Rahadoum - Not atheistic, but dystheistic


Lost Omens Campaign Setting General Discussion

201 to 250 of 329 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

Interesting thread. As a real live misotheist, I have a fair bit to say here, but won't have time for at least several hours and likely overnight, so for now, marking for interest.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Okay, here goes:

I became an atheist quite early in life -- already firmly established as such by 2nd grade. This was NOT easy when growing up in the South (US), even in Atlanta. Over time, being exposed to the abuses of religion and seeing the abuses that religion has always plagued the rest of the world with, I evolved gradually from simple disbelief to an unshakeable hatred of the divine which I have to this day. Yet until recently I did not know of existing terms alternative to atheism to describe my thoughts, so I stuck with the label of "atheist" (which nearly everybody in the South was inclined to hate me for anyway when they thought about my unreligious beliefs) until a few years ago, when I decided that this terminology was unsatisfactory. Still not knowing the proper term, I chose "antitheist", although I found out later that this is taken for something else not at all what I intended. Very recently I discovered the terms "dystheist" and "misotheist", actually on these boards, although not in this thread (whose birth was still a few months in the future). Both of them are applicable to my thoughts on divinity, although based upon years of past experience most of the religious fundamentalists would probably continue to call me "atheist" (and the invective reported in the news media of religious fundamentalists and their politicians backs this up). So I do not feel too bad about Rahadoum's philosophy getting the wrong term attached to it -- I have only very recently corrected this error in terminology for myself (so recently that I am reasonably likely to slip up and use the wrong term if somebody asks me about my thoughts on religion when I am in environment where I think that I am reasonably safe to answer the question). Considering that the major religions will not rest until they have broken everyone to their will (that is how they got to be major religions in the first place), and that religion spreads like a virus, the First Law of Rahadoum sounds like a good idea to me: The only true freedom of religion is freedom from religion.

Having said all that, if dropped into Golarion, I would not have any allegiance to Rahadoum or the Pure Legion. First of all, as noted above by others, Rahadoum practices slavery, which is another thing I absolutely hate that has also left an incurable legacy of Evil in the South (and elsewhere in the US). Note that religion was a major instrument of slavery and the post-slavery oppression that continues to this day in the US on Earth -- on Golarion, Rahadoum has replaced that with their ideology in name, but done nothing to cure the Evil, instead enshrining it in their society. Furthermore, as described by others above, Rahadoum (especially the Pure Legion) acts like a Communist country, which (as also described by others above) makes the Rahadoumis like that which they claim to fight, but with worse healthcare. It is highly likely that they sweep up a lot of non-divine characters in their ongoing pogrom against the divine -- purges tend to go beyond their advertised scope.

I know that James jacobs has spoken out against this idea, but I suspect that the rise of the First Law and the Pure Legion wasn't just about ending the Oath Wars, but that the church of Sarenrae (now known for its failure to oppose slavery) may have tried to end slavery in what was about to become Rahadoum, and the ruling powers, being among the biggest slaveholders, did not like that at all, and used that as an excuse to frame the church of Sarenrae for something awful, to generate a further excuse to ban them along with the churches of Norgorber and Nethys. This would have given them leverage to accomplish their goal of banning all three religions (along with others of lesser influence in their region), and at the same time dealt huge damage to the church of Sarenrae, effectively putting an end to any anti-slavery agenda that they should have had as a church of Good (to the point at which slaveholders might have previously been seen as heretics in her church, but now hold the upper hand).

Moving on to characters I would like to run in Golarion, I take it as a roleplaying challenge to have some of them actually be on good terms with some of the Good deities. After all, the deities of Golarion seem to include some (those of Good alignment and a subset of those that are neither Good nor Evil) that are less abusive than those of Earth, and canonically they do not require worship to survive, thus removing one of the major motivations for them to be Evil. The difference is impressive enogh for me to conclude that they are not truly divine -- and that's a Good thing.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.

IMO, Sarenrae's anti-slavery focus I could see being one nail in the coffin, but Osirion's history demonstrates how Nethys can be fickle and destructive, and not at all the sort of god a 'common man' (who isn't a wizard) would want to be associated with, since he's prone to blowing stuff up indiscriminately (including nation-states he just helped found...).

And then there's Norgorber, who runs a church that often already exists in hiding, whose clergy might think it's a swell idea to 'reap' the reputations of the other churches, thinking that even if the backwash taints *all* churches, they are already in hiding anyway, and will be affected the least (and their rivals inconvenienced the most) by such a swing in the tides of popularity.

By the time the church of Norgorber realized exactly how dangerous and uncontrollable this tiger had become, they were already on it's back, and it was far too late to get off or change it's course...

Silver Crusade Contributor

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Assuming the church of Norgorber ever left, of course. ^_^


1 person marked this as a favorite.
UnArcaneElection wrote:
Over time, being exposed to the abuses of religion and seeing the abuses that religion has always plagued the rest of the world with, I evolved gradually from simple disbelief to an unshakeable hatred of the divine which I have to this day. ... Both of them are applicable to my thoughts on divinity, although based upon years of past experience most of the religious fundamentalists would probably continue to call me "atheist" (and the invective reported in the news media of religious fundamentalists and their politicians backs this up).

I'd just ask you to please remember that there is a significant difference between the fundamentalists/extremists/zealots and... well, the rest of us.

Publicity hounds like the WBC or that one small-town church that burns books that aren't the KJV made the news because what they were doing was outrageous and outrage sells news.

Yet you rarely hear the media make a big deal about some local church that's been quietly feeding the homeless in your area, because decent, sane people generally aren't in it to make a splash.

Every week there's a new story about a suicide bombing by "Islamic" radicals (who, if my knowledge of that religion is correct, would be violating the very tenets of the Quran by waging unsanctioned war), but how much did the lamestream media report on the Muslims that positioned themselves as a human shield around their Christian neighbors during a Christmas service in Egypt to protect them from such attacks?

It's been said that "the empty pot rattles the loudest", but it seems (from my observations) that the hard-liner one rattles louder still. Often times, the "fundamentalists/extremists/zealots" may make up a comparatively small splinter-faction of whatever group they're (mis)representing, but those are the ones you hear about the most because the rest of us - the moderate majority - don't go out of our way to make asses of ourselves.

When 1% of people in a group cause 99% of the problems, it has the unfortunate effect of skewing representation of said group (be it a religion, nation, political system, etc) to everyone else, because the obnoxious ones tend to yell louder than the moderates.

I know there's been a lot of evil done in this world by selfish cowards justifying their heinous acts behind the name of one religion or another. Believe me, these "wolves in sheep's clothing" infuriate me as much as, possibly even more than, they do you - because they destroy everything good that my faith stands for from the inside, and the result is their hypocrisy turns people away and makes them hate the rest of us.

Just as I don't consider every atheist to automatically be a degenerate, please extend me the same respect by not automatically assuming me to be some hellfire-bringing crusader because I happen to be a person of faith. A lot of us actually come to believe what we do as a natural extension of wanting to help people, to become better human beings ourselves, and being awed by a higher power the presence of which we find integral to the former two.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
UnArcaneElection wrote:
Considering that the major religions will not rest until they have broken everyone to their will (that is how they got to be major religions in the first place), and that religion spreads like a virus, the First Law of Rahadoum sounds like a good idea to me: The only true freedom of religion is freedom from religion.

So... censorship of free thought and speech, state-sponsored terrorism, persecution of innocent citizens, mass robbery of private assets... sounds like... "freedom" to you?

The Department of Homeland Secularism Pure Legion will set your neighbor's house on fire, frame you for it, and murder you as a "heretic" for so much as discussing religion.

As I've said (much earlier in the discussion, so you may have missed it), Rahadoum isn't as "free" as they think. In fact, like hipsters trying so hard to avoid the mainstream, Rahadoum has - in effect - made itself beholden to all the gods. They're not free to go about their lives - they're constantly, nervously, paranoidly on guard against anything even slightly spiritual.

This is Rahadoum's heraldry. Now what if a faction in Golarion were to print and covertly distribute "religious literature" inviting Rahadoum's citizens to partake in a religion with a suspiciously similar holy symbol? Then sit back and watch them have to deface all their public buildings because them's tha roolz!

Or what if I make a cult claiming to worship the Pure Legion? Will they have to outlaw themselves?

No, no, no - even better - make Rahadoum the country - a deity. Create rumors of a cult claiming to worship the "spirit of the land".

Mwahahahaha, I think I just figured out a way to break Rahadoum with a logic-nuke. With great Lawful-Stupid comes great Catch-22. :P

Brb, gotta let the church of Milani know the uprising has an "in".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kalindlara wrote:
Assuming the church of Norgorber ever left, of course. ^_^

The official material does say all the major religions have a presence in Rahadoum, but operate underground. The Gestapos Pure Legion are not omniscient.

It's like how in ilr tyrannical states that tried (and failed) to ban religion - it still existed, but worshipers met in secret.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Voin_AFOL wrote:
UnArcaneElection wrote:
Considering that the major religions will not rest until they have broken everyone to their will (that is how they got to be major religions in the first place), and that religion spreads like a virus, the First Law of Rahadoum sounds like a good idea to me: The only true freedom of religion is freedom from religion.

So... censorship of free thought and speech, state-sponsored terrorism, persecution of innocent citizens, mass robbery of private assets... sounds like... "freedom" to you?

The Department of Homeland Secularism Pure Legion will set your neighbor's house on fire, frame you for it, and murder you as a "heretic" for so much as discussing religion.

As I've said (much earlier in the discussion, so you may have missed it), Rahadoum isn't as "free" as they think. In fact, like hipsters trying so hard to avoid the mainstream, Rahadoum has - in effect - made itself beholden to all the gods. They're not free to go about their lives - they're constantly, nervously, paranoidly on guard against anything even slightly spiritual.

This is Rahadoum's heraldry. Now what if a faction in Golarion were to print and covertly distribute "religious literature" inviting Rahadoum's citizens to partake in a religion with a suspiciously similar holy symbol? Then sit back and watch them have to deface all their public buildings because them's tha roolz!

Or what if I make a cult claiming to worship the Pure Legion? Will they have to outlaw themselves?

No, no, no - even better - make Rahadoum the country - a deity. Create rumors of a cult claiming to worship the "spirit of the land".

Mwahahahaha, I think I just figured out a way to break Rahadoum with a logic-nuke. With great Lawful-Stupid comes great Catch-22. :P

Brb, gotta let the church of Milani know the uprising has an "in".

Have you READ "Death's Heretic" to get their side of the story? If you're trying to argue on the basis of "Freedom" keep in mind that the bulk of Golarion isn't Freedom USA town, not even Andoran itself. Most of the nations of the world practise slavery and/or other forms of oppression. And if you find yourself on that world, you'd had better be prepared to make compromises on your stances if you wish to survive.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Voin_AFOL wrote:
thejeff wrote:

Ah, a Merchant Navy. Also a common historical concept. Slightly different, in that private ships are commandeered to ship goods as needed in time of war, but similar enough.

I mean, yeah, I kind of see the parallel, but I don't think it's that strong and I don't think it was intended. The implication in the write up is that the plagues and famines are the result of the lack of divine magic, not the economic policies or nationalization of the fleet.

Yeah, but they haven't really been at at war against anyone but dissidents from among their own populace.

And I realize the similarities were probably not intentional. The similarities between the USSR and Nazi Germany probably weren't intentional either (on the surface, they were polar opposites - extreme left-wing vs extreme right-wing ideologies), but in practice, the concentration camps, mass purges, secret police, censorship, and personality cults of the supreme leaders made them no so different to the masses suffering beneath the blood-stained jackboot of either one.

That is an incorrect premise. National Socialism and International Socialism were actually very similar, and both actually leftist, anti-capitalist, illiberal ideologies. During the 30's, both sides propagandized that they were polar opposites to set up a false dichotomy (If you are not with one, you're with the other . . . removing minarchism and capitalism as even a viable option)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Voin_AFOL wrote:
UnArcaneElection wrote:
Considering that the major religions will not rest until they have broken everyone to their will (that is how they got to be major religions in the first place), and that religion spreads like a virus, the First Law of Rahadoum sounds like a good idea to me: The only true freedom of religion is freedom from religion.
So... censorship of free thought and speech, state-sponsored terrorism, persecution of innocent citizens, mass robbery of private assets... sounds like... "freedom" to you?

Is it possible that he thinks that first law is a good idea, without approving of the actual implementation in this fictional instance?

Cause that's how I read his post.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
KahnyaGnorc wrote:
Voin_AFOL wrote:


And I realize the similarities were probably not intentional. The similarities between the USSR and Nazi Germany probably weren't intentional either (on the surface, they were polar opposites - extreme left-wing vs extreme right-wing ideologies), but in practice, the concentration camps, mass purges, secret police, censorship, and personality cults of the supreme leaders made them no so different to the masses suffering beneath the blood-stained jackboot of either one.
That is an incorrect premise. National Socialism and International Socialism were actually very similar, and both actually leftist, anti-capitalist, illiberal ideologies. During the 30's, both sides propagandized that they were polar opposites to set up a false dichotomy (If you are not with one, you're with the other . . . removing minarchism and capitalism as even a viable option)

Both were in fact totalitarian dictatorships and similar in that sense, but Fascism is right authoritarianism and Soviet Communism was left authoritarianism. The ideologies were and are very different, even if the end result was in some ways similar.

Fascism was in fact devised as an attempt by the elites to use nationalism and racism to keep the masses from realizing they were being oppressed and thus let the elites stay on top. In other words, to combat the very popular communist movements of the day. Calling it National "Socialism" was part of that ploy. State capitalism, if you will, but still capitalism.

This is all a derail, so I won't take it further, but I couldn't let it pass.


Voin_AFOL wrote:

I'd just ask you to please remember that there is a significant difference between the fundamentalists/extremists/zealots and... well, the rest of us.

{. . .}
When 1% of people in a group cause 99% of the problems, it has the unfortunate effect of skewing representation of said group (be it a religion, nation, political system, etc) to everyone else, because the obnoxious ones tend to yell louder than the moderates. {. . .}

I grew up in the US South. the extremists were WAY more than 1% of the population, and a majority of the population was clearly sympathetic to them even if not exactly in their ranks.

Voin_AFOL wrote:

So... censorship of free thought and speech, state-sponsored terrorism, persecution of innocent citizens, mass robbery of private assets... sounds like... "freedom" to you?

The Department of Homeland Secularism Pure Legion will set your neighbor's house on fire, frame you for it, and murder you as a "heretic" for so much as discussing religion.

You might have missed it, but I did explain in my previous (long) post that I am against Rahadoum for these things as well as for their practice of slavery. I also mentioned that I see that Rahadoum acts in many ways like a Communist country, although in retrospect I should have clarified that I consider this to be NOT a good thing, since some people seem to have delusions of Communism offering freedom.

With respect to your commendably devious plan to turn Rahadoum on itself, I'm sorry to report that experience with the Soviet Union, Communist China, and North Korea strongly suggests that such nations start out fairly capable of dealing with such attempts at disruption -- at most you manage to trigger purges of some political insiders that they were probably looking for an excuse to purge anyway.

Nevertheless, I have seen that all too often when religions are given freedom, the first thing they use that freedom for is to take it away from anyone else, including other religions, as we saw in Egypt under the Muslim Brotherhood. Hence, the need for something like the First Law, even though in Rahadoum it went horribly awry, like in Egypt under the current military dictatorshiop..

I take inspiration from George Orwell, who was a socialist, but who also could and did write some awesome books about how an attempt at socialism could go horribly awry.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
Have you READ "Death's Heretic"?

Nope, and that's not really on my to-read list in the near future. When I role-play in a setting, I want to make my own story in it. It may be quite good, but I don't feel it's necessary to my RP experience.

If you were to play... say, a Star Wars RPG, would you want to have to read all the bajillon expanded universe novels out there (some of which I've read and can tell you are quite good)?

Ahem:

wrote:
Let no man one be beholden to extra home-work to enjoy a fictional setting.
KahnyaGnorc wrote:


National Socialism and International Socialism were actually very similar, and both actually leftist, anti-capitalist, illiberal ideologies. During the 30's, both sides propagandized that they were polar opposites to set up a false dichotomy (If you are not with one, you're with the other . . . removing minarchism and capitalism as even a viable option)

That... was pretty much my entire point.

thejeff wrote:
Both were in fact totalitarian dictatorships and similar in that sense, but Fascism is right authoritarianism and Soviet Communism was left authoritarianism. The ideologies were and are very different, even if the end result was in some ways similar.

Thank you - somebody gets it. :)

thejeff wrote:
Is it possible that he thinks that first law is a good idea, without approving of the actual implementation in this fictional instance?

Don't take my next statements as being harsh on you (and these are open questions for everyone in this discussion), but I want you to really think about this.

So the "idea" of the omelette, but not seeing the eggs broken? To eat the burger, but not think too hard about where it came from?

Kinda like how those liberal college-students with the Che shirts like his (Che's) "ideals, man", but probably couldn't stomach all the people he had to murder to make the glorious Marxist revolution happen? The fact that he was a brutal executioner for a tyrannical Communistic dictator? Or his blatant racism?

So exactly how would that law work then without "implementation"? Any law is only effective as far as there is both force and will to enforce it. A law that's not enforced is "toothless" and useless - hollow words on a piece of paper to be mocked.

When you are exercising political authority, you're using force. And force, my friends, is violence. The supreme authority from which all other authorities are derived. A lot of people IRL don't think about this when they say "oh, there ought to be a law about this or that". When you vote for that law, you're saying "I want this enforced, with violence if need be." Are you ready to shoulder that kind of responsibility?

Teddy Roosevelt said, "A vote is like a rifle; its usefulness depends upon the character of the user."

And this is absolutely true even in our day. When you elect a president in the US, you are putting at that man's command all the uniformed firepower of our nation.

So I ask you again, exactly how would you keep a nation "free of religion" without unjustly subjecting to persecution otherwise law-abiding citizens who just want to be left alone to worship in peace? And if they kept at their "illegal" worship despite "soft-serve" measures like fines, imprisonment, etc - what would be next? Exile? What if they refused to leave? Or came back?

So - like Rahadoum - at what point in expunging belief would you become as bad as the religious extremists who fueled your crusade?


I should also note that many various tyrannical governments in our planet's real-life history have tried and (fortunately) failed at suppressing religion, whether it "all belief" was the classic "all but their own".

History has taught us that the more a government goes out of it's way to make a despotic ass of themselves by persecuting a way of life, the harder the persecuted group will devote themselves to what they believe in. Persecution weeds out the "lukewarm" hangers-on and leaves the people who are literally willing to die for what they believe in.

So make all the silly unenforceable laws you want - people will still worship what they want in secret. It's like those outdated laws against "sodomy" - do you really think that stopped people from having the relations they wanted in the privacy of their own bedrooms?

Belief will still be there, like it or not. In the end, you achieve nothing but senseless slaughter of innocent citizens, who will be regarded as martyrs of the faith by their brethren that you didn't manage to catch. Happy?


Voin_AFOL wrote:

{. . .}

Ahem:
wrote:
Let no man one be beholden to extra home-work to enjoy a fictional setting.

I can relate to that. Let no one be beholden to extra homework to grow up through a not-even-half-baked education in real life. I have felt that pain too (and I found out that one isn't limited to the US South).

Voin_AFOL wrote:

{. . .}

thejeff wrote:
Is it possible that he thinks that first law is a good idea, without approving of the actual implementation in this fictional instance?

Don't take my next statements as being harsh on you (and these are open questions for everyone in this discussion), but I want you to really think about this.

So the "idea" of the omelette, but not seeing the eggs broken? To eat the burger, but not think too hard about where it came from?
{. . .}

Could try making a tofu omelette. Hmm . . . now I'm going to have to try this some time . . . .

Voin_AFOL wrote:

{. . .}

So - like Rahadoum - at what point in expunging belief would you become as bad as the religious extremists who fueled your crusade?

Rahadoum has extremely likely surpassed the point of being as bad as the cultists of Saranrae, and reasonably likely surpassed the point of being as bad as the cultists of Nethys, but has likely not yet managed to be as bad as the cultists of Norgorber (although it sounds like they are trying hard).

Voin_AFOL wrote:

I should also note that many various tyrannical governments in our planet's real-life history have tried and (fortunately) failed at suppressing religion, whether it "all belief" was the classic "all but their own".

History has taught us that the more a government goes out of it's way to make a despotic ass of themselves by persecuting a way of life, the harder the persecuted group will devote themselves to what they believe in. Persecution weeds out the "lukewarm" hangers-on and leaves the people who are literally willing to die for what they believe in.
{. . .}
Belief will still be there, like it or not. In the end, you achieve nothing but senseless slaughter of innocent citizens, who will be regarded as martyrs of the faith by their brethren that you didn't manage to catch. Happy?

The Shogunate of Japan did manage to make Christianity in Japan for all practical purposes extinct.

Usually, though, the greatest destroyer of religion is religion. Christianity not only annihilated the pagan religions that it grew up among, but it also annihilated other early variants of Christianity.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
UnArcaneElection wrote:
The Shogunate of Japan did manage to make Christianity in Japan for all practical purposes extinct.

Exceptions do exist. I was remarking on the majority of how these patterns tended to go.

UnArcaneElection wrote:
Usually, though, the greatest destroyer of religion is religion. Christianity not only annihilated the pagan religions that it grew up among, but it also annihilated other early variants of Christianity.

You're on the right track, but to make that statement correct, I'd have to say Christendom (a whole different, mutated beast of a thing) annihilated other early variants of Christianity, and assimilated/absorbed various forms of paganism. It's a finely nuanced but crucially (no pun intended) vital point to understanding Western history that many outside and inside the faith tend to miss.

As a believer in Christ, I would say the heretical doctrine of Christendom ("Christian domination" of the world, rather than the "love your neighbor" stuff that Christ actually taught) in its historical and modern forms has done more to damage the faith than any overt persecution.

Thanks Emperor Constantine! -_-

But that's probably a whole can of worms for another discussion. Feel free to p.m. me if you want to talk about it more in-depth.


Voin_AFOL wrote:
UnArcaneElection wrote:
The Shogunate of Japan did manage to make Christianity in Japan for all practical purposes extinct.

Exceptions do exist. I was remarking on the majority of how these patterns tended to go.

UnArcaneElection wrote:
Usually, though, the greatest destroyer of religion is religion. Christianity not only annihilated the pagan religions that it grew up among, but it also annihilated other early variants of Christianity.

You're on the right track, but to make that statement correct, I'd have to say Christendom (a whole different, mutated beast of a thing) annihilated other early variants of Christianity, and assimilated/absorbed various forms of paganism. It's a finely nuanced but crucially (no pun intended) vital point to understanding Western history that many outside and inside the faith tend to miss.

As a believer in Christ, I would say the heretical doctrine of Christendom ("Christian domination" of the world, rather than the "love your neighbor" stuff that Christ actually taught) in its historical and modern forms has done more to damage the faith than any overt persecution.

Thanks Emperor Constantine! -_-

But that's probably a whole can of worms for another discussion. Feel free to p.m. me if you want to talk about it more in-depth.

What various forms of paganism did Christianity absorb?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
xavier c wrote:
Voin_AFOL wrote:
UnArcaneElection wrote:
The Shogunate of Japan did manage to make Christianity in Japan for all practical purposes extinct.

Exceptions do exist. I was remarking on the majority of how these patterns tended to go.

UnArcaneElection wrote:
Usually, though, the greatest destroyer of religion is religion. Christianity not only annihilated the pagan religions that it grew up among, but it also annihilated other early variants of Christianity.

You're on the right track, but to make that statement correct, I'd have to say Christendom (a whole different, mutated beast of a thing) annihilated other early variants of Christianity, and assimilated/absorbed various forms of paganism. It's a finely nuanced but crucially (no pun intended) vital point to understanding Western history that many outside and inside the faith tend to miss.

As a believer in Christ, I would say the heretical doctrine of Christendom ("Christian domination" of the world, rather than the "love your neighbor" stuff that Christ actually taught) in its historical and modern forms has done more to damage the faith than any overt persecution.

Thanks Emperor Constantine! -_-

But that's probably a whole can of worms for another discussion. Feel free to p.m. me if you want to talk about it more in-depth.

What various forms of paganism did Christianity absorb?

Absorb isn't the word I'd choose, but Christianity did adopt many older rituals and celebrations into its traditions and incorporated many local deities as saints.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
xavier c wrote:
Voin_AFOL wrote:
UnArcaneElection wrote:
The Shogunate of Japan did manage to make Christianity in Japan for all practical purposes extinct.

Exceptions do exist. I was remarking on the majority of how these patterns tended to go.

UnArcaneElection wrote:
Usually, though, the greatest destroyer of religion is religion. Christianity not only annihilated the pagan religions that it grew up among, but it also annihilated other early variants of Christianity.

You're on the right track, but to make that statement correct, I'd have to say Christendom (a whole different, mutated beast of a thing) annihilated other early variants of Christianity, and assimilated/absorbed various forms of paganism. It's a finely nuanced but crucially (no pun intended) vital point to understanding Western history that many outside and inside the faith tend to miss.

As a believer in Christ, I would say the heretical doctrine of Christendom ("Christian domination" of the world, rather than the "love your neighbor" stuff that Christ actually taught) in its historical and modern forms has done more to damage the faith than any overt persecution.

Thanks Emperor Constantine! -_-

But that's probably a whole can of worms for another discussion. Feel free to p.m. me if you want to talk about it more in-depth.

What various forms of paganism did Christianity absorb?
Absorb isn't the word I'd choose, but Christianity did adopt many older rituals and celebrations into its traditions and incorporated many local deities as saints.

What deities did ancient Christianity incorporate as saints? This is not Surprising, As one of the titles of God in ancient time was that he was the "God of the gods" or that he was the God that the gods worship.

Dark Archive

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Case in point - ever wonder why Easter keeps changing the date it's on, but Christmas is always on December 25? That's because they're both originally pagan holidays. Christmas was originally Saturnalia, culminating in the celebration of the Birthday of the Unconquerable Sun (Sol Invictus) on December 25. Easter's, however, is a roaming holiday, keeping time with the phases of the moon, and has its roots in pagan holidays worshiping the spring equinox.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Misroi wrote:
Case in point - ever wonder why Easter keeps changing the date it's on, but Christmas is always on December 25? That's because they're both originally pagan holidays. Christmas was originally Saturnalia, culminating in the celebration of the Birthday of the Unconquerable Sun (Sol Invictus) on December 25. Easter's, however, is a roaming holiday, keeping time with the phases of the moon, and has its roots in pagan holidays worshiping the spring equinox.

Sol Invictus seems to be more of a title that romans used for whatever patron god they had at the time rather then a name of any god.


Voin_AFOL wrote:

{. . .}

UnArcaneElection wrote:
Usually, though, the greatest destroyer of religion is religion. Christianity not only annihilated the pagan religions that it grew up among, but it also annihilated other early variants of Christianity.
You're on the right track, but to make that statement correct, I'd have to say Christendom (a whole different, mutated beast of a thing) annihilated other early variants of Christianity, and assimilated/absorbed various forms of paganism. It's a finely nuanced but crucially (no pun intended) vital point to understanding Western history that many outside and inside the faith tend to miss.

Okay, so I should have said that Christianity slew the pagan religions it grew up with, and took their stuff. (This sounds vaguely familiar . . .)

Voin_AFOL wrote:

As a believer in Christ, I would say the heretical doctrine of Christendom ("Christian domination" of the world, rather than the "love your neighbor" stuff that Christ actually taught) in its historical and modern forms has done more to damage the faith than any overt persecution.

Thanks Emperor Constantine! -_-
{. . .}

Call it what you will, but it goes back a long way. As far back as Emperor Constantine was within the timeline of Christianity proper, he was just following up on work already done in the Old Testament, which in turn seems to have continued the evils done by even more ancient religions now nearly lost to the dust storm of prehistory.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Voin_AFOL wrote:
My point wasn't to "assuage white guilt". Frankly, I don't feel any reason to have any. I was born in the USSR where all of us white citizens were slaves to the brutal tyranny of the Communist Party because that's how the true "equality" of Marxism plays out in real life. After the fall of the Soviet Union, my mother and I came to America seeking a...

I know this is kind of old news at this point, and I was going to wait until getting back from vacation to respond, but I figure I should get in before the (inevitable) threadlock this is heading toward.

I just want to be clear I didn't mean to target you, Voin, specifically. Often times we repeat dominant cultural narratives that have been handed to us as true our entire lives.

When I was a teenager and arguing about racism from my (very sheltered, very privileged) perspective I would often try to throw out the Black Panther example. I've even heard black people do it. Obviously, there is nothing for them to gain from the false dichotomy, but it's what they've been taught by a school system and media with a vested interest in repeating it often and loudly enough that we are all incapable of making the distinction.

I'm sure your intentions were well meaning; but it speaks to the power of myth that nearly all of us by a certain age have internalized many dogmatic concepts that fall apart under scrutiny.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
xavier c wrote:


What various forms of paganism did Christianity absorb?

Easter and Christmas come to mind. Easter was drawn from the pagan worship of Astarte, and the early Church elders created the holiday of Christmas to be a direct rival to the holy day of Mithras, a rather popular cult among Romans at the time. As the holiday evolved, customs such as the Christmas tree were absorbed from Celtic Druidism. The patron saint of Ireland in fact, was originally a local Celtic diety.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Voin_AFOL wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Have you READ "Death's Heretic"?

Nope, and that's not really on my to-read list in the near future. When I role-play in a setting, I want to make my own story in it. It may be quite good, but I don't feel it's necessary to my RP experience.

If you were to play... say, a Star Wars RPG, would you want to have to read all the bajillon expanded universe novels out there (some of which I've read and can tell you are quite good)?

It's a matter of choice, The reason I mentioned Death's Heretic is that it remains the only in-depth treatment of Rahadoumi culture, but you have your right to condemm the culture in relative ignorance. That's an American privilege. For myself, I find a good deal of sympathy for the Rahadoumi stance, even if I disagree with some of their methods. But one has to judge such methods in context. Vlad Teppes for instance was a monster to our modern eyes, but in the context of the times, he was simply a bit more ruthless than his peers.

The Expanded Universe is a different situation. There was very little effort made to maintain a consistent continuity, and if you are going along with the current authors of Star Wars canon, none of it counts, anyways.

Of all the Babylon 5 novels, "The Passing of the Techno-Mages", is the only one acknowledged as canon by J.M. Stracyznski. (not because he wrote it, which he did not.)

So far, Paizo's novels have held a high standard of continuity in operating in a shared universe.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
xavier c wrote:
What various forms of paganism did Christianity absorb?

My fellow Pathfinders mentioned several of the Christmas and Easter traditions already. Specifically, the Christmas tree and the Yule log come to mind, and the Easter bunny/egg as fertility symbols for obvious reasons.

Even the popular name of the holiday in the West comes from "Eoster", a Germanic Goddess of Spring (not the Babylonian fertility goddess Ishtar, as per common misconception).

In Russia (Greek Orthodox traditions, as opposed to Roman Catholic ones), we call it "Pascha", which is what the early Christians had called it, a word derived from "Passover".

If you want a more "theologically correct" way to refer to the holiday without confusing your English-speaking friends, "Resurrection Sunday" seems to be a popular choice.

But back to the main point, as the Roman/Byzantine and later medieval "Church as an inexorable juggernaut of a political institution" (as opposed to the Biblical concept of the Church as a spiritual community of believers) went forth in lock-step with the empires and kingdoms of the day to acquire more land, wealth and subjects, they often found it easier to simply roll up existing legends about various mythical folk-heroes into fictionalized "Saints and their Miracles" (this isn't to say that all saints were fictional, obviously) than to outright conquer and knock down these local myths. This happened on both sides of the Schism.

In the West, even the word for the "bad afterlife place" shifted in the vernacular from the Greek "Hades", which you see in the Septuagint, to "Hell", derived from the Norse/Germanic underworld goddess "Hel".

In at least one instance, this phenomenon actually worked backwards in a way. Due to the oral history of the vikings, we know very little "hard facts" about their mythologies (this is common to many "oral tradition" peoples, other examples being the Slavic tribes, the Huns, the Celts, and so on) - and by the time that anyone got around to actually writing this stuff down, there were little, if any people who actually worshiped the Asgardian pantheon left. Much of what we think we know comes from Snorri Sturluson's Prose Edda (13th century), and it includes obvious "Bible fanfic" like Odin dying and hanging on a tree to overcome death and coming back to life, minus some bodily damage. Ragnarök also was quite "Book-of-Revelation"-esque, but with more battleaxes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:


It's a matter of choice

For me it's a matter of time an opportunity cost. I'm sure it's a perfectly good book, but the time I spend reading it is time I'm not spending getting things ready for a game I'm GM-ing or actually running it. It's not out of "willful ignorance". If I have the time and opportunity some day, I may check it out. There are many of my favorite works I could recommend to you that I'm sure you do not have time to dive into at the drop of a hat (have you read Chaucer's "Canterbury Tales", for instance? Or "The Winds of Kulikov Field"?).

LazarX wrote:
Vlad Teppes for instance was a monster to our modern eyes, but in the context of the times, he was simply a bit more ruthless than his peers.

I'm sure if you were one of the people he brutally slaughtered, you would say that with your dying gasp as you were being slowly impaled on a greased pole. ;P

It's so easy to dismiss monsters when their atrocities happen to other people. Well I grew up in a country run into the ground by all-too-human monsters. I saw the fear on the faces of my countrymen as neighbors disappeared in the middle of the night, as tanks drove down the streets of Moscow during the attempted coup.

What we must not forget is that regardless of era, nationality, or station, these are people doing unthinkable things to other people - man's inhumanity to man. "The death of one is a tragedy, the death of millions is a statistic" - the phenomenon of Dunbar's number makes it difficult for our limited human minds to wrap themselves around suffering on a grand scale.

Bu that doesn't mean we have to excuse the monsters that declare war on the very foundations of human decency. "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing."

One of the greatest lies that civilizations have been built upon, that rulers have wanted people to believe since the dawn of civilization, is that they are somehow, arbitrarily, by the status of their tile, more "noble" than mere common criminals, even when they commit the same crimes. This myth of "legitimacy" permeates the halls of power with its stench even to this day.

If one stops to think about this for even a moment, it makes no sense - those in power should be held to a higher standard, that they may lead by example, not be allowed to get away with anything. To whom much is given, much shall be asked from.

As the pirate captain said to Alexander the Great, "what I do with a single ship and small crew, you do with an army at your back and call it 'conquest'".

The pirate knew the only real difference between himself and the glorious emperor was the scale of violence they were able to bring to bear.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Voin_AFOL wrote:

{. . .}

As the pirate captain said to Alexander the Great, "what I do with a single ship and small crew, you do with an army at your back and call it 'conquest'".
{. . .}

Interesting story, but it has one problem (bolding mine):

There was once a pirate who was notorious to the extreme. He used to sail here and there, plundering small boats and raiding villages along the coastline. He would torture people and then make off with their valuables. It was very difficult for people to resist him because he had all kinds of guns and knives. Everybody was afraid of him. {. . .}

And just how did a pirate get guns in the time of Alexander the Great?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The point still stands, regardless of any anachronisms in the story.

Edit: And it's obviously a story and not a historical event, since the pirate got rewarded for speaking truth to power instead of being brutally executed =P

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Voin_AFOL wrote:


LazarX wrote:
Vlad Teppes for instance was a monster to our modern eyes, but in the context of the times, he was simply a bit more ruthless than his peers.

I'm sure if you were one of the people he brutally slaughtered, you would say that with your dying gasp as you were being slowly impaled on a greased pole. ;P

..

And if I was one of those Wallachian mothers whose sons were JUST as brutally slaughtered by the Turks, I'd have been cheering them on. The Balkans are a bloody brutal region that spawned brutal cultures. One of the first things you learn as a Romanian half-breed. I never said that Vlad Teppes wasn't a brutal tyrant, but in that region and time he was merely one brutal tyrant among others.

That brutality isn't that far away, when the Communist dictator Couceascu was deposed, he and his family weren't just shot, they were literally ripped to pieces. (By most accounts, both he and his wife deserved it.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Indeed Vlad Tepes learned all his his brutal methods of torture and execution from the Turks - impalement was a common Turkish form of execution. Vlad didn't introduce anything new. Rather he was a Catholic returning in kind what the Muslims had been doing to his people for years, that is the only difference. Its true that lots of documentaries on Vlad, leave that fact out. Vlad as a vampire was never a thing until the concept was introduced to literature by Bram Stoker. Stoker invented the Dracula as a vampire myth, it never existed as myth or folklore in the centuries preceeding the novel. The Balkans is the source of vampire legends, Stoker just took that idea and applied it to Vlad Tepes as his own invention.

If you recall the 1962 movie with Peter O'Toole of Laurence of Arabia. While Laurence was held by the Turks, the Turkish commander regularly tortured Laurence everyday - which only reveals that the Turks hadn't ended their known practice of brutal torture methods even during WW1.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Voin_AFOL wrote:

[

Kinda like how those liberal college-students with the Che shirts like his (Che's) "ideals, man", but probably couldn't stomach all the people he had to murder to make the glorious Marxist revolution happen? The fact that he was a brutal The fact that he was a brutal executioner for a tyrannical Communistic dictator?

One man's dictator is another's liberator from a corrupt U.S. sponsored dictator. For all of Castro's faults, Batista was no saint to his people. And yes securing a revolution is a bloody business which includes brutally supressing counter-revolutionaries. The American Revolution being no exception in this. Also keep in mind that the United States essentially declared war on Cuba from the moment on Batista's overthrow, a cold war which is only in the process of ending this year.

Che Guevera was not a perfect man, he had his faults, like other men. But as far as his "racism" goes. From the same article you highlighted I would quote the following.


As for whether this remark makes Che racist, what we do know from his later life is that, (a) Che pushed for racially integrating the schools in Cuba, years before they were racially integrated in the Southern United States. (b) Che's friend and personal bodyguard shown here (who accompanied him at all times after 1959) was Harry "Pombo" Villegas, who was Afro-Cuban (black). Pombo accompanied Che to the Congo and to Bolivia, where he survived and now lives in Cuba. Of note, Pombo speaks positively of Guevara to this day shown here. (c) When Che spoke before the U.N. in 1964, he spoke out in favor of black musician Paul Robeson, in support of slain black leader Patrice Lumumba (who he heralded as one of his heroes), against white segregation in the Southern U.S., and against the white South African apartheid regime. (d) When Guevara ventured to the Congo, he fought with a Cuban force of 100 Afro-Cubans (blacks) shown here including those black Congolese fighters who he fought alongside against a force comprised partly of white South African mercenaries. This resembled the fight in Cuba, where Che's units were also made up of mostly mulattos and blacks. (e) Later Guevara offered assistance to fight alongside the (black) FRELIMO in Mozambique shown here & here, for their independence from the Portuguese. (f) Per this --> BBC article we have the recent remarks by Che's black Swahili interpreter in the Congo (Dr. Freddy Ilanga) that the later Guevara "showed the same respect to black people as he did to whites." (g) Lastly, in August 1961 (9 years after his "indolent" remark), Guevara attacked the U.S. for "discrimination against blacks, and outrages by the Ku Klux Klan", which matched his declarations in 1964 before the United Nations (12 years after his "indolent" remark), where Guevara denounced the United States policy towards their black population, stating:
"Those who kill their own children and discriminate daily against them because of the color of their skin; those who let the murderers of blacks remain free, protecting them, and furthermore punishing the black population because they demand their legitimate rights as free men — how can those who do this consider themselves guardians of freedom?"
Now despite all of these issues, could Che have still been racist against blacks or secretly found them "indolent?" I guess so, but these actions (as his biographers Anderson, Castaneda and Taibo note) especially in the 1960’s do not resemble a man with racist attitudes towards black people. Most biographers, claim that this unfortunate early "observation" by Guevara, represented his opinion as a young 24 year old venturing out amongst other races for the first time, and do not represent the man whom the world would later know as Che.
'


2 people marked this as a favorite.
UnArcaneElection wrote:
Voin_AFOL wrote:

{. . .}

As the pirate captain said to Alexander the Great, "what I do with a single ship and small crew, you do with an army at your back and call it 'conquest'".
{. . .}

Interesting story, but it has one problem (bolding mine):

There was once a pirate who was notorious to the extreme. He used to sail here and there, plundering small boats and raiding villages along the coastline. He would torture people and then make off with their valuables. It was very difficult for people to resist him because he had all kinds of guns and knives. Everybody was afraid of him. {. . .}

And just how did a pirate get guns in the time of Alexander the Great?

I'm also starting to wonder if Alexander the Great really captured enormous birds of prey and used them to visit outer space.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zhangar wrote:

{. . .}

Edit: And it's obviously a story and not a historical event, since the pirate got rewarded for speaking truth to power instead of being brutally executed =P

Now THAT'S a good point . . . .

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Voin_AFOL wrote:


As a believer in Christ, I would say the heretical doctrine of Christendom ("Christian domination" of the world, rather than the "love your neighbor" stuff that Christ actually taught) in its historical and modern forms has done more to damage the faith than any overt persecution.

Christendom, the word any single branch of Christianity uses to identify and condemn the doctrinal differences with every other branch of Christianity. Most typically used by Protestant branches as the more traditional Catholic and Orthodox branches prefer the more archaic word... heresy.


Well yes, the Alexander the Great story is most likely apocryphal, just as his alleged meeting with the ascetic philosopher Diogenes ("Do not block the sun, my king").

Just as apocryphal as the story of George Washington and the cherry tree.

We're not claiming them to be historical fact. That's not the point. They're like fables/parables/morality tales. You could insert whatever characters you want. Make it Darth Vader intercepting Han Solo, doesn't matter.

Making them the well-known leaders of nations people are familiar with makes them more relatable than "the prince from a kingdom far away, once upon a time..."

...

Ah Che, the classic "I'm not racist - look, I have friends who are black!" excuse... that's cute. ;P

But we've veered waaay off topic again.

Personally I think I've said pretty much all of what I have to say about Rahadoum in my various posts here. It's been a fun, engaging, thought-provoking discussion (and I'm pleasantly surprised at how respectful we've all been able to keep it on such a powderkeg subject, thank you) but I've noticed us kinda re-treading ground we've already covered and simply re-phrasing old posts.

Does anyone have anything new about Rahadoum's stance on religion that we haven't exhaustively covered here already?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

^Not exactly more insight, except to say that we need source material, like for instance, an AP that takes the PCs undercover there. Despite my affiliation with the First Law in the abstract, my thoughts on Rahadoum in the concrete leave me with no blanket philosophical objection to that kind of mission.

And I'm still bummed about the shooting down of my idea tying together the driving force behind Rahadoum's ideology and the prevalence of slavery among worshippers of a deity that is supposed to be a flagbearer for Neutral Good. I love soiling 2 stones with 1 bird . . . .

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
Voin_AFOL wrote:


As a believer in Christ, I would say the heretical doctrine of Christendom ("Christian domination" of the world, rather than the "love your neighbor" stuff that Christ actually taught) in its historical and modern forms has done more to damage the faith than any overt persecution.

Christendom, the word any single branch of Christianity uses to identify and condemn the doctrinal differences with every other branch of Christianity. Most typically used by Protestant branches as the more traditional Catholic and Orthodox branches prefer the more archaic word... heresy.

Um, no. Christendom refers to the geographical areas that are generally considered to have Christianity in large numbers or are accepting/friendly towards priests, bishops, and missionaries. It's actually predominately a Catholic term, and a very old one.

Most Protestants do not use the word or the concept, and in fact neither do most modern Catholics outside of a vague reference to Christians world-wide. It has nothing to do with heresies, which it actually predates, not the other way around.


Do not modern supporters of Socialism seek to distance themselves from the atrocities of the USSR, Red China, N. Korea, Cuba, etc. by pointing to the nuance of that being Stalinism, Maoism, etc. ?

And so on?

You'd be hard pressed to find a modern identity who's precursors don't have blood on their hands. We can play the historical blame game ad infinitum.

Pots and kettles, my friend.

Apologies for messy formatting and any spelling errors - I'm typing this from my phone.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

^Some past supporters of Socialism also did not want anything to do with the atrocities of the USSR. Even within the Russian Revolution, some of the revolutionaries were actually serious about establishing democracy in Russia -- problem is that they lasted only days before the Communists crushed them (which from what I understand is considerably faster than their speed in crushing the remnants of imperial loyalist forces). Communism was not Socialism -- instead, it is a form of fascism veiled in Socialist advertising, and as we see in today's Communist China, it is not even truly opposed to Capitalism (this is not the first example, but examples from the Soviet Union were harder to find -- however, if you look up the Koch family -- as in modern Koch Brothers infamy -- you can find some -- Fred Koch made it big in part by developing Stalinist USSR's oil industry, even though he later founded the super-rightwing John Birch Society).

Nevertheless, Communist propaganda fools enough Socialists who seem to have otherwise good intentions, even today, that I am starting to think that perhaps the name of Socialism has been irretrievably tarnished, and that any Socialist who has honorable intentions should abandon it.

Likewise, on Golarion, Rahadoum has managed to corrupt its legacy beyond redemption; if the theory I posted above (that James Jacobs for some reason seems not to like, about the connection to slavery) is correct, it may have been doomed to damnation before it even started, just like the Russian Revolution.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Today's China is not the "Red China" of the massacre-happy Mao regime. These days, China barely pays lip service to the name of "Communism" while having multitudes of millionaire CEOs building up corporations and making them rich through - wait for it - the glories of Marxism free enterprise.

It seems they learned from the mistakes of their Soviet neighbor's downfall that actually sticking to communism/socialism grinds your economy into stagnation because if everyone gets paid the same 2 Rubles at the Hammer & Sickle factory regardless of whether they're "Hero of People's Labor" or just sod off to the back room and drink vodka all day, 99%+ of your workforce is going to have no motivation to do anything.

Also if all the companies are owned by the same entity, (i.e. the government), then there's no competition and soon all your products start turning to crap. This also the exact same problem with monopolies, but greedy businessmen who think of themselves as "capitalists" and want to eliminate any competition tend to miss the irony.

What China today shows us is that "Communism" only works on a large scale if it isn't actually communism anymore. I'm not saying they're "Freedom-town USA" with bald eagles laying baseballs over purple mountain majesties, but they've actually made some significant progress since the horrors of Tienanmen Square.

...

I think an important point to [re?]state in this discussion is the difference between what things are and what they are called.

A story attributed to president Abraham Lincoln had someone ask him:
"How many legs would a dog have if you called the tail a leg?"
Allegedly, Honest Abe replied, "4 - calling the tail a leg does not make it one."


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Way the hell off topic here, since I'm not aware of anything that indicates Rahadoum is communist or fascist. Or capitalist for that matter.

Anyway, there's a big difference between switching from communism to capitalism and switching from totalitarianism to democracy. China's moved from communism to state capitalism without giving up the authoritarian reins at all. There's room for free enterprise at the lower levels, as long as you keep the local officials happy, but most of those "millionaire CEOs getting rich through free enterprise" are deeply tied to the party leadership, if they aren't running actually state backed companies. There really hasn't been much significant progress in any but economic terms.


Less massacres and state-engineered famines is generally a step up. Don't get me wrong - I'm not a mouthpiece for Beijing. I'm very critical of every government to ever exist. And every government needs criticism from the people to guide its development, because the only excuse of any government to exist is to serve the people.

I have no respect or use for those in positions of political power who can't handle criticism - it comes with the territory and is part of the job description. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

A "ruler" who dares to silence criticism embarrasses themselves by acting like a tantrum-throwing toddler. That's no way for a real, adult human being to act in any era or society.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Thorri Grimbeard wrote:

According to The Inner Sea World Guide, slavery is "commonplace" in Rahadoum. That makes it unambiguously evil by any normal standard. They have their "reasons" why? I'm sure they do. So did the Confederacy, apartheid South Africa, late Republican Rome, and any number of other states.

It's amazing to me how willing people are to make excuses for commonplace slavery because the slavers are "atheists".

in the inner sea slavery isn't inherently evil, Abadar the god of law and civilization a lawful neutral deity has no problem with slavery, he would prefer that the slaves where actually freemen so they could contribute to the economy


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Voin_AFOL wrote:
A "ruler" who dares to silence criticism embarrasses themselves by acting like a tantrum-throwing toddler. That's no way for a real, adult human being to act in any era or society.

kind of reminds me of that one family that has run North Korea for three generations


Blackvial wrote:
Voin_AFOL wrote:
A "ruler" who dares to silence criticism embarrasses themselves by acting like a tantrum-throwing toddler. That's no way for a real, adult human being to act in any era or society.
kind of reminds me of that one family that has run North Korea for three generations

Or the royal families of nearly every country in the world for hundreds of years.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Blackvial wrote:
Thorri Grimbeard wrote:

According to The Inner Sea World Guide, slavery is "commonplace" in Rahadoum. That makes it unambiguously evil by any normal standard. They have their "reasons" why? I'm sure they do. So did the Confederacy, apartheid South Africa, late Republican Rome, and any number of other states.

It's amazing to me how willing people are to make excuses for commonplace slavery because the slavers are "atheists".

in the inner sea slavery isn't inherently evil, Abadar the god of law and civilization a lawful neutral deity has no problem with slavery, he would prefer that the slaves where actually freemen so they could contribute to the economy

A Lawful Neutral (or any other alignment in between Good and Evil) allowing slavery doesn't make slavery non-Evil. It just means that (as might be expected for an in-between deity) they have some evil in their allowed behaviors -- they just don't concentrate on it the way the fully evil deities do. Although from seeing that Abadar's portfolion in large part is basically capitalism, I would have to put him at least on the Evil side of Lawful Neutral (Pathfinder by default doesn't have in-between alignments and alignment planes the way D&D 1.x through 3.x did -- I miss those, even though they were incomplete due to only having the in-between positions around the edge of the alignment graph/planar cosmology map).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Tolerating an evil is not good, but neither is it an evil. So, a neutral deity tolerating an evil is not weird. Now, if a good deity tolerates slavery . . . I'd question the deity's alignment before I'd question my belief that slavery is evil.


thejeff wrote:
Blackvial wrote:
Voin_AFOL wrote:
A "ruler" who dares to silence criticism embarrasses themselves by acting like a tantrum-throwing toddler. That's no way for a real, adult human being to act in any era or society.
kind of reminds me of that one family that has run North Korea for three generations
Or the royal families of nearly every country in the world for hundreds of years.

That's what happens when you get the maturity of a toddler in the body of an adult, with an army at their back. Worse yet, the other adults around them allowed this kind of behavior to go on on instead of putting a sword or bullet in them.

This sort of thing ought to be an embarrassment to us as a species - if we wouldn't allow our own children to act out like this, why has humanity allowed itself to be ruled by immature sociopaths throughout the history of our civilization?

A ruler who murders a person for so much as looking him in the eye does not show himself to be "strong", let alone acting like a grown man. All he demonstrates is that he's an insecure coward, afraid to make eye contact for fear that it'll erode his charlatan "divine-emperor" act and clearly overcompensating for something.

Respect is never deserved by one who is not willing to show it in return. This is true in personal relationships, and on a larger scale. If your government doesn't respect you - then it's not worthy of your respect.

And just because "that's the way it's always been done" is no excuse. Something being common doesn't make it "okay".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
KahnyaGnorc wrote:
Tolerating an evil is not good, but neither is it an evil. So, a neutral deity tolerating an evil is not weird. Now, if a good deity tolerates slavery . . . I'd question the deity's alignment before I'd question my belief that slavery is evil.

+1 on the last part of that.

201 to 250 of 329 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Lost Omens Campaign Setting / General Discussion / Rahadoum - Not atheistic, but dystheistic All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.