Bishop

Olympus: School Of Demigods!

His falling had led him on an instant crash course towards 2 other demigods. Luckily for Engel he emerged with only some bruises after but unluckily for one of his crash victims, she had a broken arm now...because of him. It was the first time someone ever felt or experienced pain because of him. Getting up instantly he approached the 2 demi-gods, an expression of worry made clear on his face. One tried to talk to him and Engel instantly made apparent by doing easily understandable gestures with his hands on his face to show that he was mute. Then he pointed towards the sky, to the plane that was still on sight and made some other basic gestures to convey how the plane made him crash land.

Suddenly a strong wind not unlike the one that threw him on the ground, now carried him up in the air. Lightnings jumped from cloud to cloud like serpents until one emerged straight from above him its aiming true for his little frame. Looking up in shock he saw the lightning approach him in the blink of an eye until it was only a few meters away from his face. All had gone white.

As if waking up from a distant dream, Engel saw himself standing with his finger pointed to the plane. Yes, he was explaining how he crashed into them. Like before he continued with his erratic hand sign movement until he saw the one with the broken arm wince from pain. At that moment tears welled up in his eyes. It hurt his soul to know that he had hurt another person like that. He had a lot of bruises himself mind you but they were nothing to him compared to what she had.

Suddenly a strong gust of wind hit him from the front which made him close his eyes. Opening them again he felt something was different. He felt lighter, more agile and his wings felt faster to response. Looking at them he was struck by awe on how they had turned to a dark golden color. Touching them they felt the same, almost. It was weird how they moved from his thoughts alone. Usually they felt like another limb, moving instinctively. Now they could also move by thought, removing a layer of passing information between the brain and limb, effectively making the response instantaneous.

Looking back at the 2 demi gods in front of him he noticed the girl's earrings leaving her ears and right before their eyes the earrings transformed into 2 rings. Puzzled he looked to the 2 before him...
@Ayame

The 'Explain The Appeal Of......' Thread

@BrokenPromise Nothing can justify the controller. Moving the cursor with your thumb, even in hell they have a "Banned Torture Methods" room. And you guessed it, the controller is right there.

The Ten Rings

@Balthazar007 You might want to change that "Join Status"
Gives others false hopes...

Myriad Reality

But that has no impact on the logical progression of anything because they are isolated, irrelevant, and have no bearing on the course the world around us takes.

This would be the exact part that I needed clarification for. Do you mean material as in having no direct physical effect on the world or none at all?

I didn't express myself correctly on the last question from my previous post. I knew you believed that I didn't believe on evil/good but I still couldn't see how anarchy was better on a logical sense.
As for having no governmental ruling organ being the best logical way things should work on a society of naturalists because it "requires the fewest possible non-logically based assumptions, beliefs, agreements, etc. when compared to other systems of governance."
In the parts that you covered you are right on having more freedom and being less restricted by the ruling organ but what is all that worth when everything is in chaos? You could be stabbed in the street just because the other person felt like stabbing someone that day. Your whole building could be bombed just because there were no laws to prevent for such a thing to be made. If you take everything into consideration besides the positives of having no government you come out at a loss.

From the start I was of the belief that morals and such did not physically exist. Just my way of expressing my argument could have led you to see it otherwise. We are on the same page there.

My argument on the initial subject was over when you said:

I can answer this rather succinctly. No human decides what is moral or amoral. If you want to go down the road of Christian theology, then the answer of "who goes to Hell?" Is "Anybody who does not ask God for forgiveness and do good as defined by him."

So basically no one really knows what is good or evil, they just follow a set of morals which they attained through their lives to make that judgement. All the other things I've mentioned were to clarify some other points that you made.

Words are real because we can write them.

I'd also like to argue otherwise. Words, writings, words, noises, they are just forms, sounds that we have attached a subjective value to. Take that subjective value and meaning away and these "Words, writings, words, noises" lose their value and become just that, scribbles and random noises. "Words" is just another name we have attached to something. So aren't they all abstract? Why should they be considered to "exist"?

The 'Explain The Appeal Of......' Thread

Explain the appeal of consoles over PC. Seriously, these plebs need to upgrade their shack!

The Ten Rings

"But they were all of them deceived, for another ring existed unbeknownst to the rest, a master ring to remove all others.
One Ring to Kill them All."

Invisible Ring

This is the Master Ring. With it, the user can absorb and nullify all of the other ring's powers. By absorbing another ring's powers, it can temporarily allow the user to use that power. The invisible ring will make the wearer have multiple personality disorder, giving him the personality of every other ring.

Myriad Reality

@MetaYou explicitly use the term "exist" to refer to any and every physical material but you erase the word's value when the subject is more of a subjective nature? I was using it as a term to refer to how something "is" in the sense that it "is" perceived by humans. Now I notice that you are completely disregarding my arguments on the basis that it doesn't "exist" as for the dictionary's definition of the word. My usage of it was meant to imply that it is perceived by humans all the same. No need to put people with hallucinations on the mix. It doesn't help you make your point. I already know the difference between what humans perceive, ideas etc and the things made of matter. By saying it was "real" I meant to imply that it has very real effects on our actions and in a sense can be considered real.

Laws and right are very real. They are written if that is what you need to consider them real. They are ink on a piece of paper.

Or are you gonna say that words are also how we perceive different shapes on a piece of paper as they have no real value on "having no impact on the logical progression of anything because they are isolated, irrelevant, and have no bearing on the course the world around us takes."

If you want to claim that morality, art, beauty, or any other abstract concept is "real" in the collective human perception, sure, have at it. But that has no impact on the logical progression of anything because they are isolated, irrelevant, and have no bearing on the course the world around us takes.

As for what you say here...I don't know how to counter this. Please elaborate as in my eyes this is completely wrong in a logical sense. Please indulge my foolishness and elaborate this part.

And more importantly, from where the hell did you get that "I desire anarchy"???

Perhaps you wish to argue that in the same way we only perceive beauty as real because we agree it is as a society, we perceive murder as "evil," and therefore we agree that people should be punished for it. However, in doing so, you inadvertently admit that the position held by society is illogical. Under this perspective, the objectively superior societal structure (in terms of logical foundation) is anarchy, in which the only consequence for action or inaction is what others decide to execute

I was going to ignore this faulty connection between being amoral and desiring anarchy in order to focus on the argument but how is anarchy more logically superior to any other form of government/ruling organ? Hell, even if I didn't believe in evil/good or any subjective ideals how would I come to see that anarchy is better?

Olympus: School Of Demigods!

@Blackmist16 Give him the power of light. Light is generated and radiates brightly from every star. So he can bend it to become invisible or even form objects and constructs of light, like a sword or angel wings on his back to fly with etc. I highly suggest that you unlock the construct of light during the RP. Makes you have some character progression.

In the start, besides invisibility you can also reflect an image somewhere else. Say, you are in the woods with your friends, you reflect that image some meters away as a decoy or whatnot. Maybe even replicate your original body to 10 more light illusions. Be creative!

Olympus: School Of Demigods!

OP characters aren't worth for shit

Firstly, this is a group RP with MANY players. You can't pull off OP shit that isn't cool with others. One simple complain in OOC and you gotta rewrite your whole post. Even if the GM says it's okay for that OP character to pull that OP move than you can just god mod it in IC or completely ignore it.

If the roleplayers partaking don't like something, there is no way you can do it effectively making OP characters USELESS.
All that "power" is just fluff.

Myriad Reality

Therefore, if morality follows the same abstract and subjective definition that beauty holds, then people can consider anything, nothing, or everything good/evil and there is no logical reason for there to be any consequence resulting from the holding or execution of such a belief.

Firstly, laws and a person's morality are very different things. The laws of a society and the morality that a person has who lives in that society are completely different things. That person may find doing something completely ethical and justifiable but the way that the society views those actions are the guiding factors that in the end lead to his decision on doing them or not, based on if he wants to live in said society. Laws are set for a reason. They protect the rights of an individual so that individual isn't forced to protect it himself. Not everyone has the same views on things or the same morality and so the laws that are set for a specific community serve as a guideline on what everyone should and shouldn't do. In few words they guide our lives to peacefully co-exist with other humans in a far bigger society than what is our family, effectively nullifying the different views that we have on what is right or wrong, things that one should do or do not.

We don't punish people because what they have done is evil or not, we punish them if they have broken a set of rules in the society that they live, rules that were formed and placed on logical reasoning.

Furthermore the breaking of these rules doesn't make one "evil" no matter which rule he broke, it just means that that person is a danger for the society in which he lives in and isn't capable of co-existing with said society anymore.

If morality doesn't exist because it is subjective, then feeding a homeless person and killing him are equally valid options with no inherent superiority.

What you said there is called amorality which means exactly that, that morality doesn't exist, right and wrong are the same with no difference.

Morality does exist, given that it doesn't exist in the physical world it does exist in a subjective manner. As you said, like beauty but different from it in the sense that the beauty that one perceives can not be dictated or have set boundaries placed by others. It is yours to have and enjoy, it is part of an individual and born with him. Different from morality which can be dictated and have someone raised with a number of set moral codes. You were raised as a christian no? As one, you have been raised with a number of moral codes by your family/guardian that you have learned to live with and live by. You can't treat and dictate the concept of beauty within a person like that. You can say to him "this painting is ugly" every single day of his life but if that person really likes that painting he will still go on to like it til the end.

Morality, unlike beauty, is the deciding factor on our actions. Once again I repeat, it is different from laws, which if broken there are consequences, in the sense that it is subjective and if you break your own moral code, the only consequence(other than the law if you broke it) is your conscience, all subjective. But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It very much does and it is there with a very important guiding influence on every action that we take. We could follow moral codes set by the ones who raised us, formed by ourselves based on past experiences or even just to to fit in with the environment that we are in but they do exist, even if not in the physical world.