But back to your point. Zaros is the same way, only he uses diplomacy even more than Armadyl. During The World Wakes, the Zarosians were the only ones who wanted to negotiate with Guthix instead of killing him. Back in the days of his empire building, he rarely fought on the frontlines, and would have welcomed all gods and mortals under his banner.
Inferi said :
I fail to see what is wrong with this. Maybe you want to be all cynical and say that such things could never happen, but I would personally rather work towards something that may be unattainable but has the best possible outcome should it succeed.
I personally think that realistic is better than idealistic. If you fight for something that may never succeed at all, then you only create chaos.
Inferi said :
Isn't this the whole point of gods, though? They're supposed to personify different aspects of something, and although they may be human-like in the sense that they have a personality to go along with that, there is no way that there will ever be complete harmony between them because you cannot make an aspect of something agree with whatever directly contradicts it.
Unless every god opposing the ideals that the one you support has are exterminated, which typically never works because another rises from the ashes of the one that was destroyed, it will be impossible to have coexisting deities.
They are not 'supposed' to personify anything. They simply choose to, to have a cause that they can rally followers behind. Zamorak, for example, wants strength through chaos, so he attracts races like the Mahjarret (whose society is founded on sacrificing the weakest to make everyone stronger) and the Vampyres (who are animalistic by nature.)
At least Zaros does not let his philosophy define him.
Although I find it odd how you say gods can't co-exist, and yet you support Armadyl who supports co-existence. Beneath the gold, the Bitter Steel.
Inferi said :
I fail to see what is wrong with this. Maybe you want to be all cynical and say that such things could never happen, but I would personally rather work towards something that may be unattainable but has the best possible outcome should it succeed.
I personally think that realistic is better than idealistic. If you fight for something that may never succeed at all, then you only create chaos.
Inferi said :
Isn't this the whole point of gods, though? They're supposed to personify different aspects of something, and although they may be human-like in the sense that they have a personality to go along with that, there is no way that there will ever be complete harmony between them because you cannot make an aspect of something agree with whatever directly contradicts it.
Unless every god opposing the ideals that the one you support has are exterminated, which typically never works because another rises from the ashes of the one that was destroyed, it will be impossible to have coexisting deities.
They are not 'supposed' to personify anything. They simply choose to, to have a cause that they can rally followers behind. Zamorak, for example, wants strength through chaos, so he attracts races like the Mahjarret (whose society is founded on sacrificing the weakest to make everyone stronger) and the Vampyres (who are animalistic by nature.)
At least Zaros does not let his philosophy define him.
Although I find it odd how you say gods can't co-exist, and yet you support Armadyl who supports co-existence. Beneath the gold, the Bitter Steel.
04-Jul-2016 22:15:56 - Last edited on 04-Jul-2016 22:19:27 by NotFishing
