[OOC] Mid/High Casual - Divinus: The Deity Roleplay Mk.II

[Rtron]

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.

@Double Capybara

[Muttonhawk]

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.

@Double Capybara

Nah, I was just commenting due to OOC discussion being a great method of procrastination from my other commitments.

[LokiLeo789]

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.

[Antarctic Termite]

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.

@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.

[Vec]

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

[Lauder]

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

@Vec

The more I read IC, the more I realize how much the gods are truly assholes (Especially Vestec (sorry, Keriss Bias kicked in))

[LokiLeo789]

<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.

@Antarctic Termite

I've actually had that problem, trying to separate the religious background noise from the concept. Me getting fed up with the whole thing led to that crazy post a few days ago.

What I've come to realize it's what you just made mention of, and I am finally trying incorporate for the first time in this RP. What I wanted to do with the Portfolio of Wrath, and if possible make it a Domain, was branch into portfolios like; Brutality, Bloodlust, Primal Rage, stuff along those lines. I want to delve deeper into the 'individualist and hedonistic desires' that you mentioned.

Which is also why I'm delving into Wrath first and portraying it physically also.

[Dawnscroll]

@LokiLeo789 See, this is the sort of stuff I think we would have all preferred seeing rather than the FMA style stuff. Literally, the most base of human desires and emotions.

[Lauder]

@Dawnscroll

{totally forgot to do this when I saw your post}

*Keriss watches coronation; is the only one booing for now legitimate reason other than to be a bitch.*

[Dawnscroll]

@Lauder And... what reason is that?

[Lauder]

@Dawnscroll None at all

[Kho]

@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).

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.

Kho Paraphrasing Abelard Ages Ago

[Double Capybara]

@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>

@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.

[Kho]

<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.

@Double Capybara

What I mean to say is that to be the demigod of sin, Sin would have to create sin by prohibiting certain things, and when they disobey him they sin. If he so pleased, he could make everything a sin, and so rather than making everyone hedonistic and making Xerxes whakoland, he just makes everything they can possibly do a sin and they can go about life as usual. Except they can't because they're scared shetless that they'll sin and be punished by their god-king. Would be quite a twist, and totally something horrible that Sin would do.

[LokiLeo789]

<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.

@Double Capybara

Which is why I'm trying to now conceptualize it in a diffrent way. Wrath is no longer the biblical sense of Anger, but fury translated into battle, ones uncontrollable feelings of bloodlust, anger, and wrath that can only be sated by taking a life.

Well, thats the plan anyway. Using sin wasn't exactly my best idea. Maybe Chaos(Vice) would have been a better term.

[BBeast]

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.

@Double Capybara

Not at all. Your avatars are awesome. I was just contrasting them with my own, as it is quite a stark contrast.

@LokiLeo789 I like the direction you're taking Amartia now. He is now reflecting what he is meant to be.

[Vec]

>casualy checks out RPG
>checks profile to see who has been stalking me
>
>

[Muttonhawk]

@Vec Times like those I just think to myself that I'm glad to not be roleplaying on the Minecraft forums anymore.

[Antarctic Termite]

Ophanim creation sheet is done. Unreadable completionist trash as always.

tl;dr big metal balls with razor wire what that fly fast and have lots of souls

[Muttonhawk]

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

@Antarctic Termite

Ten million kilograms, huh?

Hey @BBeast, semi-joking question. Would ophanim exert noticeable gravity?