RuneScape Forum Archive | In Defense Of Pringles

Lianna98

Posts: 259 Silver Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile

@Helbrecht: I do stop over there from time to time if I'm not guesting in the Asgarnia chat.

@Ascertes: I wish I had the time yeah.

@Hazeel:

Original message details are unavailable.
A true Zamorakian is free, seeks power, becomes strong, and never gives up on gaining more power, yes. So many Zamorakians, including some that may be considered unsavory, are "true Zamorakians."

However a true Zamorakian is also someone who seeks to raise others up so they may gain power as well....such as Zamorak himself.

In a universe where the gods themselves are liable to be corrupted by power and where said power can be virtually presented to anyone, the chances of those two statements to coincide with one another is slim at best. The path of a Zamorakian is not for everyone yet everyone is thrust into the reality that they can never be not involved with it and are affected in varying degrees.

As I have stated, it's not entirely the principles themselves that I have strong opposition with, it's their followers but it doesn't excuse the flaws of Zamorakian logic however. It is the lack of control, all the looseness, that have allowed their followers to delve into all manners of things, some not meant for mere mortals. For most to go mad with power is not just already expected but even accepted in most cases. Their actions mostly went with no reprimand to the very few Zamorakians you consider as "true" as long as they themselves are not involved. The general idea of yourself before others, this selfish mentality, coupled with the varying results, is what led to the division within Zamorakian ranks. How can one build a society based on such mentality and expect it to fair better than the one already present?

---cnp---

They make me shiiiaaaiiine!

14-Oct-2015 08:35:55

Lianna98

Posts: 259 Silver Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile

Original message details are unavailable.
Why is this? Because when society grows in power, so do we. When a new invention, technique, skill, or improvement is brought and shared to the world, we all gain from it. Needlessly enslaving or killing people limits the growth they could have given society if they had grown to be powerful. By limiting their growth, you have limited the growth of society and yourself by extension.

Innovation is found both in wartime AND peacetime. In most cases and as I have already said, it is the resulting peace after a conflict does progress really prosper when the main objective of self-preservation has been set aside. It's the survivors, with their knowledge and experience, that pave the way. However, how can you expect this when Zamorakian methods usually result to complete obliteration of the opposite faction when successful? Do tell of Forinthry's progress since that massive explosion in the Third Age. That's the very evidence of your "limiting of growth" right there. And don't get me started on Morytania...

Original message details are unavailable.
With that said, there's nothing wrong with bloodlust. Zamorak and the other Mahjarrat are a very bloodthirsty race, afterall. Thus it's important to focus that bloodlust. Use it on enemies or creatures who provide use in death (food, dragonhide, etc.).

I wouldn't have a problem with this statement if, say, just cows, not droves of innocent lives, were lost in the past ages. The thing is, they never really focused their bloodlust on creatures who provide use just in death, they directed their power on where they will it. Almost ALL Mahjarrat are guilty of this. Khazard? Zemouregal? Lucien? Do you excuse ALL the innocents they killed? Justified by mere "bloodlust"? Many accuse Zilyana of her actions yet hers paled compared to what the supposed Zamorakian leaders have done...

---cnp---

They make me shiiiaaaiiine!

14-Oct-2015 08:36:22 - Last edited on 14-Oct-2015 08:47:46 by Lianna98

Lianna98

Posts: 259 Silver Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile

Original message details are unavailable.
Likewise, enslaving your enemies is more merciful and more efficient than killing them. But when you enslave your people, your potential allies, and your own society, you are limiting them on their growth. When you refuse to share your own discoveries, techniques, knowledge, and power with your allies, you are denying them the chance to improve on what you have and thus you are operating based on a desire for dominance. Your are letting your desire for control overtake your need for power, and this is not Zamorakian.

And yet, why was there never any major revolt against Saradominism by the local populace if such "enslavement" you were referring to was that rife? Even if you place side by side a Kinshra slave with an average "enslaved" Saradominist citizen, which one is leading a better life? It is because limiting does not equal refusal as what you have used in contradiction above. Progress is limited and controlled for the good of society and that's what makes a Saradominist society more efficient and stable than their counterparts. Take the lodestone network, or the standard spellbook, all available to those qualified. They even mingled freely with dwarves and gnomes for example with both sides working together for an even greater degree of progress. It is through this controlled system, where everyone benefits and contributes based on their status in society, that majority were able to live a "normal" life. Something I can't say the same for their Zamorakian counterparts.

From how I see it, chaos is necessary but should NEVER prevail. It is a catalyst of change and to overcome it is a must if civilization is to move forward.

They make me shiiiaaaiiine!

14-Oct-2015 08:36:43 - Last edited on 14-Oct-2015 08:57:39 by Lianna98

Hazeel

Posts: 6,735 Rune Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile

@Lianna98

If power leaves you susceptible to corruption, then what makes Saradomin any different? If having too much power is a bad thing, then shouldn't we abolish the idea of following Gods? When trying to follow a morally peaceful philosophy, shouldn't you follow someone who can prove their moral compass is clear? Heck, shouldn't being able to use the Wand of Resurrection be a requirement to get any high rank in Saradominist society?

The reality is, you are involved in nature's survival of the fittest whether you like it or not. Sheltering yourself from inevitable danger will eventually be your demise, because in the end you will not have adapted or prepared for the greater dangers of the world. Protection and peace is naive. Order is stagnating. While it is true that it is possible to find innovation in teams without conflict, the growth is too slow, the world is too dull, and life lacks purpose.

Zemourgal? Trying to conquer what is his. Lucien? I'm more annoyed that he abused Moia, but I don't recall him killing any innocents, just bloodthirsty enemies that wanted his head on a silver platter. Khazard? When did he throw his allies to the fire?

Zilyana comes from a philosophy that preaches peace and she violates it at every turn. It's so naive--no, idiotic, to believe that through death, war, and violence that you will somehow reach peace in the end. Meanwhile I recognize what peace is, a naive idealism the weak and misguided preach as a last resort defense mechanism to try and cling to their meaningless lives, as well as something tyrants use as an excuse to remove all your freedoms and liberties.

So honestly, I wouldn't be bothered at all by a New Varrock. The old one had nothing of worth to offer. Its people were fat from their peace, stagnated from their order, and useless from their weakness. They are not my allies Ideally I would [refer for them to risen up and made something of themselves, but I recognize the fact that this is wishful thinking now. Runescape doesn't need a hero...it needs a villain. An all encompassing force of evil that will remain ever-threatening and use chaos to make the peoples of Gielinor tolerate each other, grow strong together, and fight side by side against this evil. I am that villain.

14-Oct-2015 16:30:16

Padomenes

Posts: 3,662 Adamant Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile

Hazeel said :
@Lianna98

If power leaves you susceptible to corruption, then what makes Saradomin any different? If having too much power is a bad thing, then shouldn't we abolish the idea of following Gods? When trying to follow a morally peaceful philosophy, shouldn't you follow someone who can prove their moral compass is clear? Heck, shouldn't being able to use the Wand of Resurrection be a requirement to get any high rank in Saradominist society?

The reality is, you are involved in nature's survival of the fittest whether you like it or not. Sheltering yourself from inevitable danger will eventually be your demise, because in the end you will not have adapted or prepared for the greater dangers of the world. Protection and peace is naive. Order is stagnating. While it is true that it is possible to find innovation in teams without conflict, the growth is too slow, the world is too dull, and life lacks purpose. And Drakan?

That clear moral compass is a goal to be reached, 99.9% of people/humans do not have a clear moral compass. Reaching it is a challenge which will take getting stronger in certain areas/aspects.

Actually humans are social creatures who cooperate together for survival so they technically have been evading "survival of fittest" more and more. Civilization is against it, to support the notion is to be against civilization. Unless you go to Somalia irl if thats the society you like. Also you do realise nothing is impossible, what happens if one day humans reach a technological advancement to a point where we can control/alter the laws of the universe/"nature" itself to get rid of that? The CERN hadron collider experiment is already one such experiment to rip a hole in the fabric of this reality irl or create a sort of mini-antimatter/blackhole.

14-Oct-2015 17:28:40 - Last edited on 14-Oct-2015 17:32:37 by Padomenes

May

2019

Kanarthasis

Posts: 1,413 Mithril Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile

Hazeel said :
@Lianna98

A true Zamorakian is free, seeks power, becomes strong, and never gives up on gaining more power, yes. So many Zamorakians, including some that may be considered unsavory, are "true Zamorakians."

However a true Zamorakian is also someone who seeks to raise others up so they may gain power as well....such as Zamorak himself.

Why is this? Because when society grows in power, so do we. When a new invention, technique, skill, or improvement is brought and shared to the world, we all gain from it. Needlessly enslaving or killing people limits the growth they could have given society if they had grown to be powerful. By limiting their growth, you have limited the growth of society and yourself by extension.

With that said, there's nothing wrong with bloodlust. Zamorak and the other Mahjarrat are a very bloodthirsty race, afterall. Thus it's important to focus that bloodlust. Use it on enemies or creatures who provide use in death (food, dragonhide, etc.). Don't use it on someone who has so much more to offer to both you and the world while they live.

Likewise, enslaving your enemies is more merciful and more efficient than killing them. But when you enslave your people, your potential allies, and your own society, you are limiting them on their growth. When you refuse to share your own discoveries, techniques, knowledge, and power with your allies, you are denying them the chance to improve on what you have and thus you are operating based on a desire for dominance. Your are letting your desire for control overtake your need for power, and this is not Zamorakian.

@Kanarthasis

Stop trolling.

what was trolling about my post? It was early in the morning and it was too long of a thread/post to read all at once.

14-Oct-2015 18:11:59

Hazeel

Posts: 6,735 Rune Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile

@Pad*menes

A clear moral compass is something that is unobtainable because morality is relative. You see protecting the weak as moral and I see weakness as a sin punishable by death...but whereas most Saradominists claim this is the one truth that must be accepted--despite not even being able to agree with each other on what's moral--I accept that these views are simply a matter of opinion. But whereas my opinion works with the natural order of things, your "morality" goes against nature itself, is a denial to the dark truths and necessities of the world, and halts progress.

By all means, humans should work together, however, there are those who do not work but instead leech from our hard work, providing little or nothing in return, weighing us down in the process. These leeches are either undeveloped or weaklings. Whereas the former are children (physically or mentally), the latter have chosen their weak lifestyle, have chosen to selfishly hold the rest of society down out of laziness, and should either be forced to contribute (slavery), or be exiled or executed (either way it ends in death). Runescape doesn't need a hero...it needs a villain. An all encompassing force of evil that will remain ever-threatening and use chaos to make the peoples of Gielinor tolerate each other, grow strong together, and fight side by side against this evil. I am that villain.

14-Oct-2015 19:29:16

Padomenes

Posts: 3,662 Adamant Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile

Hazeel said :
@Pad*menes

A clear moral compass is something that is unobtainable because morality is relative. You see protecting the weak as moral and I see weakness as a sin punishable by death...but whereas most Saradominists claim this is the one truth that must be accepted--despite not even being able to agree with each other on what's moral--I accept that these views are simply a matter of opinion. But whereas my opinion works with the natural order of things, your "morality" goes against nature itself, is a denial to the dark truths and necessities of the world, and halts progress. Which means it is confirmable because ALL of the weak would not want to be mass murdered. Also "lazy" does not mean weak, they are different things. For the lazy support for them can be withdrawed, for the weak they can be provided with aid. If you were weak and were about to be killed you would not want that either so it is objectively confirmable.

14-Oct-2015 19:45:07

Hazeel

Posts: 6,735 Rune Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile

Weakness is self inflicted and only applies to those unwilling to become stronger. Even a God could be weak. As such, laziness is weakness. Runescape doesn't need a hero...it needs a villain. An all encompassing force of evil that will remain ever-threatening and use chaos to make the peoples of Gielinor tolerate each other, grow strong together, and fight side by side against this evil. I am that villain.

14-Oct-2015 19:51:29

Dec

2023

Cthris

Posts: 5,206 Rune Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile

Hazeel

I got a quick question for you

When you say that you see weakness as a seen punishable by death are your trying to say that society "should" put the "weak" to death. As if society should have some moral obligation to wipe out those that weaken, or burden it.

or that

Death is the natural consequence of weakness, and while it is seen as a bad thing, it in reality is a positive thing for society and individuals?

Personally I'm really fascinated with altruism in societies in regards to evolution, natural selection and genes. If you think about a person, not as an individual, but the host of thousands of genes who have managed fight natural selection for millions of years through natural selection, and evolution.

Genes are the ultimate selfish unit in the universe. Genes don't even care about their host post reproduction; some genes will even kill off the host after they reproduce so that the new host has a better chance of survival. Yet these genes influences the way people grew and adapted, and how they formed society. Funny enough, these selfish genes managed to create a society that promotes altruism. Some people might argue that it's because the conscious mind managed to perceive some sort of inherit set of moral that exist in the universe, and some people argue about religion, or whatever.

Personally I think that altruism was the greatest play human genes could have taken. It was a way for the genes to essentially beat their greatest enemy, natural selection. Because humans usually will do anything to save fellow humans, it eliminates a lot of the ways that gene will either be wiped out, or have an advantage due to mutation. The strongest genes are no longer out competing the weaker genes in terms of survival, essentially killing off traditional evolution and natural selection Human genes, if you think of them as the true individuals of this world, have found a way to be near immortal, simply through the host being selfless.

14-Oct-2015 20:15:54

Forums

In Defense Of Pringles