ArcoBlood Mod Finished

[Grey]

Actually Scott no matter how unpopular it may seem to you, your personal 'real' world view is valid. In fact it is most likely closer to my 'real' world view since I find real sacrifice and real attempts at magic to be evil.

Luckily (+3 scale) for me, I enjoy the game for what it is - a game which is not real nor serious. Unluckily (-3 scale) for me it looks like my very first post came at the very wrong time, since I did not see Quantum's post until after I posted. I have lurked for a couple of month's now after having discovered this wonderful game so I know some of the reference to Norfleet - enough to know that I am not Norfleet but everyone else may be. Boy with a +3 and a -3 I must have my turmoil setting too high.

With regards to the holy/unholy definition Merriam-Webster Online defines "Unholy" as "1. showing disregard for what is holy. Wicked" and defines "Holy" as several things but for the game the third defn. is most appropriate "devoted entirely to the diety or the work of the diety". I personally do not prefer to play blood nations since I find it distasteful (no pun intended), but I do not mind it in the game since it is just a game. Plus I get the opportunity to beat down those pretenders who use it, which is why I thank you for your mod.

Finally to not be a hypocrite... please hook me up to the generator my capacitance is reaching max.

[Scott Hebert]

*chuckles* Nah. It's cool. If anyone here is a hypocrite, it's me.

As for the validity of my worldview, I thank you for that, but it's not important whether it is or not. And, if by that, you would say that any personal worldview is valid, I would disagree with that strongly.

[atul]

I think it's a real pity there isn't any other species capable of communicating abstract thoughts we humans would know of. As it is, we're incapable of understanding relationships between intelligent species. Take this discussion about evilness of blood races, for example.

Abysians sacrifice human females. Since they are a species of lava-people with only a superficial resemblance to humans (they're even made of something other than meat), it's a bit like we using bunnies for cosmetic study.

Jotuns sacrifice human females. Well, we use chimps and other closely related species for our own good, and how many actively think it's evil?

Vanheim gave up blood long ago, but the memory remains. Sure, situational ethics, but nothing like classical Evil...

(and so on)

And as to Holy, I think the personal belief and devotion angle is the most believeable one, especially since no pretender can achieve holy status (IIRC that was fixed around patch 2.06 or so). And defining something by saying what they are not (UNholy) is a bit vague, especially since hardly anyone outside bad fantasy thinks of him/herself as evil/unholy or anything...

[quantum_mechani]

Grey said:
real attempts at magic to be evil.

Erm, evil? 'silly', I might say, but who are those people really harming?

[BigDaddy]

Catholic theology defines magic as the art of performing actions beyond the power of man with the aid of powers other than the Divine, and condemns it and any attempt at it as a grievous sin against the virtue of religion, because all magical performances, if undertaken seriously, are based on the expectation of interference by demons or lost souls.

I bet your religion has a similar teaching. . .

[quantum_mechani]

BigDaddy said:
Catholic theology defines magic as the art of performing actions beyond the power of man with the aid of powers other than the Divine, and condemns it and any attempt at it as a grievous sin against the virtue of religion, because all magical performances, if undertaken seriously, are based on the expectation of interference by demons or lost souls.

I bet your religion has a similar teaching. . .

Actually, no. I'm not even nominally the member of any religion (or even an atheist). But calling people who try to practice magic 'evil' and getting upset over it seems even sillier than the people themselves.

[Scott Hebert]

BigDaddy said:
Catholic theology defines magic as the art of performing actions beyond the power of man with the aid of powers other than the Divine, and condemns it and any attempt at it as a grievous sin against the virtue of religion, because all magical performances, if undertaken seriously, are based on the expectation of interference by demons or lost souls.

Actually, to be just a little more specific, Catholic theology frowns on the practice of magic, as you cannot be sure that the source of the supernatural power is NOT demonic in nature.

Catholic theology has remarkably little to say about what might be out there, in a supernatural sense.

I bet your religion has a similar teaching. . .

I don't think this was directed at me, per se, but for the record, my religion IS Roman Catholicism.

[BigDaddy]

Actually that is a quote, and I'm sorry I didn't make that clear. It is the official stance of the Holy See.

Consider:

II. TOTAL AGNOSTICISM SELF-REFUTING

Total or complete Agnosticism--see (2)--is self-refuting. The fact of its ever having existed, even in the formula of Arcesilaos, "I know nothing, not even that I know nothing", is questioned. It is impossible to construct theoretically a self-consistent scheme of total nescience, doubt, unbelief. The mind which undertook to prove its own utter incompetence would have to assume, while so doing, that it was competent to perform the allotted task. Besides, it would be Impossible to apply such a theory practically; and a theory wholly subversive of reason, contradictory to conscience, and inapplicable to conduct is a philosophy of unreason out of place in a world of law.

See more about your agnostic "faith" here:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01215c.htm

[BigDaddy]

Scott,

Demons:

"In Scripture and in Catholic theology this word has come to mean much the same as devil and denotes one of the evil spirits or fallen angels. And in fact in some places in the New Testament where the Vulgate, in agreement with the Greek, has daemonium, our vernacular versions read devil. The precise distinction between the two terms in ecclesiastical usage may be seen in the phrase used in the decree of the Fourth Lateran Council: "Diabolus enim et alii daemones" (The devil and the other demons), i.e. all are demons, and the chief of the demons is called the devil. This distinction is observed in the Vulgate New Testament, where diabolus represents the Greek diabolos and in almost every instance refers to Satan himself, while his subordinate angels are described,. . ."

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04710a.htm

Most religions have similar teachings. It is not ambiguous at all.

[quantum_mechani]

BigDaddy said:
Actually that is a quote, and I'm sorry I didn't make that clear. It is the official stance of the Holy See.

Consider:

II. TOTAL AGNOSTICISM SELF-REFUTING

Total or complete Agnosticism--see (2)--is self-refuting. The fact of its ever having existed, even in the formula of Arcesilaos, "I know nothing, not even that I know nothing", is questioned. It is impossible to construct theoretically a self-consistent scheme of total nescience, doubt, unbelief. The mind which undertook to prove its own utter incompetence would have to assume, while so doing, that it was competent to perform the allotted task. Besides, it would be Impossible to apply such a theory practically; and a theory wholly subversive of reason, contradictory to conscience, and inapplicable to conduct is a philosophy of unreason out of place in a world of law.

See more about your agnostic "faith" here:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01215c.htm

There are many flavors of agnosticism, from believing that nothing can ever be known, to the belief that there is simply not enough evidence at this time to draw conclusions about the existence of a god, to people who just don't care, and those that follow a particular religion but doubt it.

As for the second kind, which is more or less what I believe, it is rather hard to refute without some extremely strong evidence one way or the other.

EDIT: And on your definition of magic, I believe many people who try to practice magic believe that they are doing it by their own power, not necessarily aided by any other force.