I hope I didn't make anyone angry with that comment about avatars, by no means I meant it as a complaint of any sort.

I hope I didn't make anyone angry with that comment about avatars, by no means I meant it as a complaint of any sort.

Would it be possible for Amartía to make a Sin a Domain once he has made onr a Portfolio? Like Wrath for example, theres a plethora of Portfolios that could actually go with that if I could have it as a domain. Same with the other sins.

The more I read IC/OOC the more I realise one dimensional Ull is ...

<Snipped quote by LokiLeo789>

It sounds (kinda?) reasonable to move a portfolio to a domain, but, man, Sin might not be the best option here if you're looking to claim a domain. It's tricky to define, and not very flexible, especially if you use the old Catholic deadly sins model, which is kind of arbitrary anyway. And in terms of writing, 'sin' as a power base needs a lot of care to avoid inflating divine actions with too much dark edgy content.

My own recommendation would be to focus on what Amartia actually does and wants to do. His themes, basically. Defining Chaos (Sin) as manipulating individualist and hedonistic desires of mortals, like what's happening in Xerxes currently, would be a good step towards working out what other portfolios of Chaos Amartia might want to go for. The deadly sins list is, again, a little out of place without a religious background, so the portfolios should function in their own ways and reasons instead.

For example, moving into Chaos (Wrath) is a nice move because Amartia has had his fair share of angry/violent/passionately determined/vengeful moments and wrath-y powers might fit in to how he plans to use his army. The fact that wrath is in the deadly sin list doesn't really add anything, or even mean much, in the context of Amartia's goals and themes.

tl;dr look for portfolios in the way Amartia functions as a character, not by checking things off a list from an outside source.

If you read Peter Abelard's Ethics, where the nature of sin is discussed, you'll find therein a very convincing definition of sin, that is: a sin is where one consents to doing something which they know is wrong, or which they know God disapproves of, and in so consenting they are in fact showing contempt to God. It is this consent and contempt which is the true sin, and not the action itself. Thus, where one commits adultery, it is not the act of sleeping with another man's wife which is the sin, but the mental consent to doing what God disapproves of, and thus the contempt of God shown by such consent. Where one commits adultery and such consent does not exist, and thus no contempt, one cannot be said to have sinned.

@LokiLeo789 Didn't I once go on a tangent regarding what sin is, properly speaking? It's not so much the thing we call a 'sin' itself which makes 'sins' bad (i.e. killing someone on it's own isn't really a sin, it's just an action which may or may not be viewed as immoral).
What makes a sin a sin is the intention to disobey a higher being (i.e. God, a god, a higher being of some kind which has ultimate authority). Sin is merely the intentional disobedience of the command of said higher being.

So, if a higher being tells you that eating burgers is prohibited, and you go and eat a burger despite knowing of that command, then you have sinned. If you eat a burger by accident, or are not aware of the command, then you cannot be said to have sinned (though your culture or whatever may view eating burgers as immoral or encouraged or whatnot.) It seems like a straightforward and rather uncomplicated understanding of sin, especially since the term is so heavily connoted with religion in general (we don't hear people arguing that murder is sinful so much nowadays, it's more the 'immorality' of it that is highlighted, and morality is very much a relativistic construct, man-made but most likely influenced by religion in most, if not all, cases).

<Snipped quote by Kho Paraphrasing Abelard Ages Ago>

<Snipped quote by Kho>

Though that would barely work for Loki, since no god has condemned 6 out of 7 sins. No one has ever told "hey, don't drink and eat too much friendo" but in Loki's posts there is gluttony as a sin. This could change with Logos finally tried to place some order around, but right now the kho-definition of sin would basically neutralize it since every single god is a wacko.

<Snipped quote by Kho>

Though that would barely work for Loki, since no god has condemned 6 out of 7 sins. No one has ever told "hey, don't drink and eat too much friendo" but in Loki's posts there is gluttony as a sin. This could change with Logos finally tried to place some order around, but right now the kho-definition of sin would basically neutralize it since every single god is a wacko.

I hope I didn't make anyone angry with that comment about avatars, by no means I meant it as a complaint of any sort.

...consequently weigh easily over ten thousand metric tonnes.