Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="paradox42" data-source="post: 3343379" data-attributes="member: 29746">I do not consider that a given, in the context for which you were using "forgiveness" in the case of a fiend accepting the fall of a celestial compared with the celestial accepting the rise of a fiend. Where is the debt? And why must there be one in order for acceptance to occur? Debts are a Lawful concept anyway, the idea that a favor done requires a favor returned. Chaotics don't necessarily hold to that, and Good and Evil are silent on the topic of debt in their pure forms. Thus, if forgiveness is necessarily tied to debt, then once again we come around to confusing Good with Law and the Goodness or Evilness of the being the "fallen one" contacts is irrelevant to the proceeding.Very important point to make regarding the above: an Evil being, even a fiend, need not necessarily hold to all anti-virtuous thoughts. Since there are multiple virtues and multiple anti-virtues, it is possible for even an incarnate idea to hold a mix of virtues and anti-virtues. Each virtue and its opposite forms an axis, and they are orthogonal to each other just as Good and Evil, Law and Chaos are. It is very likely, I grant, that a Celestial will hold mostly or all virtues along these axes, and that a fiend will hold mostly or all anti-virtues. But with so many axes to measure on, why should it necessarily be true that the beings pick all the ideas on the same side? Doesn't that just make them all identical, and thus there is no point in differentiating them at all?It depends on the other ideas I hold at the time, and specifically what the Celestial being did to me or my fellows, and any number of other variables. It is not something that you can invariably give the same answer to, because the possibility exists that it will go the other way.Clearly. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> I suspect this is because you're stuck on absolutes, and have not considered the possibility of the "shades of grey" which naturally result when you consider the "absolute good" as a kaleidoscope of virtues instead, as I pointed out above. If you require that an Outsider which is Good absolutely always has only the virtues in its personal graph of ideas, what then do you call a being who has (out of, for example, the traditional seven Catholic Virtues) six virtues and one anti-virtue? To me, that entity must be a Celestial- it is Good not because it is "pure," but because it is more Good than Evil by a wide margin.On a side note, there are some on the list of "traditional seven" that I don't consider the least bit virtuous, but again I won't go into that since it crosses the invisible line. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Incorrect, for reasons I outlined above. The problem is that using the word "bad" oversimplifies things, and causes you to make snap judgements based on absolute concepts that do not, in fact, exist. What exists are deeper details, different facets of Goodness and Evil, and it is possible- even in Outsiders who are real incarnations of the thoughts on those axes of Virtue/Not- for an occasional Virtue to exist in one that has no others.Actually, I came up with another way above. The problem is refusal to deconstruct the blanket concepts of "Good" and "Evil" into their constituent parts, and attempting to force everything to fit into one side or the other. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> I simply don't think in those terms; it is alien to me. It is the stuff that Laws are made of, and that in turn explains much of my disdain for Laws. For me, there are always possibilities.</blockquote>

Verification