Forums

Your antithesis god?

Quick find code: 341-342-757-65846854

Cthris

Cthris

Posts: 5,193Rune Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
Seren.

I like logic, rationality, truth/objectivity. Seren is the opposite of that. She is illogical, irrational, a liar and a manipulator, both physically and emotionally.

First and foremost, by her very aurora she causes others to become heavily emotionally attached to her for no logical reason. Her very aurora is irrationality, and she spreads it around like a disease. Coicently, like a disease, everyone who gets close to her ends up dying.

She also hides truth from others. When she cursed the elves she didn't tell them about what she did to them. She also hid the truth from Guthix.

Instead of using logic and truth to convince the elves to come to gielinor by telling them that they are cursed, and that gielinor could be their only hope of being free from the curse, she decided to use the elves' curse against them; instead choosing to leave the world, knowing that the elves would suffer horribly and some would even die, making it so when she eventually returned they would do what she wanted. Effectively breaking their will.

This behavior is quite similar to how she treated the Dreams of Mah. Tricking them into killing one another to feed her monstrous mother.

When all but one clan had their wills broken and Seren wanted to return to gielinor, she still refused to tell the clan about what she had done, and abandoned them, fully aware that they would suffer and likely die. Currently, that clan after many deaths, has fallen into insanity and essentially become nothing more than monsters, bar a few. Seren literally destroyed an entire culture of people.

On gielinor Seren still couldn't solve the problem with the curse, so she used a willing clan as rats for her experiments. What possible problem could I have with this? Well first of all, it's not like any of the elves are capable of rational choice when under Seren's influence. In order to truly get consent the consenting individual must be rational. No rationality = no consent.

31-Oct-2016 15:53:37

Cthris

Cthris

Posts: 5,193Rune Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
Of course then part of Seren later became the Dark Lord (after channeling all her dark energy into Hallund. Who, as her twin/counterpart shows, is a sentient lifeform separated from Seren. So once again Seren is forcing things on mortals....) and then later started a civil war, tried to massacre half a city, used children as slaves and worked them to death, ate souls etc etc.

So yeah Seren is my anti-thesis god. I do my best to operate with rationality, and logic. I hate the feeling of controlling others. I don't even vote because I highly dislike the feeling of contributing to a system that forces values on an entire nation of people. I also love sharing what I know, and what I have learned with others. I don't try to hide my mistakes, and will point them out if I am at risk of misleading someone.

I also think she is the most damaging, and dangerous god. Though I wouldn't necessarily call her evil. I'm not utilitarian, or deontological so I can't really label as her as anything like that.


That being said, she is my favorite god character. I think she is so beautifully written. She paradoxical. She's the god of life, but she brings so much death. Everywhere she goes is marked with suicide, murder, insanity and death. She's written so well that all the horrible stuff she's done can cause some to look at her as a victim, rather than a monster. It will be interesting to see what they do with her in the future.

31-Oct-2016 15:53:42 - Last edited on 31-Oct-2016 16:10:27 by Cthris

Cthris

Cthris

Posts: 5,193Rune Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
Hazeel said:


Not defending Zamorak BTW...but this is par for the course at this point.


Only asking this cause I just thought it was such a weird statement lol.... but if you aren't defending Zamorak then what exactly is the point of your response to Aviansie lol?:P

Chaos Lupus said:
@ Aviansie
I am curious, though, when has Zamorak killed his friends/allies in order to keep them in line?

Wouldn't Char be an example of this? Was she not technically his ally (she thought he was an ally, he made no official act of war before this time etc.) when he turned on her in order to set an example for his other followers/keep them in line?

01-Nov-2016 01:07:12 - Last edited on 01-Nov-2016 01:11:12 by Cthris

Cthris

Cthris

Posts: 5,193Rune Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
Hazeel said:
Cthris said:
Only asking this cause I just thought it was such a weird statement lol.... but if you aren't defending Zamorak then what exactly is the point of your response to Aviansie lol?:P

Correcting him. .


Okay. But what did you correct in regards to An Aviansie lol? Did I miss a response where you contradicted something An Aviansie had said in An Aviansie's first post? or did you simply just "Yes, but X also did this". That's not really correcting lol, is it?

Chaos Lupus said:


Char was clearly not a friend, and she never would have sided with Zamorak against Zaros. Zamorak knew this, and opted to get the better of her when the opportunity presented itself. Not yet knowing you have an enemy is not the same as having an ally.


If an alliance is a formal union of two parties in the pursuance of a goal, and Zamorak and Char were formally unified by Zaros to spy on Seren then Char and Zamorak are allies no?

01-Nov-2016 02:00:51

Cthris

Cthris

Posts: 5,193Rune Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
Hazeel said:
Cthris said:
Okay. But what did you correct in regards to An Aviansie lol? Did I miss a response where you contradicted something An Aviansie had said in An Aviansie's first post? or did you simply just "Yes, but X also did this". That's not really correcting lol, is it?


Oh it is. He was claiming that Zamorak was the only one to do many of these things when that's not true.

Okay, I see my mistake :P I missed that part about the "Only". That's a really key piece of the argument for me to miss. Now your response makes sense :D

01-Nov-2016 02:41:14

Cthris

Cthris

Posts: 5,193Rune Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
Lord Valzin said:
Chaos Lupus said:
Here it is.

Q: Zamorak says he is "deeply remorseful" about what happened to the Chaos Dwarves. What was his intent with the power he gave them, if it all went according to plan? Was it simply an offer of power to those willing to fight for his cause, or something else?

Mod Ollie: "in return for their unwavering devotion I gave them power beyond any they had known before" - He didn't just give them power, he also forced them into servitude. I expect that his intentions were simply to create a powerful force that would be loyal to his cause, but by cursing them he caused them to eventually become corrupted, mindless beings which was clearly not a consequence he originally intended.


To me, this reads as quite similar to what happened with Seren and her elves, where they both tried to give their followers something and a side effect of unwilling loyalty was created. Of course, they were for very different reasons and purposes.


But how does your interpretation of the text account for this quote? "He didn't just give them power, he also forced them into servitude."
Does the quote not imply that unwilling loyalty was the purpose and that they were not his followers?

01-Nov-2016 15:42:43

Cthris

Cthris

Posts: 5,193Rune Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
Lord Valzin said:
Cthris said:
Lord Valzin said:
Chaos Lupus said:
Here it is.

Q: Zamorak says he is "deeply remorseful" about what happened to the Chaos Dwarves. What was his intent with the power he gave them, if it all went according to plan? Was it simply an offer of power to those willing to fight for his cause, or something else?

Mod Ollie: "in return for their unwavering devotion I gave them power beyond any they had known before" - He didn't just give them power, he also forced them into servitude. I expect that his intentions were simply to create a powerful force that would be loyal to his cause, but by cursing them he caused them to eventually become corrupted, mindless beings which was clearly not a consequence he originally intended.


To me, this reads as quite similar to what happened with Seren and her elves, where they both tried to give their followers something and a side effect of unwilling loyalty was created. Of course, they were for very different reasons and purposes.


But how does your interpretation of the text account for this quote? "He didn't just give them power, he also forced them into servitude."
Does the quote not imply that unwilling loyalty was the purpose and that they were not his followers?


The part before that where it says "in return for their unwavering devotion", which could imply they were already fiercely loyal to him. Plus, as Moia has stated, he rewards those who are loyal.


Then why are all the Dwarves be cursed if the "Blessing" was only applied to the loyal dwarves?

Did you see this quote? I expect that his intentions were simply to create a powerful force that would be loyal to his cause

Does this quote not say he intended to create a powerful and loyal force implying that the force lacked power and loyalty beforehand?

01-Nov-2016 16:13:01

Cthris

Cthris

Posts: 5,193Rune Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
^ Have you considered that "In exchange for undying loyalty" can be read the same way you might read the following? "In exchange for being locked in cages, zoo animals are given far more food than regular animals."? Is there anywhere in my own sentence that infers consent? If not, then how can you infer consent from the dwarves?




Chaos Lupus said:

Zamorak did force the chaos dwarves into servitude, that doesn't mean that was his intent. Like Ollie said, he meant to create a powerful, loyal force, not mindless zombies. Intent/=/results.


"I expect that his intentions were simply to create a powerful force that would be loyal to his cause"

Seems like it was his intention to force loyalty no?

01-Nov-2016 16:14:48 - Last edited on 01-Nov-2016 16:33:28 by Cthris

Cthris

Cthris

Posts: 5,193Rune Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
Chaos Lupus said:

1) Nothing in the quote says that he intended to force them to serve him. He makes a pretty clear distinction between what Zamorak intended and what the result was.

2) Besides, you can't force loyalty, that's sort of vital to the entire concept.

3) If Ollie meant that Zamorak intended to enslave them, why not just say that?


"I expect that his intentions were simply to create a ... force that would be loyal to his cause"

1) Is it not true that when you intended to create something you also intend to force it into existence? Following that, if Zamorak intended to create something, then he intended to force something? If so, then wouldn't the following also be true,

"If Zamorak intended to create loyalty then he intended to force loyalty into existence. To force loyalty into existence is to force loyalty. Then would it not logically follow that if Zamorak intended to create loyalty he then also intended to force loyalty."

2) You've read the Zaros memory crystals yeah? Did you read the part where Zaros' aura forces those close to him to become loyal to him?

3) Did I ever say Zamorak intended to enslave them? I could be wrong but didn't I only imply he intended to force loyalty where there was none before?

Is forcing loyalty the same thing as enslaving? If the government forces loyalty on the people by imposing punishments for disloyalty, then is the government enslaving the people? Are you enslaved by the government?

01-Nov-2016 17:30:05 - Last edited on 01-Nov-2016 17:32:54 by Cthris

Cthris

Cthris

Posts: 5,193Rune Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
Chaos Lupus said:


1) "By your logic, anything anyone intentionally does ever is forcing something."

Yeah, is that not obvious :P?

If you intentionally go swimming then aren't you forcing yourself to go swimming? Do you have any other rebuttals for my proof?

Also:

"There's clearly a difference between "forcing" power into existence and forcing someone into slavery."

But there is not that big of a difference between forcing loyalty into existence and forcing loyalty which was the implication to derive.

"I expect that his intentions were simply to create a powerful force that would be loyal to his cause"

Is there not two aspects that Zamorak is applying to the force (dwarves); Loyalty, and power? The same two aspectsthat Ollie pointed out " He didn't just give them power, he also forced them into servitude."

As well.

Are you familiar with the re-adaption of Murphy's law? What can happen will happen?

If loyalty is unwavering, meaning it is eternal/infinite, and "what can happen will happen sometime in infinity" then doesn't that mean that there is no possibility within an infinite amount of time that disloyalty can happen within the individual? If something can't happen, then you can't possibly choose it to happen right? and if you can't choose disloyalty then you can't possibly choose loyalty.

So then would it not follow that someone with unwavering loyalty has not chosen to be loyal?

2) Now who is twisting words? :P Brainwashing and temporary loyalty are synonyms under many contexts.

3) "Force into servitude=enslave."

Servitude: the state of being a slave or completely subject to someone more powerful.

"Or complity subject to someone more powerful"

Sounds a little like our relationship with our governments eh? Guess we are all slaves.... :P

01-Nov-2016 18:16:03 - Last edited on 01-Nov-2016 18:23:22 by Cthris

Quick find code: 341-342-757-65846854Back to Top