Good to see that you address all of my arguments, my fear came from the fact that others have avoided inconvenient arguments in the past. I will resume:
Change, I must agree this can be a good thing, sometimes necessary, but sometimes leading to a worse situation. We stopped the flood because of the potentially devastating effect of a large quantity of water in a region that require none to exist, along with the sunlight starvation that would occur to the population. The flood was seem as controversial, it killed innocents, but was also a good occasion for progress. War does not bring progress on it's own. Perhaps new and better weapons are devised, but they so not serve the population. Rather, they only allow for more to be killed by both sides. Centralization is a debatable thing. Of course a centralized power is much stronger and can achieve much more, but it is also so much easier to corrupt, to lead to tyranny, I only support centralization when there are mechanisms to weed out the corruption and tyrants.
Conflict on it's own is not a bad thing, it sometimes lead to great innovations. My problem with your means is that you bring it in ways that do not benefit anyone, and cause needless harm, leading to my next point.
Yes, I do believe war is the most cruel form of conflict. I do not see a group of assassins murdering anyone they feel like killing as a form of conflict. There is indeed a great distinction between your aspect and senseless slaughter, distinction I would hope to see you put more emphasis on. I must agree that slaves fighting each other for small privileges is a cruel fate, but unlike war, it does not necessarily imply senseless slaughter.
((Yeah, what I meant is that mavnon pretend to be tolerant by not excluding Aag people only to distract from the fact that he(or she?) is causing a slaughter by sending the new kingdom against their nation at the same time. I'll wait for your response on this for my rebuttal))
Of couse, the winner benefits, but you are not allowing equal forces to compete, you claim you would have supported the humans had they won against the clan rilem, but we both know it would've required a miracle to allow a few disorganized tribes to win against an organized empire. The new kingdom is the same, a massive kingdom bullying smaller nations. You only side with improvement when you are the one who benefit from it.
Opposing the cruelty of gods through revolution is indeed a cause I would sympathize with, as evidenced by my multiple attempts at opening a peaceful dialogue with the new kingdom and my earlier opposition to their direct extermination. Only we both know that this is not what is truly happening. We all know that this is all a puppet show, the king is a marionette, the people are manipulated. They are directly working for you, while claiming they are against you. The fact that the only civilizations they are at peace with are those under you and your ally's control is yet another proof of this scheme. You fool no one there.
Your turn. I believe you can still be a benevolent being for these worlds, but that you are wrong with your means. I would not be debating you if I saw you as a lost cause, but I can still not see the manipulation of the new kingdom as anything else than a cruel and selfish act. Not the fact that you rule them, but the fact that you lie to them, make them believe they are fighting the same evil you sadly represent today.
Author
Topic: Litany of the Void: A God Game (24/⊕∵↯):IC Tick ?:Who art thou? (Read 195092 times)