RuneScape Forum Archive | The Defence of Saradomin

Anenemus

Posts: 2,328 Mithril Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile

It is noble that you are defending the actions of your god, Nerevarine, but not all actions need to be justified. Some things may just be meant to have no justification, and may be intended to have none. Hope you realise that

16-Dec-2013 15:00:03

Nerevarine x

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

Anenemus said :
It is noble that you are defending the actions of your god, Nerevarine, but not all actions need to be justified. Some things may just be meant to have no justification, and may be intended to have none. Hope you realise that

Well, there's always a reason for something.

But, I don't always rely on one explanation. Sometimes I offer a variety to cover all bases.

For example, my Garlandia section has one explanation where I justify Saradomin's actions and another where I don't. Both of them are different yet distinct possibilities.

16-Dec-2013 15:04:41 - Last edited on 16-Dec-2013 15:06:03 by Nerevarine x

Anenemus

Posts: 2,328 Mithril Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile

Nerevarine x said :
Anenemus said :
It is noble that you are defending the actions of your god, Nerevarine, but not all actions need to be justified. Some things may just be meant to have no justification, and may be intended to have none. Hope you realise that

That's why I don't always rely on one explanation. Sometimes I offer a variety to cover all bases.

For example, my Garlandia section has one explanation where I justify Saradomin's actions and another where I don't. Both of them are different yet distinct possibilities. I still defend Saradomin but without finding reasons behind his behaviour.

Yeah, I took the time to read the thread some time back. But unless the explanation is canon, or heard by Saradomin itself, it isnt canon is it?

16-Dec-2013 15:06:53

Nerevarine x

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

Anenemus said :
Nerevarine x said :
Anenemus said :
It is noble that you are defending the actions of your god, Nerevarine, but not all actions need to be justified. Some things may just be meant to have no justification, and may be intended to have none. Hope you realise that

That's why I don't always rely on one explanation. Sometimes I offer a variety to cover all bases.

For example, my Garlandia section has one explanation where I justify Saradomin's actions and another where I don't. Both of them are different yet distinct possibilities. I still defend Saradomin but without finding reasons behind his behaviour.

Yeah, I took the time to read the thread some time back. But unless the explanation is canon, or heard by Saradomin itself, it isnt canon is it?

No, the section on Garlandia isn't canon (I don't like using that term I think it's ridiculous lol). Anyway, I based it on logical deduction and theorising. Unlike most lore users I'm not going to lie and say that section is strong evidence, but it's a reasonable hypothesis and possibility (with no direct evidence from the lore admittedly, so yes it is unsupported.)

In the absence of Saradomin's perspective on the issue or for that matter any lore which provides a differing viewpoint, it's the best I can do for now. This is a Defence of Saradomin thread, I think I did a good job with my justification given the circumstances.

I can appeal to rational thinking and deduction to make my point, even if it isn't as strong as most of my other sections, which do have hard evidence behind them.

16-Dec-2013 15:15:10

Anenemus

Posts: 2,328 Mithril Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile

Nerevarine x said :
Anenemus said :
Nerevarine x said :
Anenemus said :
It is noble that you are defending the actions of your god, Nerevarine, but not all actions need to be justified. Some things may just be meant to have no justification, and may be intended to have none. Hope you realise that

That's why I don't always rely on one explanation. Sometimes I offer a variety to cover all bases.

For example, my Garlandia section has one explanation where I justify Saradomin's actions and another where I don't. Both of them are different yet distinct possibilities. I still defend Saradomin but without finding reasons behind his behaviour.

Yeah, I took the time to read the thread some time back. But unless the explanation is canon, or heard by Saradomin itself, it isnt canon is it?

No, the section on Garlandia isn't canon (I don't like using that term I think it's ridiculous lol). Anyway, I based it on logical deduction and theorising. Unlike most lore users I'm not going to lie and say that section is strong evidence, but it's a reasonable hypothesis and possibility (with no direct evidence from the lore admittedly, so yes it is unsupported.)

In the absence of Saradomin's perspective on the issue or for that matter any lore which provides a differing viewpoint, it's the best I can do for now. This is a Defence of Saradomin thread, I think I did a good job with my justification given the circumstances.

I can appeal to rational thinking and deduction to make my point, even if it isn't as strong as most of my other sections, which do have hard evidence behind them.

Fair enough.

16-Dec-2013 15:16:23

Nerevarine x

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

I also edited the section on Garlandia multiple times, so it may have changed since you last looked at it.

I quote evidence where possible and one thing I did discover from the dialogue is that Garlandia had a anti-God bias prior to the banquet with Saradomin (Mod Moltare also confirms she is biased). Of course, her bias affects how the story is told to us about Saradomin so I scrutinised that as well, which is a legitimate point to make.

16-Dec-2013 15:16:50 - Last edited on 16-Dec-2013 15:17:46 by Nerevarine x

Jun

2010

Half Centaur

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

I did read your post, btw.

Nerevarine x said :
The Godsword would be safer in Saradomin's hands

I'd disagree, but unfortunately Armadyl's track record isn't too good, but I doubt he'd ever make those mistakes again...

I don't really trust your god with powerful weapons, sorry.

Now, I do believe Saradomin gave them with the intention they be used in this way, otherwise he stinks at communicating. The whole 'power radiating' was just a reference to the stats of the amulets, so they were different for each faction, but all of them had perks so each would be continued to be used. "We call it being a hero"

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

16-Dec-2013 21:45:57

Mazakon

Posts: 3,288 Adamant 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.

So, the Saradominist stroking continues.

The reason it's been quiet about that is that Zamorakians weren't all that opposed to the idea is that it was a state of war. However, it's different with Saradomin because his followers were at least working with the aviansie. Then Zilyana went and delivered the amulets which instilled indecisiveness and influence towards the wearer to the other factions including the Armadylians.

You're just looking for whatever you can to try and absolve Saradomin, including this ridiculous idea that because Zamorak did one thing to the Armadylians, Saradomin didn't do anything to them.

The pirates of the Granblue set sail!

16-Dec-2013 22:51:59

Nerevarine x

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

Mazakon said :
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.

So, the Saradominist stroking continues.

The reason it's been quiet about that is that Zamorakians weren't all that opposed to the idea is that it was a state of war. However, it's different with Saradomin because his followers were at least working with the aviansie. Then Zilyana went and delivered the amulets which instilled indecisiveness and influence towards the wearer to the other factions including the Armadylians.

You're just looking for whatever you can to try and absolve Saradomin, including this ridiculous idea that because Zamorak did one thing to the Armadylians, Saradomin didn't do anything to them.

If you read the section you'd see the evidence I present regarding the amulets. Zilyana was not allied to the Armadyleans when she received the amulets from Saradomin, they were merely at a truce or peace - these are often revised throughout a war and in no way is that deceptive or an act of betrayal.

There is no evidence to suggest Zilyana was co-operating with the Armadyleans the 2nd time around, all they did was agree on a peace after her failed attack to retrieve the Godsword initially.

In fact, if Armadyleans insist on labelling Zilyana as a betrayer the 2nd time around, Kree'arra would be no better for discussing the idea to assault Zilyana's base FIRST (she only ambushed him because of that.)

Really, the only issue is Zilyana double-crossing Kree'arra during the first alliance and that's a legitimate point.

17-Dec-2013 04:49:50 - Last edited on 17-Dec-2013 04:53:12 by Nerevarine x

Nerevarine x

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

But, as I explained her central mission was to safeguard the Godsword and retrieve it all costs, and to that end her idea to attack and seize the initiative was for the greater good.

As far as we know from the lore presented, it was her own idea and Saradomin was not involved in her decision to betray Kree'arra in the first alliance.

17-Dec-2013 04:53:52 - Last edited on 17-Dec-2013 04:55:44 by Nerevarine x

Forums

The Defence of Saradomin