Having heard the prophecy that a Chosen One will rise up to defeat him, the Dark Lord swears he shall never be a puppet of Fate. He destroys his own dark army, slays his lieutenants, and secludes himself to rule a small but prosperous kingdom with his great magical powers.
The Oracle of Fate approaches your party. There is now disharmony in the celestial heavens, as the fate of the world now lies in disorder. They task you to deliver an arrow of Pure Evil, to rouse the Dark Lord once again, so that the Chosen One can rise up to defeat him, and thus good triumph over evil and heavenly order restored.
Would your party accept?
 Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
 |
Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
You are mistaken, the Chosen One has already come, it was the Dark Lord himself. He battled his evil nature and came out on top triumphing over it, thus becoming the hero to save the world from evil. The prophecy was fulfilled and fate never faltered.
This. The OP prompt is effectively asking Darth Vader to continue attacking Luke Skywalker after throwing the Emperor to his death just because one of the writers is adamant that Luke must slay Vader. It would defeat the purpose of Vader's redemption and ruin the story.
The holy scrolls of fate dictate that Vader must die by Luke's hand for balance to be restored to the world. Otherwise the universe is in jeopardy. There is no challenging the divine.
Sounds like it's time to turn the campaign into a JRPG
The pair of well dressed gentlemen start to stalk your party and thwart your plans.
You'd think the fricker would send his A-Game if a chosen one was on a quest to kill god.
God would rather die than be saved by a heathen serving demon.
I assume you mean the christian god.
I which case, Neither Alucard or integra would be heathens, they'd be heretics. Heathens are non-christians.
That's before getting into the fact that anything catholic or catholic-derived is also heresy. The Gnostics were actually first and would have been closest to jesus's teachings given the time-line.
That's assuming they count protestant filth as Christians in the first place.
>gnostics
Alexander! Bring the blade. The holy blade.
If the gnostics are right, then that blade is "Blessed" by the devil masquerading as god.
How would you know?
You and gnosticanon need to talk...
>The Gnostics were actually first and would have been closest to jesus's teachings given the time-line.
The earliest Gnostics were contemporaries with the Apostolic fathers. While claims of Gnostic primacy is pushed in popular literature there's no real doubt that the Gnostics were a seperate Judeo-mystical tradition that developed out of the seperatist sects that were bubbling up out of the turmoil of the Roman occupation. They borrowed Christian language and symbols for their use the same way they borrowed Hellenistic language and symbols. They were no more "Christian" than they were "Platonists". They were a syncretic cult.
You had better not be implying that the Blues Brothers aren't top tier celestial agents. Sure they'll be heading to jail at the end of the adventure, but they'll get the job done. If they get get Cab Calloway (Forma de Minnie la Mochera) on board they're unstoppable, never mind their band or any of their other allies.
>There is no challenging the divine.
I do it for a living baby.
>demons
>divine
You would've done better posting Bayonetta.
>thinking Dante only goes one way
There's no divine in DMC, only the demon realm and mortal realm.
WRONG
go the frick back Black person
I was here long before you and I will still be here long after you leave, mayfly. There is nothing you can do about it.
>I was here long before you and I will still be here long after you leave, mayfly. There is nothing you can do about it.
>WRONG
D.M.C. doesn't count.
The Fallen are an enemy type in DMC3 and their library entry states "A demon who fell from grace for lying and decieving its victims.
Her beautiful wings close to form an invincible shield. Her open belly is her only weakness." The Japanese direct translation explicitly mentions Heaven. In the anime, which is canon thanks to DMC5, Dante references God. There's also the Wing Talisman from DMC4 that is "a talisman made of a crystalized angel wing." Now I'm not saying anything is 100% confirmed or anything but at the very least the concept of God and a realm that is neither human nor demon is in DMCverse.
Itsuno has stated that there's just demons and humans in the world. Like the religion in 4, it's just redressed demons that they worship.
Get fricked, magical girl.
>There is no challenging the divine.
What the hell kind of genre do you think this is?
The one where failing to live up a preset role causes your alignment to change and people treat you differently.
>Black folk think this is a JRPG and not Greek mythology
Behold! A homo.
>What is better - to be born good, or to overcome your evil nature through great effort?
Whether the Dark Lord became his own Chosen Hero out of a genuine desire to improve or to merely refuse to bow to destiny, the fact remains that there is now less evil in the world than there was before he heard about the prophecy.
Yeah, that's why its self fulfilling, he tried to prevent it but pretty much fulfilled it himself in his attempts, it happens way more often than you think
He only "triumphed" over it out of a sense of hurt pride of not being the gods puppet. Is that genuinely defeating his evil nature?
If he stops doing evil, then yes.
Maybe in time he will become the mask.
Despite human morality saying otherwise, the ends DO justify the means in prophetic bullshit.
Ends literally justify means. Every action is a transaction, there are costs and there are benefits, both to yourself and to others.
That said, the macro conflict between good and evil is often framed as a personal conflict (the good within each heart vs the evil within each heart), and I think there is good reason for this. In this sense it is reasonable to ask, "Did you defeat the evil nature of the individual, or did you just trick them into doing good?"
He's still evil though. He just downsized and left a much bigger, more chaotic threat nearby to distract people.
This obviously means one of his scorn generals and the remains of his army will reform and strike back at the former Dark Lord in petty revenge.
I shoot the GM.
I punch the Oracle in the face. If the blow lands the Oracle is a charlatan.
Maybe there's a difference between macro-prophecy and micro-prophecy, effectively similar to large-scale strategy vs. small-scale tactics, and the Oracle of Fate isn't trained in micro-prophecy, thus allowing you to punch them in the face because they couldn't see such a small act coming.
Would murdering the oracle be macro enough?
Depends on how many other oracles there are and how important this particular oracle is.
>Maybe there's a difference between macro-prophecy and micro-prophecy
given that the macro prophecy being fake and the oracle trying to force it to play out is the entire setup, no, there clearly isn’t
See
That the Oracles sight was blocked or that he was killed does not exclude them being a true Oracle. Only one who did not see the role he played in Fates will
>I punch the weatherman in the face. If the blow lands the weatherman is a charlatan.
This but ironically
Frick weathermen
I got soaked once for listening to them
Assuming he's not doing any evil in his prosperous kingdom, why would the heavens care? Sounds more like this Oracle of Fate is actually from Hell and wishes to make the Dark Lord fall (again).
I slaughter the obvious demon disguised as the Oracle of Fate and go to the tavern to chill with my fellow paladin bros.
Okay but what if you've now actually killed an Oracle of Fate since it turns out that was moronic because no demon would come at you in such a direct manner?
>disguised as an oracle
>tricking good people into doing evil acts
>direct
I would shoot the oracle with the arrow
> be dark lord
> in all of time, only one specific chosen hero can defeat you
> you are immortal, the chosen hero is not
> 'reform', play nice, be a good boy and help others
> wait for the chosen hero to be born. By the time he arrives, you've been a good and wise king for 300 years. The land has never been more prosperous, you have never been more beloved
> befriend the chosen one and shower him with gifts from a young age. You become the closest of brothers.
> eventually, he grows old and feeble
> you attend his funeral
> you wait another 10 years, just to be sure
> cool. he really is dead.
> destroy your own kingdom and become the greatest force of evil the world has ever known, the chosen one of fate destined to destroy you already came and went and fate missed its chance to kill you
>>wait for the chosen hero to be born
How'd you make sure of this part though.
The oracle and the gods seem pretty damn sure who the guy is, can't be that hard to figure out.
Frick the oracle
And that's how the the second hero was conceived
>you are immortal, the chosen hero is not
Citation is needed
Other than being a "dark lord" and the other being a "hero" nothing is known about their capabilities
If the dark lord is not immortal, there is no need for a chosen one to stop them. Give it 30 years, they will die on their own. no need for fate and the gods to involve themselves.
The implication is that if nothing is done, the Dark Lord will have an impact and leave a wretched legacy that lasts long beyond his own life.
You mean like the entire history of humanity?
The dark lord will have his work cut out for him trying to top the evil normal ass humans are capable of just on their own.
The devil did not tempt me, I take Full Responsibility for my Actions... I'm not letting that fricker isn't mooch credit off my best work
30 years is a long time. Assuming the Dark Lord doesn't reform, you'd let an entire generation of man go to shit, with no guarantee that things will get better after, just so a Chosen One doesn't have to get off their ass and do anything.
Same logic as dude avoiding his prophecy of drowning by running off to live in a hut in the desert. We all know he's just gonna die of drink, "drowning" away his sorrows. Prophecies are a b***h like that.
If you're gonna die from getting hit by a bus, look out carefully both at intersections, and for large angry men named Bus.
>Same logic as dude avoiding his prophecy of drowning by running off to live in a hut in the desert. We all know he's just gonna die of drink, "drowning" away his sorrows. Prophecies are a b***h like that.
>If you're gonna die from getting hit by a bus, look out carefully both at intersections, and for large angry men named Bus.
Plus flash flooding in Deserts is a thing, and especially dangerous because the Desert doesn't usually get large amounts of water.
>The Ultimate Autnority decides what is good. Anything that goes against this authority is evil
"From my point of view, the Authority is Evil!"
>'reform', play nice, be a good boy and help others
>guy destined to be the chosen hero turns out to be an evil warmongering sociopath
>he conquers your kingdom and kills you
>he hears of a prophecy that a chosen one will rise up and defeat him
>he decides to "reform", play nice, be a good boy and help others untill the chosen one dies of old age
Didnt read all that but the chosen hero accidentally kills you during a hunting trip while you are trying to butter him up.
>the chosen one of fate destined to destroy you already came and went
No, you just thought he did and die shortly afterwards.
I become the Dark Lord
What's stopping the hero from killing the retired darklord anyhow? My character would never create more evil in the world. "Balance" is the devil's myth, only through the final destruction of the evils within ourselves & the world can we regain paradise
Woah, cool it with the antisemitism.
>increasing evil in the world
>seeking to "balance" the absolute good of the Lord
I smite the Oracle.
Extremely based. Muh balance is for psueds
The idea of balance seems to hinge on the idea that absolute power corrupts absolutely, and that if any one faction (regardless of cosmic good or evil) comes into absolute power, then their worst tendencies will come out or will lead to a time of weakness when the next crisis comes about.
>fulfilled
There are no worst tendencies of Good. Good is good. If it isn't Good it's evil
Define "Good" anon.
God/Ultimate Authority
God is Evil anon.
Which God?
All of them.
They must be purged so that the true master of mankind my lead us to the golden path.
And he serves as some sort of Ultimate Authority, right?
The Joke
You
Depends on the system, but the basic fantasy system everyone always assume is being talked about has Good be a universal cosmic force and does have entities that are pure cosmic good.
Which only supports
Anon's point.
Universal "Good" in most fantasies tend to be dysfunctional crap-saccharine pseudo-philosophies because fantasy writers are pretty terrible at philosophy.
If anything, "Good" in most fantasy settings is just brutal authoritarianism with a phenomenal PR team.
>"Good" in most fantasy settings is just brutal authoritarianism with a phenomenal PR team
Just like in real life
>Which only supports
The idea of balance seems to hinge on the idea that absolute power corrupts absolutely, and that if any one faction (regardless of cosmic good or evil) comes into absolute power, then their worst tendencies will come out or will lead to a time of weakness when the next crisis comes about. Anon's point.
It doesn't at all. I appreciate the meta-criticism but at the end of the day you're simply rejecting the premise It's not even about "objective" or "absolute" good, just "more good than real-world humans" is enough to change the game.
I mean, Gil-galad and Elendil aren't perfect, but I'd still vote for them.
But there is no mortal entity that is pure cosmic good. At least, that's the assumption.
What's your order of operations here? Is an act/faction good because that faction is Good and thus anything they do is categorically good regardless of the specifics of the act or is the act/faction good because the actor will invariably only choose to do Good things and so thinking about them doing bad things violates the initial premise of the entity?
The Ultimate Autnority decides what is good. Anything that goes against this authority is evil
>Autnority
A society governed by zeroes?
That is both morally bankrupt and stupid.
Giving a single sapient authority the ability to decide what good and evil are based on whatever they want is just running away from the responsibility of having to figure it out yourself.
On top of that, it's a childish excuse to be a dick whenever the opportunity arises because it allows you to pretend you horrible actions are "Good".
But it has commanded you to kill them all! Totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys
It's morally superior. Anything else is ethics, & ethics is fundamentally fricked up because public opinion can be compromised
If you already have some ultimate moral arbiter why have it be the gayest fricking kind where it's only good because of some post-hoc bullshit. The Ultimate Arbiter should have decided all the rules eons ago or stick to whatever rules were in place previously instead of morality solely being down to checking the mental state of the supernatural psychopath at that given millisecond.
Imagine thinking that a world where raping a child can instantly switch from categorically good to categorically bad in literally one second, without the context or specifics of the act changing at all, is superior to the one where the rules were already in place or at least that more than one mental patient has the reigns.
>It's morally superior. Anything else is ethics,
Do you know what those words mean anon?
I don't think you do.
>Morality
Following the rules of a higher power
>Ethics
Doing what other people in the room agree with
The Ultimate Authority has Ultimate Authority. By definition it knows & enforces what is right or wrong.
>By definition it knows & enforces what is right or wrong
No no no, you can't pull that shit now. I asked you for order of operations and you chose shifting supernatural moral yardstick. You're a homosexual and you picked wrong
What is this rambling?
>Ethics deals with getting people to work together
>It has nothing to do with what they agree with
You're being hypocritical, bro...
Ethics is about consensus. But consensus can be manipulated. Ergo, Ethics is bullshit.
I believe anon is asking if the hypothetical authority:
> Knows what is right and wrong, because right and wrong are objective things separate from itself. It is therefore only informing others of the difference.
>Decides what is right and wrong, because "Right" and "Wrong" are for it to define. It therefore can and likely does change what "Counts" as either right or wrong based on how it feels in the moment.
If the former is true, the "Moral Authority" is a useless middleman as morality has an objective foundation to begin with. Any sentient species is equipped well enough to figure it out themselves.
If it is the latter, then right and wrong as concepts loose meaning, as they become entirely subjective based on the whims of a singular entity. Any persons who find a good objective basis to disagree with the entities current paradigm would be labelled "Amoral" even if objectively correct.
Either answer ends with the entity being either useless or ultimately malicious, and therefore a poor basis of morality.
yes that was basically what I was trying to ask with the order of operations question
There is a third option you & the previous anon have failled to inuit.
Morality is NOT the human interpretation of the Will of the Ultimate Authority, Morality is the adherence to the Will of the Ultimate Authority
The Ultimate Authority, like the Greek & Norse Fate, has no second guessing, no yes now, no later. Karma does not change its mind. A good example is the sacrifice of Issac to God by Abraham. YHWH commands it & regardless of Abraham's personal turmoil, regardless of what Abraham's neighbors would think, YHWH, the creator of the universe, the Alpha & Omega, the judge of every man's soul, an infinite being who knows all, sees all. Abraham in a test of faith knew that if YHWH asked of him to sacrifice his son it was the Moral thing to do, in the contrast of everything Abraham knew. Now, to be clear, YHWH has no intention of Issac's demise, he did not change his mind, it was all in an effort to teach Abraham the same lesson of morality & trust in his god
>Morality is the adherence to the Will of the Ultimate Authority
That's just the second thing. The authority decides what is right and wrong entirely at its whim and thus morality, as in the things that the people in the setting are supposed to do, are down to whatever the authority feels like that day. It's like a 1984 situation where the ministry of truth gets to say what happened in the past except its about child muder and the ministry is just some magic frick
No no no. The Ultimate Authority doesnt "decide" it, it embodies Good, & it is morality to adhere to it
Can you fricking pick a motherfricking definition? Does the thing do good things or do the things the thing does become good by virtue of having been done by the thing?
Child murder is a good example. In one scenario The Thing would never murder a child because The Thing has the ability to detect, predict, measure, deduce or otherwise infallibly know that it is objectively irrefutably wrong to murder a child.
In another scenario The Thing may murder a child, because whether or not murdering a child is a good or bad thing is ultimately and entirely up to the determination and arbitration of The Thing and is as such subject to their whims and desires.
Basically do you know if an action the thing does is good before or after the thing does it? In scenario A I know that child murder is wrong before the action happens, as the thing only decides to do the good things. In scenario B I have to wait until after the thing decides to do or not to do an action because actions are only good because they've been committed by the thing.
Those are not the only two options. You fricking dumbass.
The Ultimate Authority IS the embodiment of good. It's not a decision, it is not a separate trait. It is the Begining & the End. It is the Lock & the Key.
Morality doesn't even have to be tied to Good versus Evil. The Norse Fate is the Ultimate Authority of that religion, not Odin, or any other power. It is moral to follow Fate. It is immoral to resist it.
>The Ultimate Authority IS the embodiment of good. It's not a decision, it is not a separate trait. It is the Begining & the End. It is the Lock & the Key.
That is functionally the exact same and a literally imperceptible difference to anyone aside from the ultimate gaylord from scenario B as described. unless you could perceive multiple realities where the biggest b***h of them all doesn't exist or operates differently you would have exactly zero ability to figure out if the guy dude does good shit because of some category application or because of a different kind of totally definitely somehow not the exact same category application.
>It is moral to follow Fate. It is immoral to resist it.
people b***h at the fates all the fricking time you fricking asshat
>people b***h at the fates all the fricking time you fricking asshat
People [sin against god/accrue negative karma] all the fricking time you fricking asshat.
>That is functionally the exact same Yada Yada bullshit
How can you be so dense? Ethics is man imposing laws upon himself. Morality is following the laws of divinity. If God says to rest on Sunday, but your town says you need to work, then you have a moral obligation to rest & you have an ethical obligation to work. If you rest then you violate ethics, if you work, you sin.
Replace that metaphor, with whatever religion or Celestial philosophy you want, it doesn't change what I'm trying to get you to understand.
All of creation exists under some kind of rule. BUDDHA, Christ, Fate, the Celestial Bureaucracy, Hindu bullshit, etc. Following that rule is moral. Resisting that rule is immoral.
>People [sin against god/accrue negative karma] all the fricking time you fricking asshat.
yeah except b***hing at the fates isn't immoral you fricking asshat
>Morality is following the laws of divinity
Yes yes yes we understand you watched 3 youtube videos about philosophy now put the fricking vocabulary quiz to the side for like 6 seconds to actually address the practicality of what I'm saying.
There is a deity named bletikam. bletikam is holding a gun to a child's head, for some reason. how do I predict whether or not bletikam will pull the trigger? in scenario A I can safely predict bletikam won't because bletikam has never done that before and The Rules of Doing Good Stuff say don't do that and bletikam obeys those rules at all times. in scenario B it's kind of a tossup because maybe bletikam has murdered a kid before and the rules of doing good stuff don't exist and you just do whatever bletikam last said was cool to do. do you understand the question I'm asking?
in scenario A morality is kind of actually possible to perform without constantly checking up on the deity in charge. in scenario b because morality constantly shifts as to conform to the latest whims of the head deity I have to double check whatever I do before I do it to see if it lines up with the errata. got it? you dumb fricking
oh yeah nevermind philosophy i wanna do cool shit frick gods and whatever
Bletikam doesn't follow morality, his followers do. Why can't you understand this? You have no frame of reference to judge Bletikam. You are trying to apply ethics to bletikam, not morality
>Bletikam doesn't follow morality, his followers do
Yeah but if I don't know what bletikam does then how do I know bletikam hasn't been possessed by the ultimate evil tozaznerak and/or isn't slipping up and slowly turning evil as was prophesized as a potentiality by bletikam's ex-wife and our current wisdom goddess shifyrshae?
cus that was kind of the original question. if you let good go unchecked then a good that's only good by category instead of by nature might do stuff that under normal circumstances is actually totally super mega evil and then it's kinda your responsibility to help unfrick that but you're prevented from doing so by the category of divinity defining goodness and now bletikam is throwing babies off of cliffs and replacing the kingdom's lemons with limes and that sucks really hardcore. what do you do then? are you supposed to just make limeade and watch kids fall off cliffs while you do it? that's fricking gay
If bletikam can be compromised then he is a chief Deity probably but not an Ultimate Authority. In your example, prophecy/fate seems to be the likely Ultimate Authority. Maybe his ex-wife.
Karma does "do stuff" it balances the scales. It enforces punishments & rewards
>If bletikam can be compromised then he is a chief Deity probably but not an Ultimate Authority
is being uncorruptable a property of ultimate authorities? what about pantheons with no big top dawg?
>Karma does "do stuff" it balances the scales. It enforces punishments & rewards
I dunno I think you need to be an entity to do stuff. math doesn't do stuff, things just kinda happen in it. water doesn't do stuff it's just a thing other stuff moves in. karma doesn't even have hands! how do you balance the scales with no hands to touch the scales and weights
No idiot. If something has power over him, then he isn't the Ultimate Authority then is he?
Also, your double moronic for not understanding the concept of Karma & how it factors into Ultimate Authority. It's why you keep having this roadblock
>Also, your double moronic for not understanding the concept of Karma & how it factors into Ultimate Authority
Listen buddy you get back to me when karma has a couple thumbs and i'll revisit the concept
Bye b***h. I told you a dozen posts ago that your contrivance didn't hold water
>what about pantheons with no big top dawg?
A "top dawg" is called a chief deity. Not all chief deities are the Ultimate Authority. Roundtable Pantheons even less so
Okay, what prevents an "Ultimate Authority" from just being irredeemably evil?
Nothing having power over it, Nothing "Corrupting" it, it just Chooses to be evil.
Give me an example
No it isnt
Also to add to this
you keep using a personified Ultimate Authority. To understand how moronic your question is, try phrasing it with a non-personification, like karma or fate.
well if it's a personification then how is it doing stuff? karma doesn't do stuff it's like the means through which stuff happens, like math or lemon juice.
Holy Quads of truth
>Ethics is man imposing laws upon himself.
Ethics is the study of morality, dumbass.
Right and as it changes, so does morality as the embodiment of said morality and its ideal has changed.
It changes? How does Fate change? Does karma change? Does an omnipotent entity change? If It was capable of change it wouldn't be omnipotent. An omnipotent entity doesn't need to change because if it wasn't one thing then it wasn't omnipotent. It's like everything I say Ultimate or what ever other word you want, you just hear "big". I say "authority" & since the fricking Cosmic fricking arbiter doesn't have thumbs you want to throw a fricking fit
>If the former is true, the "Moral Authority" is a useless middleman as morality has an objective foundation to begin with. Any sentient species is equipped well enough to figure it out themselves.
Can they? Whether or not the soul exists is an objective truth, it's existence or lack thereof does not depend on what anyone says or believes. Despite this it's arguably impossible for anyone to prove it one way or another. Just because something is objectively true doesn't necessarily mean it can be proved by humans. If morality falls into that category then an entity with a perfect understanding of right and wrong is providing an extremely valuable service that only it can.
If morality cannot be determined through observation, if ought cannot be derived from is, then such a being would obviously be a crucial and supremely beneficial tool for developing a moral system. The problem is how to determine whether they actually are a perfect moral actor or simply your second option masquerading as one.
>Despite this it's arguably impossible for anyone to prove it one way or another.
No it isn't.
That's like a man in the medieval era saying that it's impossible to know what stars really are.
If souls are real, then they would be provable, and trying to judge all future scientific progress by what we know now is just making the same mistake as the man above.
>Just because something is objectively true doesn't necessarily mean it can be proved by humans.
It would have to have some Very extenuating circumstances for that to be true.
Anything with an effect on reality is provable.
A human is capable of proving anything provable simply by order of operation.
The fact that it takes us a stupidly long time doesn't change that.
>If morality cannot be determined through observation
Massive assumption there.
>If souls are real, then they would be provable, and trying to judge all future scientific progress by what we know now is just making the same mistake as the man above.
We've proven that souls aren't real. A mind is an electro-chemical process that happens in a living brain, and it ends when you die. We invented the story of souls to explain a phenomenon that we didn't understand at the time, now we hang on to that story because it gives us comfort, but it also leaves us vulnerable to further storytelling.
We've still got the hard problem of consciousness, the alignment problem, and the source of qualia to chew through before souls are definitively disproven.
Until the evidence in insurmountable and all room for myth is filled with facts, mental-gymnastics will fill the void.
Sure, but that's kind of my point, the basic nature of the mind became a known phenomena so the story of souls had to fundamentally change. If you think you can reach the inside of the hollow earth by going to the north pole, but then you get there and there's no yawning passage to fly down into, your story has to change. You might say "It's underneath all the ice!", but eventually we learn to probe and scan and find out what actually *is* under the ice, and so your story needs to change again.
Define life
A pattern capable of adapting to the environment and reproducing as necessary to ensure the same pattern or at least similar patterns continue to exist.
Most life exists in the form of chemical patterns, but a life pattern could theoretically exist as a pattern of energy or information.
So a hash code is alive?
If it can adapt to maintain it's same code and produce more of itself, then yes.
Some Bacteria are just as simple in real life.
So hash is A.I. bacteria?
There's a reason they call it a computer "Virus" anon.
But scientists don't know if they should classify viruses as life
Not sure if anon is being purposely pedantic or just missed the joke.
>If souls are real, then they would be provable
We have proven that there can exist factually true statements that cannot be proven and that such statements exist in pretty much any system of logic sophisticated enough to basic arithmetic. There are absolutely unprovable truths, what's your proof that such things 100% do not exist in this world?
>If morality cannot be determined through observation
>Massive assumption there.
So is the reverse. How do you know we can prove morality solely through empirical means?
>Talks about unprovable truths.
>Immediately demands someone prove a negative.
You're not very smart are you anon?
YOu're reference the completeness theorum right? The conclusion was Not that any truths were "Unprovable" in all systems, just the one system. I.E. There are some equationss you can prove with math, you can use models other than math to prove them.
Godel's theorum was just a proof that the current models we have are "Incomplete" because they can't prove all equations, not that a complete model was impossible.
Learn some actual formal logic before trying to use it in conversation
>How do you know we can prove morality solely through empirical means?
Because declaring something impossible with incomplete information and assumptions of all futures is categorically stupid compared to saying "Possible".
If this is an omnipotent figure literally all it needs to do is say "Because I said so." Everything else can be restructured to make it correct.
>morality
>Following the rules of a higher power
And that's where you fricked up.
Morality does not and has never had anything to do with authority.
>Ethics
>Doing what other people in the room agree with
Nope.
Ethics deals with getting people to work together. It has nothing to do with what they agree with.
Getting sworn enemies to work together requires an ethical framework of rules that neither of them have to like as long as it gets them to work together for whatever task.
>Getting sworn enemies to work together requires an ethical framework of rules that neither of them have to like as long as it gets them to work together for whatever task.
Like the DMV!
>implying ultimate authority doesn't engage in ethics
>The Ultimate Autnority decides what is good.
I'd accuse you of baiting if I didn't already know Christian actually unironically say this. Now I can't say jack shit.
I think it's more reasonable relative to a person living in the bronze age, or even 10th-century Europe, because authority was a concept that everyone interacted with, and most people didn't question it. The guys who DID question it were authority figures themselves, questioning the authority above them, which often ended badly. Jesus had a clever bottom-up view of this, where poverty was a blessing, and the rich were accursed by delusions of power which lead them away from heaven. Then the romans politicized his religion by adopting it, and Christianity became a stat-sponsored authority cult, and the dual-but-not-dualistic nature of the story (all about mercy but also all about authority) allowed it to keep spreading even when political borders shifted and retracted.
But modern western society is so different from that. In particular, other stories (besides Christianity) are allowed, and they don't get to torture you for making fun of Christianity. But it's also different in that no one blindly believes in authority itself, we believe in personal liberty and the social contract, and then we jump like startled prey animals when political authority comes knocking. Even the surliest and most cynical basement-dwelling Christian still believes that he has the right to not be abused by his superiors, only God can do that, and that's fine because political authority is no longer directly related to the god-story. They get to see the government as usurpers, and in this Jesus's original teachings about political power become relevant again, even for traditional catholics who are still literally worshiping the Roman government.
This brings us all the way around to the point where you get rebel-points for being Christian, because you see yourself as questioning secular society, even though your worldview is historically rooted in the utter lack of such questioning.
Balance is for law vs chaos, and only for good vs evil where it's conflated with that.
Astonishingly based. fatetards are the ones to be put on the sword
>the dark lord and the oracle used to be a couple.
>this is just some shitty b***h scheme to get back together.
>Dark Lord hears about the Chosen One who will defeat him and, presumably, his armies
>He destroys his own armies and dominion, creating a small and peaceful kingdom
Yeah, Oracle, gotta break it to you but prophecy came true, Dark Lord turned out to be a Chosen One, its one of those self fulfilling types of prophecies, you know how it is
I go kill the gods of fate.
I pierce myself with the arrow. What now?
>Kill a dilligent and just ruler
>Increase the amount of evil in the world
Heavenly order hass become tarnished. This oracle is a false prophet or the hand of something darker. The Celestial Powers need to get their house in order. An inquisition in to who has chosen this Chosen One needs to be undertaken, the celestial tranquility has become celestial complacency. Harmony for the sake of harmony is amoral.
I never went that level of subversion of the trope, the closest was a "chosen one"character prophetised by an entire religion to be born as some kind of messiah, but turned out the oracles fricked up the math by a few years. When the oracles realized of their mistake they kicked my character out
And it was kinda done to annoy the Paladin player who always always always plays the "chosen one last of my special tribe/kind/race" character
cringe
who cares how the ultimate authority works or if its "good" or "evil"
if it wont allow me to live my life the way i want it to i'm taking my wizard friends and my magic sword and stabbing it. good or evil be damned.
Uh...
>accept arrow of pure evil from oracle of fate
>immediately become overwhelmed by pure evil
>stab oracle of fate with arrow of pure evil
>oracle of fate seems strangely surprised
>as if this was entirely unexpected
>not much of an oracle of fate
>but the arrow is certainly pure evil
>rename self 'the black arrow'
>become like robin hood
>only pure evil
>rob from the rich
>rob from the poor
>kill at will
>magical arrow of pure evil guarantees critical hits with no chance to miss at any range
>magically returns to quiver with an evil noise
>words gets around about these impossible shots
>become highly sought assassin
>kill people for money with arrow of pure evil for years
>eventually get this job
>target sounds familiar
>oh hey it's the bbeg dark lord from the beginning of this 'adventure'
>*seinfeld_lietmotif*
...so, you're magically sealing this "Arrow of Pure Evil" inside of a special container, and then locking that all up securely inside of a sturdy carrying case of some sort, right?
>The reason the Oracle of Fate did not forsee it is because his vision had already been blocked. He had seen this wall to his vision years ago since becoming the Oracle. He presumed it was because of interference with fate, and that once fate was restored so would his vision, but it was also actually because he would die that day.
>It was intentional the arrow was not shielded, rather than a mistake, "The Black Arrow's" reign of evil assassinations does inevitably hit the Dark Lord, thus also playing his part in the plan of the Goddess of Fate
>The Dark Lord returns again, punished for defying fate and the gods he is compelled to destroy his beloved kingdom.
>his reign of evil the catalyst that sets the chosen one on their heroic journey to rise up and slay him.
>Order and balance is restored. Fate and the gods return to harmony, all is in balance once again
It checks out
How is this good? How is any of that good?
God's word is good. It may confound our human morality, but He works in mysterious ways. The same applies to fictional pantheons - they created morality, they decide what is good. So the dark lord defying fate, the will of the universe, CAN be evil if it defies the authority of God (or gods, in this case), even if it appears to be good on the outside. This is how satan operates in the real world, too - sometimes you have to be cruel to be good. Sometimes being nice is evil. We don't get to decide, only God does. We cannot trust our feelings, only scripture
So when the Shepard butchers his flock, it can only be good?
I mean...yes. That's literally revelations. God is going to butcher His children, with the exception of a lucky few true believers getting to paradise. Everyone else is going to burn for all eternity. And it is good, because God is good.
>with the exception of a lucky few true believers getting to paradise
And what defines a "True believer?"
One who follows scripture
God
>God
So God directly communicated to you this Scripture?
He wrote the bible through its individual writers, channeling Himself through them.
>He wrote the bible through its individual writers, channeling Himself through them.
But it was the writers writing it, and as they are human, they are failable...
No. God wrote through them. If it were written by humans alone it wouldn't be real
>If it were written by humans alone it wouldn't be real
But how do you discern proper Scripture from regular human fiction?
What means are their of determining legitimacy?
From where does this "Authority" derive?
The vatican decides. God speaks through the pope
>The vatican decides. God speaks through the pope
And how do you know that?
Faith. You will not tempt me away from God, Satan. I know you lurk here to lure believers away from God.
>Faith.
I mean to be pedantic, you don't KNOW because of Faith, you BELIEVE it.
That's what makes it Faith.
Or the gnostics are correct, in which case the devil is speaking through the pope to tempt people away from the divine through their pride.
It also wouldn't be surprising, considering all the dark and fricked-up things popes have done throughout history.
Nope you're wrong
Nope God is real. It's a fact
>It's a fact
No, it's suppose to be a Belief.
You being a mindless, unthinking drone is the problem.
Also, Pope says you should jump off a bridge.
God hates gays like you. When his angels come, they will drag you away to a lake of fire to burn for all eternity in unending agony. That's how much he hates you. It is unending
>God hates gays like you.
No he doesn't!
Also you haven't consumed Pork at all in your life, correct?
I have, because Christ lifted israeli gayshit rules.
>Christ lifted israeli gayshit rules.
Oh, so then you are ok with homosexuality?
No he didn't lift that only the moronic rules, because he loves us
We can eat shellfish and pork and shit now and don't have to wear merchant hats and can shave! Because Christ realized that all those rules were stupid when he gave Himself human perspective. But homosexuality is an abomination, no sane god would allow it
>No he didn't lift that only the moronic rules
>But homosexuality is an abomination, no sane god would allow it
Really?
Because supposedly Eating Pork is just an an abomination onto God as Sodomy...
Which sounds like you are manipulating the "Absolute Authority" of God for your own ends.
In fact, the very idea that Jesus as God revised His Rules would imply His Authority is not absolute to begin with.
So such a chode you pork-eating blasphemer, I'll see you in Hell!
NTA, but I think you might be thinking he is me.
I'm the "Ultimate Authority" guy, & I just want to say, that in Christianity, God created rules for the israelites to follow as penance & that in time, he would send a Messiah to fulfill all the prophecies & lead to a new chapter. Christians believe Christ to be the Messiah. Christ did wave away all the restrictions placed on the israelites like the consumption of pork (which was really closer to a guideline on food prep in that day & age than some condemnation of pigs as sinful) basically. If you want to be a "True" Christian. You follow the Ten Commandments, & anything Jesus said. All that leviticus shit is for israelites to suffer
were you the one that replied to this question?
Yes, I posted
In response
Okay then, example 1:
>Supreme Deity Bubulzik understands morality in it's entirety and decides being evil is more fun. Bubulzik decides to act in accordance with what would be the most evil choice in any given situation
Example 2:
>Supreme deity Karta understands morality in it's fullest, but is still a creature with free will. Having a large number of worshippers and being exceedingly bored, Karta decides to be a dick one day and tell his worshippers all the wrong information about what "Good" is and cause a number of conflicts that are interesting to watch.
Example 3:
Supreme deity Mordam is able to define morality entirely by it's whims. Being a creature with free will, it decides that it's action will be what defines Evil rather than good.
Examples 1 & 2 where you say
>understands morality in it's entirety
This seems to imply that something above them (an Ultimate Authority) dictates morality & that they only comprehend & administer it.
Example 3... is a mess. You have amore or less walking contradiction & then go further by trying to apply ethics to it
Continuing, Let me make this easy for you.
Here is an example.
Does Karma weigh each action with the same weight or does the individual's own case by case basis change the weight of Karma? I.e. if a wealthy man lives generously vs a poor man living generously. Do they accrue the same karma or do they get disproportionate karma? If one could look objectively & find that it IS disproportionate it can be determined that while both men are acting morally, one is receiving "unethical" or "unfair" favor by a group of random frickers (because that's how ethics works)
NTA, but saying 'Understands morality in its entirety' is a useful shorthand in hypothetical discussions about morality, because you can make statements that hold equally true for different definitions of morality. Maybe you think it's evil to share a home with a menstruating woman, whatever, that isn't the point. The point is to explore the idea of an ultimate power having free will.
>This seems to imply that something above them (an Ultimate Authority) dictates morality & that they only comprehend & administer it.
It doesn't, actually. To understand morality in its entirety is to understand that moral truths are strategic truths, morality is just a higher level of self-interest, and gods are just stories. But you can disagree with me on that point and still have a productive conversation about Bubulzik or Karta or Mordam. When you ask "what is moral", different people will say different things, that's a basic fact of the conversation and always has been.
>Example 3... is a mess. You have amore or less walking contradiction & then go further by trying to apply ethics to it
lol
Are you saying that the ultimate authority doesn't get to decide to be evil? He's good, whether he likes it or not, because you said so? This is great.
>It doesn't, actually. Yada yada yada.
These "higher truths" would be the Ultimate Authority.
>Are you saying that the ultimate authority doesn't get to decide to be evil
You are still applying ethics to an Ultimate Authority, here. Stop. This is why I encouraged the Other Anon to think these things through with a non-personification, because it would be easier to understand.
>These "higher truths" would be the Ultimate Authority.
A non-sapient set of rules can't be an "Authority".
An authority is an individual capable of making decisions.
Unfrick your terminology.
>You are still applying ethics to an Ultimate Authority, here.
What does this have to do with ethics?
If the ultimate authority gets to decide good and evil however they please, what stops them from defining themselves and their actions as evil?
Where is the paradox?
Why does an ultimate authority need to be morally good?
>A non-sapient set of rules can't be an "Authority".
>An authority is an individual capable of making decisions.
Wrong. Karma & Fate, prove otherwise
>Unfrick your terminology.
I have been operating with a very strict & regulated set of terms since the beginning. You're the one not following
>What does this have to do with ethics?
Everything
>If the ultimate authority gets to decide good and evil however they please, what stops them from defining themselves and their actions as evil?
You're again applying ethics. Stop
Where is the paradox?
Not a problem of paradox. It's a problem of your understanding
>Why does an ultimate authority need to be morally good?
You are applying Ethics again. Stop
>Wrong. Karma & Fate, prove otherwise
If they don't make decisions then they aren't "Authorities".
Read the definition of Authority.
>You're the one not following
I'm following just fine.
I'm pointing out that you're wrong.
>Everything
Nothing
>You're again applying ethics.
No I'm not.
Prove otherwise.
I bet you can't.
Take a deep breath before you unravel anon...
Karma enforces the nature of the universe, you move up or down the ladder depending on your actions. Nothing is above karma, nothing set karma into motion. But you can't fight it. You can subvert it. It just fricking happens. Following karma is moral, resisting it is immoral.
Just about every time you say is this Good or Evil? Can this or that be Good or Evil? & such, you venture into the realm of ethics. We are talking about morality. I've tried to give you examples to show you the difference but you have refused to engage with them, instead you have reiterated the same flawed models over & over again.
Now. TRY to phrase a question, against a nonpersonification, because everytime you don't, you make the same mistake
>Karma enforces...
Hard stop.
Just stop.
What karma does or is defined by has nothing to do with if it is an authority or not.
I'm telling that you are using the word "Authority" wrong.
>person or organization having power or control in a particular,
Just googled it. Does Karma have power? Yes. Does Karma control the universe? Yes (if you believe in it/if it is true, which we are for the sake of discussion)
Karma is not a person or organization. It is a force or law.
You've failed your reading comprehension anon
Okay... what word would you suggest as a replacement that will satisfy your autism?
You could use force, law, function, etc.
Also, you do not get to be smarmy about personification while presenting terms that imply personification.
I'm just trying to help you out bro. I see no reason to allow language limit the discussion. Go forward with your arguments using karma as a base
If karma exists and it isn't capable of making decisions, then you aren't exactly "Serving it by acting "Good".
That's just another form of self-interest. Karma will screw you if you don't act "Good", therefore you act good in order to not get screwed.
It's no different than an animal deciding not to put itself in danger.
>>An authority is an individual capable of making decisions.
>Wrong.
If the ultimate authority can be anything then your central premise becomes a nonstatement. "All morality is defined by whatever it is that defines all morality".
>Stop
>Stop
L
M
A
O
>These "higher truths" would be the Ultimate Authority.
Not at all, morality is strategic "facts" emerging from complex systems. To define a reality is to define morality indirectly, and a being who understands morality in its entirety is a being who understands this. You're working backwards from the assumption that morality is based on authority, but it isn't, that's just what authority figures want you to believe.
>Stop.
lmao
Ah I should have seen it. You just don't like the use of the word "authority" because you are probably some atheist selfish hedonist libertine piece of shit. You want to justify yourself pushing the monkey buttons in your head that make you feel good by saying God is evil or whatever.
This is gibberish
You're certified moronic
Nice counter-argument.
I especially like the way you side-stepped having to make any actual points by declaring everyone else is "bad" in some way.
Now if you're done screaming about how you have a small dick and thin skin, do you feel like actually feel like presenting and argument at some point?
>You just don't like the use of the word "authority" because
...It shows you are a blind sheep with no self-determination, like some kind of bipedal livestock only parroting what your masters tell you to?
You don't even know what authority means. As in, you don't know what you personally mean by "authority". You're just burying the end of the rope so you can pretend it leads to heaven.
No, I'm just not autistic about whether it needs to be personified for the title to work.
I have made an argument you have yet to be able to refute. Don't bury the lede, just cause I called you names you ignorant chucklefrick
You got btfo'd by the suggestion of a willfully evil ultimate authority, so you had to back up. You backed up to the point where you aren't distinguishing between morality and causality. Karma is just magical physics, it's an authority to the same degree that gravity is an authority. By suggesting an unthinking and unchoosing "ultimate authority" (in a weird, awkward attempt to suddenly dodge the entire concept of God), you have erased any distinction between action/reaction and crime/punishment. All physics are now morality.
>Following karma is moral, resisting it is immoral.
Honestly mate, this is such a moronic take, we haven't even begun to unbox it yet.
Lol, I appreciate trying to swing this around on me, but we both know that's bullshit. You still fail, at every level, to understand anything I said, because YOU are personally affronted by being held accountable for your sins.
In EVERY religion, there is some guiding force, some arbiter of what is right & wrong. Don't get caught up on the name. I called it Ultimate Authority, but that doesnt really matter. You b***hed for two days each time applying ethics to it, instead of trying to understand what I was teaching you. Finally, in a desperate attempt to ditch the discussion, you threw a b***hfit over nomenclature.
So again, once more with feeling, try to understand these simple statement
Morality is an appeal to a higher absolute power (changed the name so you can't b***h)
Ethics is asking people in the room if it's okay.
Compare or contrast, whatever. As soon as you start thinking you can judge the Judge, you've ran into ethics. YHWH or Buddha or Karma, doesn't care what anyone else thinks. They created the rules. They ARE the EMBODIMENT of those rules. Karma judges your ass every second of the day & it is an absolute.
Anon, let me be clear, at no point in this conversation have you had an argument. I was just lurking until
, at which point I showed you more kindness than you deserved, as have others. Your story is a series of baseless assertions and intentionally-bad semantics followed by more baseless assertions and more intentionally-bad semantics. No one is swayed by your story. People have pointed out some of the inconsistencies in your story, because it's fun to do so, but also perhaps out of misplaced concern. You respond by crying foul, as if reason has no place here, and in this your central point is clear: "ethics" is when you think, and "morality" (according to your made-up semantics) is when you don't.
>Morality is an appeal to a higher absolute power (changed the name so you can't b***h)
Inertia is a higher absolute power, morality is wearing your seatbelt, this is the corner that you have backed yourself into. You didn't mean to be here, you meant to say that morality is an appeal to gods and spirits, but then you appealed to karma in an attempt to frame your perspective as being broader than it actually is.
>Ethics is asking people in the room if it's okay.
Unless the people in the room are imaginary, in which case it becomes morality, lmao.
>"ethics" is when you think, and "morality" (according to your made-up semantics) is when you don't.
Because if he thought critically, he might realize how colored his bias and prejudices have been by intentionally perverted morality tales altered to give false authority to bad actors?
Semantics huh? Is that why you're only argument is over semantics? The word authority offends you, now "appealing to a higher power" means worshipping gravity or thermodynamics or whatever. I'm trying to accommodate you, so you'll feel better, yet you have yet to do the one simple thing I asked YOU to do, because you know you're stance is flawed & has no merit
>the one simple thing I asked YOU to do
Which is what? Talking about karma? We are. Karma doesn't have values, karma doesn't make decisions, karma isn't an entity. Karma is just cause and effect. You cannot "appeal" to karma. Your concept of "appealing to a higher power/authority" is a big joke, you started out wit the assumption that higher powers have agency, then had to abandon that because you can't actually cope with the idea of a higher power having agency.
>Does an omnipotent entity change?
If it wants to, yes.
>If It was capable of change it wouldn't be omnipotent.
L
M
A
O
>An omnipotent entity doesn't need to change
The concept of "need" is incoherent in the context of an omnipotent entity. You are adorable. Please never leave.
>you started out wit the assumption that higher powers have agency
What the frick are you talking about? My fricking mantra since the beginning is that morality is following a separate force/entity/power's laws/rules/guidance/path & ethics is following consensus of other people.
You are so fricking dysfunctional. I'm tired of playing semantics with you. Get fricked. You have no basis for any of your drivel & you have no theological understanding & once I blew through your tissuepaper argument you have literally nothing to say but to b***h about specific word choices
This you?
>Trying to argue pure theology against the more thorough and well structured branch of philosophy.
That may be your problem anon, you're arguing from ignorance against a knowledge base much larger than your own.
BTW, isn't allowing yourself to be blinded by your ignorance in the face of a potential teacher a Big No-No in every single Vedic and Vedic adjacent religion?
What kind of Semitic semantics are you on about now you fricking Black person like?
Yes
>What kind of semantic...
It's not semantics.
Anon is calling you out for pretending to win despite multiple other anon's clearly blowing open your arguments like a hooker on happy hour after the navy just got back from a long deployment.
There is no semantics here. You're just wrong, and throwing a tantrum about it like a toddler.
I haven't been proven wrong once b***h.
You have, multiple times.
Prove it. Because I'll I have done has shown how your examples don't hold water
Point out where your argument starts in the thread so that your argument isn't being confused with another schiszo-anon's
For example if you are also this anon
then you've been flip-flopping on your stance.
If not, then specifying which comments are yours will lower the amount of autistic rage anons direct at you for shit you didn't say
Is this also you?
And this?
>What the frick are you talking about?
Poor thing.
>My fricking mantra since the beginning is that morality is following a separate force/entity/power's laws/rules/guidance/path
By "separate" you mean "above question". And by "above question", you mean "magical, invisible and unfalsifiable", because that in your mind is the best possible defense against questioning. You're adorable.
Semantically, you're just wrong. "Morality" just means "what people believe about right and wrong". It can be secular, it can be magical, it can be because-it's-what-the-government-tells-us-to-think, the word 'moral' doesn't make any distinction based on the worthiness of the belief. But most posters aren't even bothering to take you to task on semantics because the SUBSTANCE of your beliefs is so much more entertaining.
>ethics is following consensus of other people.
Again, this is just wrong, but the substance of your argument is more interesting than your poor grasp of English. Whenever someone finds a plot hole in your story you accuse them of "applying ethics", even though you're the one blindly appealing to a supposed social consensus.
You do know that was never a rule in the first place right?
Leviticus 18:22 reads w’eth-zäkhār lö’ tiškav miškevē ‘iššâ in the original text
Leviticus 20:13 reads Yg ve'ish, asher yishkav et-zachar mishkevei ishah--to'evah asu, sheneihem; mot yumatu, demeihem bam.
"Zachar" is used distinctly from the over word for "Male" used, implying it's being used in it's other meaning I.E. "Male Child"
The text doesn't condem Gay sex. It contemns gay pedophilia.
Wrong how?
Historically speaking, the gnostics rose first and closer to the time period jesus would be alive. If anything, they'd be the closest to jesus's teachings.
On top of that, the catholic church's doctrine contradicts the biblical telling of jesus's teachings as well. His biggest point when speaking up against the monolythic israeli churches of the time was that large organized churches do not and Can Not be authorities on the word of god. The relationship someone has with god can Only be personal.
You might be a heretic on the devil's team my guy.
so who wrote the scripture
We kill the oracle. If it's so important the gods can do it themselves.
Something something "we *are* the Gods response".
That just means that the gods really wanted us to kill the oracle. He was probably very bad at his job.
It might indeed be part of their plan
The party swears that they shall never be puppets of Fate. They join the Dark Lord's small but prosperous kingdom and become his new lieutenants, vowing never to betray him under pain of automatic soul obliteration if they should ever disobey him or cause him harm. What now, gay DM?
No
I stab myself with the arrow and kill myself
Hence telling the ultimate frick you to the gods for trying to frick with a mans free will
>inb4 oh it makes you evil so you dont have a nice day
No it does cause itll frick over the gods even more
The oracle sighs and has the maids clean up the corpse grabs another arrow of opposite alignment from the pile.
I stab myself with the arrow and turn myself into the dark lord, the old dark lord now has to try and become the hero to defeat ME
also I marry a witch with an enormous hat and even larger breasts
This sort of shit is exactly why oracles are killed on sight in my setting. You think I'm joking, but it's been in-universe canon for the past ten years.
So I just saw an oracle, and I killed her of course, but before she died she told me that the king and queen have to suck my dick. We're all going to die horrible deaths unless the king and queen both take turns sucking my dick. Bad news huh?
>We're all going to die horrible deaths unless the king and queen both take turns sucking my dick.
Well, you just prophesied, so get in the fricking gibbet.
Unfortunately, non-brain-dead oracles are very useful for telling people the destiny equivalent of "You're driving the wrong way Dumbass".
Knowing that you aren't about to release a sealed evil in a can is Very helpful in preserving a kingdom's long term future.
Anyway, outside of abrahamic cuckville, the relevant factor is the supposed 'good' to be gained. Most people have too much integrity to go do something evil just because a flashy stranger tells them it's good. Some people can be convinced that a bad thing is necessary, but there are others who can never be convinced, and who won't compromise their moral principles unless they are mentally defeated. I like to think of myself as the kind of person who can be convinced, but it would take a lot.
>Most people have too much integrity to go do something evil just because a flashy stranger tells them it's good.
Have you Ever gone outside anon?
lol, you're right. I didn't mean to say that it's impossible to make people betray their principles, I meant to say that it takes some combination of appealing to their moral principles and/or defeating their will. Authoritarian stories make both of those things easier, which is what they're designed for.
Couldn’t someone else be evil? This guy seems happy.
Define good.
>slaughtering a lamb to feed your family
Define evil.
>slaughtering a family to feed your lamb
That's how I see it. There's a case to be made that D&D neutral would slaughter a family to feed its lamb. It seems like sacrificing the greater good for yourself is evil whereas sacrificing the greater good for (your family/country/goat/whatever) is neutral. I don't think that this is a rule, at least not in any of the alignment-related text I've seen, but it is a convention. Powerful neutral individuals can be extremely dangerous if you aren't part of their in-group, but if you ARE part of their in-group then they're just as good as Good.
When the lamb of God says to kill your kin, you fricking do it.
no, that's fricking moronic. if fate can be thwarted that easily, than it isn't really fate, and if it isn't really fate, than it doesn't really matter if it's thwarted or not. fricking oracle motherfricker is probably just a scam artist try to get you to ruin an innocent man's life so he could continue making bucks off of making bullshit prophecies.
The dark lord was clearly his own chosen one though
You dont pick your own chosen one. You are chosen to be one. That's why they call it the chosen one.
Anyone is a chosen one, because they don't specify who's "Choosing".
Demon lord could totally choose themselves because the gods had to be dumbass art students obsessed with making their stupid terminology sound "Cool" and "Mysterious".
Sounds like the "Oracle" just wants to use us in an overly complicated plot to murder someone. I'm fine with it as long as he forks up enough money, but we could also skip all that bullshit and simply go stab the b***h if he wants?
The oracle was the Chosen one. Duh.
He fulfilled his own prophecy in a way no one expected, specifically due to the Dark Lord trying to avoid his fate.
This is prophecy 101.
So this 'Dark Lord' isn't bothering anyone? I want to know what the significance of the 'Chosen One' is and tell that Oracle to go piss up a rope.
>Go kill the ruler of a stable and good nation
>Because... uhmmm... because we're the good guys and he isn't.
Harper glowies deserve the rope.
>Would your party accept?
Why would we? Why bother? There's literally no reason to, as the Dark Lord's evil has already been neutered. The party would actually end up causing more evil than if it didn't get involved at all.
>They task you to deliver an arrow of Pure Evil, to rouse the Dark Lord once again, so that the Chosen One can rise up to defeat him, and thus good triumph over evil and heavenly order restored.
What if the party killed the Dark Lord instead? Would that satisfy the prophecy?
How do we know the Lard Lord is even going to start acting differently in the first palce? What if he maintains common sense and still decides to not do anything?
>the Lard Lord
You anons know what I meant.
The Lard Lord of Cholesteral ruling his lands with a buttered fist
This homie believes in butter.
Affix the Donut of Heresy.
You will be broken upon the skillet of shame to caramelize your soul for our Lord of Lard
I wonder if the dark lord would make me breakfast if I told him about the prophecy that whosoever scrambles eggs and bakes bacon shall the dark lord defeat
There's no reason the dark lord needs to be active for the chosen hero to do his job. Just march into the kingdom and slay him.
Reread the prompt anon.
The chosen one won't even be Born unless the dark lord accepts his destiny and starts doing evil.
The chosen one can't exactly slay anyone until he's already born.
>The chosen one won't even be Born
I reread and re-reread the prompt several times and nowhere does it say anything even approaching your claim.