*cackles* They said it couldn't be done... but I FUCKING DID IT. WITH A LASER WELDER!!! Take that you old fashion loonies! Pic of my masterpiece to follow... in the meantime.
I agree with the sentiment, especially as far as Logos and Teknall are concerned, but also disagree simply because that's too 'general' of a statement, especially in the "LN, CN, CG, etc." route. I believe its also not one's intention, but also to the degree of which they've intervened and made themselves known.
Let's use LOTR as an example. Sauruman, Gandalf, and Radagast are all maiar of the valar, and thus 'Good'. But they have varying levels of interaction with Middle Earth in their attempts to save it.
Sauruman invests himself with the big picture; it is the nations and joint efforts that matter and can, or fail to, defeat Sauron. It is colossal actions and 'the game of thrones' as it were that matter... the plans of the enemy, their movements, their strategem. His plans and schemes and outlook are grand in scale, for in his mind, severity can only match severity. He watches from the Tower of Orthanc and stares into the Palantir, separate and distant from the world. When Sauron builds an army that will wipe the world of men, Sauruman builds his own, enters a temporary peace agreement, but ultimately seeks to ursurp his new master. To him, "What is the fate of Rohan in comparison to the fate of all of middle earth?"
Gandalf sees the value of an individual. Whereas Sauruman would dismiss the notion that one man (or hobbit) could make the difference, Gandalf feels they can change anything. He walks among the nations as a man. He eats with people, breaks bread with them, bleeds with them. He personally rallies and leads the defense of Gondor on the walls, instead of delegating. He gives himself against the fight of the Balrog so the rest of the party can escape. He believes that the individual can alter the course of the war. It is Aragon, heir of Isildur, who will sit upon the throne of Gondor. It is the courage of Frodo that will carry the ring up the slopes of Mount Doom. It is his faith that Theoden will answer the call for aid when the beacons of Gondor are lit. It puts an astonishing degree of faith into the individual. To him, "The smallest of us can make the greatest of changes."
Radagast has scoped himself down even smaller. He has wholly immersed himself into the world of Middle Earth, more than his brethren. Saruman sees the grand scale, Gandalf sees individuals, Radagast is the microscale. To him, very bird, leaf, mouse, and tree is as precious and irreplaceable as an elf, man or dwarf. He is the first to feel the rot affecting Mirkwood. "All matters, so any action must be for the benefit of all."
But he CAN'T see the 'Big' picture, so immersed as he is in the world, and Saruman can't see the details, so immersed as he is in the greater events. Gandalf, arguably, is even more screwed, being unable to see the greater machinations, or feel the underrunning pulse of the land. Rather, all he can do is run from place to place to place, doing damage control.
So yeah, there's definitely a Divinity vs Mortality thing. But how can more define this?
Is Logos the more mortal of the gods, for having created humans himself, and by acknowledging his LACK of mortality and his love for his creatures, stepped back to allow them to grow unhindered? Is he more Divine because he sees himself as above even all of the other gods, and made the argument "If I kill one village with Jvan corruption, I can save ten. Kill ten, save a hundred."
Is Teknall more divine because he keeps himself at a distance from his chosen, and acts through the Chippers as opposed to teaching them himself, so above them. Is he more mortal because he saw the 'Big Picture' and cared for the destruction on an individual level?
Is Vestec the most mortal for how much he utterly fucks with them on a daily basis, so intrigued by the nuances of their lives? Is Ullyang more divine because... well, he's a star. Is Jvan [redacted] because [redacted]?
This is why I hate alignment scales. Yeah, they give an idea of where they should be. But ultimately, everyone is all over this thing. And yes, Im sure theres flaws to my argument and what Im saying, and Im sure any of us can pick a dozen different instances where a god made such and such an action and ergo it fit this.
But if we're going with Mortality vs Divine, why not also Necktie vs Bacon? "Ye who walk with the Path of Bacon shall be with dinner blessed. Yet ye who follow the Way of Necktie shall be for dinner dressed."
Now... to do list:
-Finish killing Kyre
-Dinner with a demigod who wants to kill me
-Pull forces back to Arcon.
Lets do this...
Alignment. I've been thinking a bit about it.
The classic alignment axes are Good vs Evil and Law vs Chaos.
Around the start of this RP, it was commented by some (notably Vulamera) about the arbitrariness and limitations of that system.
Also around the start of this RP, we observed that a very clear line was drawn between Order and Chaos. Good and Evil were largely ignored, mainly because in such a fresh World there was no fixed moral code to properly define Good and Evil. But Order and Chaos were very distinct and also at odds since before the creation of the Universe. (In this scenario, Law is equivalent to Order)
As the RP progressed, Good and Evil started to become more apparent, but there was still plenty of grey area, and the main conflict still existed between Order and Chaos.
However, I have observed the emergence of a third, independent axis; how our characters relate to mortals (call it Divine vs Mortal for now, although I'm sure a better name can be devised). This axis is especially important in a god roleplay like Divinus. Someone on the Divine end of the spectrum is aloof or cavalier, caring little for the fate or concerns of the mortals beneath them. Someone on the Mortal end is deeply concerned with mortal affairs.
A notable clash of Mortal vs Divine I remember is the encounter between Logos and Teknall. Despite both being on the side of Order, they found their positions irreconcilable due to opposing opinions on mortals.
It was commented a while back in the OOC about what gods wore clothes and what gods didn't. Dawnscroll made the observation that clothes are very much a mortal thing, with those dealing solely in the divine not needing clothes. As such, we can observe a loose correlation between whether or not a god wears clothes and where they fit on the Mortal vs Divine axis. Of course, there are some exceptions (Toun is always described as wearing a porcelain robe (which is technically part of his body, but let's ignore that), but the symbology there better fits the covering of flaws than any relation to mortals), but it tends to be true.
And while I have asserted that the Divine vs Mortal axis is independent, there are correlations. Characters described as Good tend to fit in Mortal, while characters described as Evil tend to fit in Divine. This wouldn't be a huge coincidence, as Good in general means you help others while Evil means you are self-serving with no care for others. In this case, Mortal vs Divine would be best for separating out feelings towards mortals from feelings towards other gods. Toun's current alignment is described as Lawful Evil. But towards the other gods, he has deep (albeit hidden) feelings of compassion. One might tentatively reclassify Toun as Lawful Divine Good. His intentions are Good, but lesser beings (i.e. mortals) are beneath his compassion. (The classification is not perfect, of course, but you can't really hope to fully encapsulate the morality of a complex entity in two or three words.)
The Mortal vs Divine distinction is also quite useful for distinguishing the different shades of Neutral, and we have a lot of Neutral characters. These Neutral characters tend fall into that category either because they are indifferent (thus, fits in Divine) or because their interactions with mortals are on average neither good or bad (for those who fit in Mortal).
tl;dr, I have observed the existence of a third alignment axis: Mortal vs Divine.
I agree with the sentiment, especially as far as Logos and Teknall are concerned, but also disagree simply because that's too 'general' of a statement, especially in the "LN, CN, CG, etc." route. I believe its also not one's intention, but also to the degree of which they've intervened and made themselves known.
Let's use LOTR as an example. Sauruman, Gandalf, and Radagast are all maiar of the valar, and thus 'Good'. But they have varying levels of interaction with Middle Earth in their attempts to save it.
Sauruman invests himself with the big picture; it is the nations and joint efforts that matter and can, or fail to, defeat Sauron. It is colossal actions and 'the game of thrones' as it were that matter... the plans of the enemy, their movements, their strategem. His plans and schemes and outlook are grand in scale, for in his mind, severity can only match severity. He watches from the Tower of Orthanc and stares into the Palantir, separate and distant from the world. When Sauron builds an army that will wipe the world of men, Sauruman builds his own, enters a temporary peace agreement, but ultimately seeks to ursurp his new master. To him, "What is the fate of Rohan in comparison to the fate of all of middle earth?"
Gandalf sees the value of an individual. Whereas Sauruman would dismiss the notion that one man (or hobbit) could make the difference, Gandalf feels they can change anything. He walks among the nations as a man. He eats with people, breaks bread with them, bleeds with them. He personally rallies and leads the defense of Gondor on the walls, instead of delegating. He gives himself against the fight of the Balrog so the rest of the party can escape. He believes that the individual can alter the course of the war. It is Aragon, heir of Isildur, who will sit upon the throne of Gondor. It is the courage of Frodo that will carry the ring up the slopes of Mount Doom. It is his faith that Theoden will answer the call for aid when the beacons of Gondor are lit. It puts an astonishing degree of faith into the individual. To him, "The smallest of us can make the greatest of changes."
Radagast has scoped himself down even smaller. He has wholly immersed himself into the world of Middle Earth, more than his brethren. Saruman sees the grand scale, Gandalf sees individuals, Radagast is the microscale. To him, very bird, leaf, mouse, and tree is as precious and irreplaceable as an elf, man or dwarf. He is the first to feel the rot affecting Mirkwood. "All matters, so any action must be for the benefit of all."
But he CAN'T see the 'Big' picture, so immersed as he is in the world, and Saruman can't see the details, so immersed as he is in the greater events. Gandalf, arguably, is even more screwed, being unable to see the greater machinations, or feel the underrunning pulse of the land. Rather, all he can do is run from place to place to place, doing damage control.
So yeah, there's definitely a Divinity vs Mortality thing. But how can more define this?
Is Logos the more mortal of the gods, for having created humans himself, and by acknowledging his LACK of mortality and his love for his creatures, stepped back to allow them to grow unhindered? Is he more Divine because he sees himself as above even all of the other gods, and made the argument "If I kill one village with Jvan corruption, I can save ten. Kill ten, save a hundred."
Is Teknall more divine because he keeps himself at a distance from his chosen, and acts through the Chippers as opposed to teaching them himself, so above them. Is he more mortal because he saw the 'Big Picture' and cared for the destruction on an individual level?
Is Vestec the most mortal for how much he utterly fucks with them on a daily basis, so intrigued by the nuances of their lives? Is Ullyang more divine because... well, he's a star. Is Jvan [redacted] because [redacted]?
This is why I hate alignment scales. Yeah, they give an idea of where they should be. But ultimately, everyone is all over this thing. And yes, Im sure theres flaws to my argument and what Im saying, and Im sure any of us can pick a dozen different instances where a god made such and such an action and ergo it fit this.
But if we're going with Mortality vs Divine, why not also Necktie vs Bacon? "Ye who walk with the Path of Bacon shall be with dinner blessed. Yet ye who follow the Way of Necktie shall be for dinner dressed."
Now... to do list:
-Finish killing Kyre
-Dinner with a demigod who wants to kill me
-Pull forces back to Arcon.
Lets do this...
2x Like
