I was planning to wait until I got a bit more cash to post this, but in light of recent events, I think that now is as good a time as any.

I've been pondering this for a while, and I have decided to pose my quandary to you all, although it's mainly pointed at the Paladins, Infernals and Priests, as well as at Lords Sartan and Pentharian, albeit indirectly.

The question is: What is it that makes someone or something "Evil" or "unholy"?

I ask this simply because I live in Shallam, and it seems that from time to time, various definitions of the two are used, and I'm getting really confused - even for me. (Not to single out Shallam for anything - I'm fairly certain that Ashtan and Hashan have varying definitions of certain terms from time to time - I just have no clue what they'd be.) Anyway.

At first glance, Evil appears easier to explain. One would assume that if someone were to go out and kill innocent beings for no reason, that they are Evil. If this is indeed the case, then almost - ALMOST - every one of us is Evil - how many of you have never ratted? If you don't attack the rats, they won't attack you. Nevertheless, we attack them because they're there, and because they are worth money.

So, we must change our (partial) definition. Perhaps it would be better to say that an Evil person would be one who would go out and kill innocent /sentient/ beings without justification. That's fair, right? After all, the only sentient beings that most of us go out to kill are prone to attacking us without cause - thugs immediately come to mind. The other part of the majority would be the cultists, who, from time to time, go out and kidnap Lotash's daughter for use as a sacrifice (which, under our definition, actually wouldn't make them Evil, but we're not done yet). But what about some of the forest creatures? I personally have been known to go out and bash on buckawns for combat experience - but they haven't done anything to me. Does this make me Evil? Apparently not, as, according to my honours, I'm in possession of a "soul that is truly Seraphic".

Now we come to the fun part: nit-picking! Thus far, the biggest problem with our definition is that it states "without justification". What, exactly, constitutes justification? For those of us who are Good-aligned, the first excuse - pardon me, the first justification is that "they are Evil."

I realize that for 2 Guilds, that may be a viable excuse, but killing something or someone simply because of their alignment is about as discriminatory and ridiculous a practice as I've ever heard of.

Now: Priests and Paladins, I know that your purpose is to rid the world of Evil - but can you honestly tell me that the only way to do this is through the killing of Evil beings? Priests, my cousin (who happens to be a Priest) tells me, have a skill that allows them to raise alignment of Evil people - would that not be a more...erm...socially acceptable method of fulfilling your purpose? Paladins, you are the Righteous fist of the Church. You gain the combat skills not granted to your Priestly brethren. But does the fact that you /have/ the skills force you to use them first and foremost? Is there no other way of converting Evil people to good?

Anyway. To me, justification would be "self defense" - meaning that, were you to do anything BUT kill them, they would kill you. On the other hand, we also have to add something that states that it's not self defense if you hit them back first (read: you start it).

So what do we have so far? "An Evil being is one who kills innocent beings without justification (justification being defined as "self defense", but not including defending yourself from a fight that you start), one who..."

Oh - we forgot to define "innocent". How about "one who is no threat to you"? No, you're right - that's not good enough. "One who has not attacked you"? No, because it has been decreed by the Logos Himself that certain things, other than attacks, are acceptable cause for the killing of another. Okay, I've got it: an innocent being is one who has not provoked an attack.

NOW we must define provocation! (Isn't this fun?) Provocation is doing anything other than existing (and the necessary functions thereof - i.e. breathing, eating, drinking, eliminating (as long as it is not on or at someone), etc) that infuriates someone else to the point where no mortal could be expected by any other than Lord Oneiros to NOT attack in retaliation. This may vary from person to person - for example, I'm a lot harder to infuriate to that point than Tranquility is. Actually, infuriate is probably not the best term, but I really can't think of anything else right now.

Oh - we forgot to define "innocent". How about "one who is no threat to you"? No, you're right - that's not good enough. "One who has not attacked you"? No, because it has been decreed by the Logos Himself that certain things, other than attacks, are acceptable cause for the killing of another. Okay, I've got it: an innocent being is one who has not provoked an attack.

To recap: An Evil being is one who kills those who do NOT do anything other than exist (as defined above) that infuriates them to the point where only Lord Oneiros could expect them to not attack, and who hasn't been attacked FIRST by this person. (Whew!)

Now: We must, of course, include Lord Sartan in here, as Evil is His domain. In deference to Him, I'll add His part to the front: An Evil being is one who worships Evil in the form of Lord Sartan, and/or who kills those who do NOT do anything other than exist (as defined above) that infuriates them to the point where only Lord Oneiros could expect them to not attack, and who hasn't been attacked FIRST by this person.

What else constitutes being Evil? Well, since the Church is the home of Good in the land, I suppose that what it directly opposes could also be considered Evil, although that isn't necessarily fair to some. Well, since the Infernals define themselves as Evil, and since the Occultists define themselves as Evil, let's see what they have that no one else in Achaea does. Hmm...Tarot...well, that's not available anywhere else, but at the same time, it's not Evil in and of itself. I think. Please feel free to correct me if that assumption is not correct. Chivalry - well, Paladins have Chivalry, so that can't be it. Aha! Necromancy! And look! Domination! Those are not-nice skills! That must be it!

New definition: An Evil being is one who worships Evil in the form of Lord Sartan, and/or who kills those who do NOT do anything other than exist (as defined above) that infuriates them to the point where only Lord Oneiros could expect them to not attack, and who hasn't been attacked FIRST by this person, and/or who possesses the skills of Domination and/or Necromancy.

Now: if I go out and kill a buckawn, my alignment goes up. This would imply that the slaying of Evil-aligned creatures (I'm told that they're Evil-aligned - I could be entirely wrong about that), be they sentient or not, is a Good thing to do, and that, by insinuation, the slaying of Good-aligned creatures is an Evil thing to do. Something else to add to the list!

An Evil being is one who worships Evil in the form of Lord Sartan, and/or who kills those who do NOT do anything other than exist (as defined above) that infuriates them to the point where only Lord Oneiros could expect them to not attack, and who hasn't been attacked FIRST by this person, and/or who possesses the skills of Domination and/or Necromancy, AND/OR who intentionally and knowingly slays those who are aligned with Good. (And no, just for the record, I'm not planning on attempting to define Good in this post - it's not part of the focus, and would do little to enhance it. Maybe another time.)

Does that cover everything? Probably not, but it's accurate enough for our purposes.

Next: Unholiness - my own little paradox.

See, holy, by definition, means that which is directly connected to one or more Divine Beings.

Does this mean that a person who worships Lord Sartan with all of her might (not making any insinuations) and power and capabilities is any less holy than one who worships Lord Pentharian? No! Both worship a Divine, and it's hardly fair to associate Holiness with Good - especially since there are a fair amount of Neutral Divines, and They are most definitely as holy as any other.

Thus, the only things/people/places that are NOT holy (a.k.a. "unholy") are those which aren't directly connected to one or more Divines. Let's see...all animals and plants are holy, being part of Lady Gaia's domain. All cities that have Patrons are holy, as are all Patroned Guilds. All oceans are holy, being part of Lord Caspian's domain, and sleep and dreams are holy, as they are Lady Valnurana's realm. The sky is holy, being the domain of Lord Vastar, light and darkness are both holy, being the domains of Lady Aurora and Lord Twilight, respectively, War is holy, since it's championed by Lord Aegis, and Evil and Righteousness are holy, since Lords Sartan and Pentharian, respectively, are the definers of those domains. Magic is holy, Compassion's holy, pretty much EVERYTHING is, in one way or another, holy.

So what, then, is /un/holy? Well, I'm not sure if newbies are or not - it largely depends on whether or not Romeo and Juliet count as Divines. I personally believe that they do, and therefore, that newbies are too. Ooooooh...gold! Is gold, and by inference, money, unholy? (You can't see it, but I'm grinning as I write this.) You see? It's very hard to find something which is /not/ holy. Since "unholy" is the opposite of "holy", there must not be very much which qualifies as "unholy". (Please note that I'm not saying that "not holy" and "unholy" are the same thing - they can be entirely different. Personally, I'd suggest that "not holy" refers to something/one/where in a Domain which no Divine has claimed as Her or His own, whereas "unholy" refers to a thing/person/place that at least one Divine has forsaken and no other has claimed.)

This begs the question: How can any one group of mortals declare another group to be Unholy? If the second group happens to be a guild which is patroned by a Divine, they are, by our definition, holy. Even if they aren't a guild, odds are that, in one way or another, most or all of the members will be holy.

Wait - is it possible to declare a non-physical thing - an Office (such as that of Guildmaster or Secretary), for example? If so, I /suppose/ it's possible for mortals to declare such a thing to be Unholy - but not another mortal or group of mortals. The holiness of any given mortal is strictly for the Divines to determine - not us.



Wow - that's a LOT of musing....

I'd like to state for the record that I contacted Lord Sartan before making this post to make sure that my attempts to define His realm wouldn't be considered offensive, and was told that He cared not. I thus assume that He still cares not, and make this post.

I'd also like to state that these are my own, /personal/ opinions, and that I consulted no other person when I wrote this or for advice on writing this.

Let me know if you have any comments about this post - feel free to post a reply, or just message me with it, if you wish. I'll be around.

- Water Mage Mirudraas, the Writer of Long Posts That Are Likely To Start Arguments

Penned by my hand on the 19th of Valnuary, in the year 276 AF.