Saradomin about it, and he says why it's justified and she deserved it, by telling the story from his point of view. Headcanon Haven, where everything is made up and the points don't matter.
OSRS Lore: Xeric
Slepe Tight - Slepe Lore

16-Dec-2013 08:16:53 - Last edited on 16-Dec-2013 08:26:55 by Lego Miester

Nerevarine x

Posts: 5,941 Rune Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile

Lego Miester said :
Nerevarine x said :

If I were to ignore details or omit information then I couldn't defend him very successfully.

I wouldn't say that you do that anymore. It's shifted since the first thread from "blatantly ignoring information that does not support my main point" to "acknowledging that information, and promptly weaving convoluted excuses and justifications for it"

I don't like the latter either, but it's a huge improvement.

Just one example off the top of my head is the justifications for the wingless icyene's treatment. Everything we have right now is sympathetic from her point of view, and yet you've twisted it until you can justify that she deserved it.

I wouldn't consider that a reasonable course of action until we talk to Saradomin about it, and he says why it's justified and she deserved it, by telling the story from his point of view.

The thread is a Defence of Saradomin, so I don't know what you're expecting really. To call them convoluted excuses I think is very inaccurate, a lot of my explanations are completely realistic and valid. By using such terminology you attempt to greatly belittle the effort behind my thread and the lore I present (the thread is 40 posts long because it's thorough).

In regards to Garlandia, it is theorising based on logical deduction, I don't have any direct evidence to show her defiance would have undermined Saradomin's authority. Although, her anti-god bias seems evident. Since we don't have Saradomin's viewpoint, I've devised justification without it, which is the best I can do at this point.

At any rate, if you don't like the justification I proposed for Garlandia, there's always the 2nd, albeit shorter explanation, which does not try to justify his actions and views them as a product of his personality (impulsiveness).

16-Dec-2013 08:35:12 - Last edited on 16-Dec-2013 08:45:40 by Nerevarine x

Jun

2005

Alabaz

Posts: 5,886 Rune Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile

Nerevarine x said :
At any rate, if you don't like the justification I proposed for Garlandia, there's always the 2nd, albeit shorter explanation, which does not try to justify his actions and views them as a product of his personality (impulsiveness).

Occam's razor basically says the simpler explanation is usually correct. In this case it is more logical and requires fewer assumptions to believe Saradomin acted out of impulsiveness again rather than Garlandia deserved what he did to her. The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, Fulton, and the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.

16-Dec-2013 09:25:39

Nerevarine x

Posts: 5,941 Rune Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile

Alabaz said :
Nerevarine x said :
At any rate, if you don't like the justification I proposed for Garlandia, there's always the 2nd, albeit shorter explanation, which does not try to justify his actions and views them as a product of his personality (impulsiveness).

Occam's razor basically says the simpler explanation is usually correct. In this case it is more logical and requires fewer assumptions to believe Saradomin acted out of impulsiveness again rather than Garlandia deserved what he did to her.

Occam's razor would have been incorrect many times throughout history then. You have no way reliable way of discerning which explanation is correct.

It seems very rational that she deserved to have her wings removed, if we think about the repercussions of her actions a bit more deeply.

16-Dec-2013 10:03:15 - Last edited on 16-Dec-2013 10:17:55 by Nerevarine x

Icriulis

Posts: 3,059 Adamant Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile

Bravo, Nerevarine.

Your defense on the Zilyana notes is very comprehensive, objective, and factual. We were told by the lore forumers that Zilyana and Saradomin wiped out the aviansie, when we had no proof of that, then when it's exposed that our good infernal friend did it, everyone shut up. Now this should drive a wrench into their proposition that Saradomin broke an Alliance with Armadyl.

Once more, bravo.

16-Dec-2013 11:08:49

Nerevarine x

Posts: 5,941 Rune Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile

Icriulis said :
Bravo, Nerevarine.

Your defense on the Zilyana notes is very comprehensive, objective, and factual. We were told by the lore forumers that Zilyana and Saradomin wiped out the aviansie, when we had no proof of that, then when it's exposed that our good infernal friend did it, everyone shut up. Now this should drive a wrench into their proposition that Saradomin broke an Alliance with Armadyl.

Once more, bravo.

Well, Zilyana did break the alliance with Kree'arra initially, I don't deny that, but Saradomin is not directly or indirectly referenced anywhere in relation to that. I justify Zilyana breaking the alliance because her sole objective was to protect the Godsword and retrieve it (that's what Saradomin sent her to do).

With Bandos defecting to Zamorak and trying to seize the Godsword from under Kree'arra's nose, Zilyana found it paramount to act and take the Godsword herself, to avoid it falling into the wrong hands. The fact Kree'arra was now distracted fighting against both Zamorak and Bandos made it an opportune time to strike (you'd think) - another factor influencing her choice.

What's important to remember here is Zilyana's duty, the alliance was not a priority.

Soon Kree'arra and Zilyana made peace - which is not a 2nd alliance.

The issue I see lots of lore users bring up is the 2nd "betrayal" when Zilyana ambushed the Aviansie at the rockfalls. As you can see from my analysis though, Kree'arra can be demonised just as much as Zilyana, he was considering attacking her to begin with. Zilyana only ambushed him for that reason.

Most people say Saradomin is responsible for the "betrayal" due to the amulets. Of course, it can't be a 2nd betrayal when it's a truce/peace, it's merely a cessation of hostilities not a 2nd alliance. Many kingdoms throughout history practiced this with one another and descended back into war shortly after. There's nothing deceptive about that.

16-Dec-2013 11:45:38 - Last edited on 16-Dec-2013 12:05:47 by Nerevarine x

Jun

2010

Half Centaur

Posts: 6,959 Rune Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile

When I think of the amulet incident, I feel let down more than anything. I think of it as a shame that those two factions couldn't get along. We would have been so much better off had they. Imagine if they actually got the godsword out of there. If it made it to the wilderness in time. If it made a difference in the assault on Zamorak. The world would be a better place had that happened instead. I think we can both agree on that.

I can't really complain about how Zilyana treated the event though. She was just following her philosophy. I just hate her philosophy. 'The Greater Good' meant getting the godsword at all costs. Allies or not. And that's why they failed.

The whole mind manipulation thing though was rather underhanded, and would probably be considered a war crime, but once again, 'The Greater Good' philosophy justified that. "We call it being a hero"

"That's interesting, we call it utter stupidity"

16-Dec-2013 12:29:11

Nerevarine x

Posts: 5,941 Rune Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile

Half Centaur said :
When I think of the amulet incident, I feel let down more than anything. I think of it as a shame that those two factions couldn't get along. We would have been so much better off had they. Imagine if they actually got the godsword out of there. If it made it to the wilderness in time. If it made a difference in the assault on Zamorak. The world would be a better place had that happened instead. I think we can both agree on that.

I can't really complain about how Zilyana treated the event though. She was just following her philosophy. I just hate her philosophy. 'The Greater Good' meant getting the godsword at all costs. Allies or not. And that's why they failed.

The whole mind manipulation thing though was rather underhanded, and would probably be considered a war crime, but once again, 'The Greater Good' philosophy justified that.

I address the amulets in my posts (really worth checking it out but i'll summarise). It's interesting that there's a lot of evidence indicating how useful they were merely for Saradomin's own army. Zilyana could hear Bree's commands and know when he was in trouble, ordering him back to base.

Bree commented that when wearing Armadyl's amulet, power radiated from his bow. Zilyana says that it would be particularly useful for Kree'arra's spearmen to wear them. Why would Saradomin deliver amulets for use against the enemy when they empower their abilities?

The only thing I can think of is that it would attract them to keep wearing it.

Zilyana notes that "More amulets appear each day", suggesting there were more than just three of them in total. Could their purpose be more widespread, to be given to numerous Aviansie warriors to strengthen them?

And what did the other two amulets do, perhaps they drained the abilities of Bandosian and Zamorakian forces when used.

16-Dec-2013 13:06:22 - Last edited on 16-Dec-2013 13:19:44 by Nerevarine x

Nerevarine x

Posts: 5,941 Rune Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile

As for being able to listen to the Armadyleans, could Zilyana not use this positively in a battle? By knowing what they are doing amidst the chaos, she could support them appropriately with reinforcements or devise a better strategy.

The amulets could have been used co-operatively with Armadylean forces, it's possible. We don't know the true intent behind Saradomin providing the amulets to Zilyana.

If we were to assume Saradomin's intent was to undermine Armadyl's forces, then I still argue it doesn't matter anyway, he can't be blamed for a betrayal since both parties were only at a truce, they weren't allied.

The ultimate goal for Zilyana was the retrieval of the Godsword, and Saradomin assigned her with that mission himself. So if he did send the amulets to control the Armadyleans it would be for the greater good. The Godsword would be safer in Saradomin's hands

Perhaps the amulets were another questionable or difficult choice he had to make at the time, or maybe he does not regret it at all.

16-Dec-2013 13:06:35 - Last edited on 16-Dec-2013 13:18:57 by Nerevarine x

Forums

The Defence of Saradomin