Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[EveryZig]

A thought that recently occurred to me is that it is rather nonsensical that gods of blood in fiction are always malevolent and murderous. This is because:
1) Blood is still blood when it is inside people, and is in face much healthier than blood outside of people. A god of blood reveling in bloodshed would be like a god of the forest reveling in quality hardwood floors.
2) Consider what blood actually does. It nurtures the body by transporting nutrients and sealing off wounds, rather than being something like fire which consumes and destroys. (Unless the species concerned has acid blood, but most fantasy settings are not populated by sapient xenomorphs {as awesome as that would be}, and even in that case the acid is more of a defensive mechanism than a form of attack.)

Because of that, I say that a god of blood would more logically be Lawful/Neutral Good than the Chaotic Evil they almost always are written as.

[nogoodnames]

Right, they're gods of bloodshed, not actual blood (that makes about as much sense as a god of mucus or eyeball fluid), but god of blood just sounds better. No need to take everything so literally.

[Vic Romano]

A thought that recently occurred to me is that it is rather nonsensical that gods in christianity are always malevolent and murderous. This is because:
1) Christianity is based on a set of beliefs that inspire wholesome actions.  A god reveling in crusades would be like a god of the oceans reveling in deep net trawling.
2) Consider what Jesus actually did.  He nurtured and cared for people, rather than razing villages across the land.

Because of that, I say that a christian god would more logically be lawful/neutral good than the chaotic evil they almost always are.

This was just for fun of course, very interesting point you raised there.

[nogoodnames]

A thought that recently occurred to me is that it is rather nonsensical that gods in christianity are always malevolent and murderous. This is because:
1) Christianity is based on a set of beliefs that inspire wholesome actions.  A god reveling in crusades would be like a god of the oceans reveling in deep net trawling.
2) Consider what Jesus actually did.  He nurtured and cared for people, rather than razing villages across the land.

Because of that, I say that a christian god would more logically be lawful/neutral good than the chaotic evil they almost always are.

This was just for fun of course, very interesting point you raised there.

Ugh, really? You are just trying to start a flame war and you know it.

Don't say it's just for fun, it's a sensitive subject for some people and you're derailing the thread.

[EveryZig]

Because of that, I say that a christian god would more logically be lawful/neutral good than the chaotic evil they almost always are.

As to the moral alignment of the christian god, I think it is comparable to this: ( http://alzrius.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/batman-alignment.jpg ). In other words, the official material is full of contradictions so it really depends on the writer (or preacher as the case may be).

[Niccolo]

A thought that recently occurred to me is that it is rather nonsensical that gods in christianity are always malevolent and murderous. This is because:
1) Christianity is based on a set of beliefs that inspire wholesome actions.  A god reveling in crusades would be like a god of the oceans reveling in deep net trawling.
2) Consider what Jesus actually did.  He nurtured and cared for people, rather than razing villages across the land.

Because of that, I say that a christian god would more logically be lawful/neutral good than the chaotic evil they almost always are.

This was just for fun of course, very interesting point you raised there.

Either you're trying to troll or you're trying to make a valid argument (that's slightly flawed...). Either way, I guess I'll answer.

Yes, Christianity is a religion that is supposed to be dedicated to love and peace. That was essentially Jesus' message to the world - love thy neighbour and all that. Sadly, a lot of people decided that they would only love their Christian neighbours and brutally murder all of the others. But that was back then, when people were a whole lot more ignorant than they are now.

Back then, being the head of the church wasn't about being the Voice of God on earth, it was about political power. It wasn't at all about the values that Christianity embodies. Modern-day Christians (at least, the majority of them) realise that the Crusades were a gross misstep, an abuse of power for the sole purpose of beating up another country and taking all of their stuff. God - at least, the God I believe exists - did not condone those actions. I doubt He was even consulted.

The picture of God and Jesus painted in most churches these days is one of love and peace. Yes, there is the whole 'please try converting others to my worship', but at least Christians have given up on converting by fire and sword. Otherwise, most every sermon - at least, most every sermon at my local chapel - is about being kind to others, helping the weak, and so on. You know, generic good-guy actions that anyone can do, and that God would love for His followers to do.

The God I follow as an Anglican Christian is a God that promotes love, peace and goodwill. I have never seen God Himself portrayed as murderous in the New Testament (Old Testament God is a whole 'nother story... but he lightened up a few thousand years ago, thankfully) and I do not believe that I could face Him when I die if I were to portray Him as such.

Sadly, there are still stupid Christians, just as there are stupid Jewish people, stupid Muslims, stupid Buddhists, stupid Hindus, and there are certainly stupid atheists. It doesn't take being religious to be stupid - it simply gives one another method to do so.

But until you know what you're talking about, kindly don't make examples that are just blatant lies.

[hermes]

Back on topic... EveryZig has a good point, and it would be interesting to discuss this in relation to history and Armok, or the temple of Armok as presented in Threetoe's latest story.

It is my feeling, or educated guess, that when the ancients practiced sacrifice, the spilling of blood was symbolic of an animal giving up their life-force and it was only in such sacrifice, either ritual or in battle, that blood gained value.  Basically, they didn't have a clue what blood is or what it does, but it was, in a sense, the ultimate currency because when one dies, the letting of blood is the only physical indication that one's body has given anything up (the mental loss being impossible to prove).  In this sense, where blood is the currency of life and death, it makes sense that a god of blood should mediate this transaction and, in the case of the Priest of Armok, provide some recompense.

Simply put, I think that in a low-tech world view, blood is only defined in its loss, and this dictates the nature of the blood priest.

From Cado...
Speaking of extraplanar beings, there's the matter of Armok, who in the story presumably makes the portal of creation available after a blood sacrifice. Magical powers associated to gods or other supernatural beings are much like other magic, but the methods and effects can take on the character of the being, and the granting/use of powers by others should generally occur only with the constant approval of the being in question.

However, as Threetoe defines it, the blood god grants something only if he approves; it's a barter system.  So does it make sense that the blood god would request more blood be made?  "Go procreate, Cado!"?

[Vic Romano]

Are the barrels of blood that vendors bring explained as an armok-related good?  I've always wondered what possible future implementation they could have, and the only one that comes to mind would be a religion type reaction akin to the threetoe story hermes just referred to.

[Vherid]

A thought that recently occurred to me is that it is rather nonsensical that gods of blood in fiction are always malevolent and murderous. This is because:
1) Blood is still blood when it is inside people, and is in face much healthier than blood outside of people. A god of blood reveling in bloodshed would be like a god of the forest reveling in quality hardwood floors.
2) Consider what blood actually does. It nurtures the body by transporting nutrients and sealing off wounds, rather than being something like fire which consumes and destroys. (Unless the species concerned has acid blood, but most fantasy settings are not populated by sapient xenomorphs {as awesome as that would be}, and even in that case the acid is more of a defensive mechanism than a form of attack.)

Because of that, I say that a god of blood would more logically be Lawful/Neutral Good than the Chaotic Evil they almost always are written as.

No. They demand the killing of people so that the blood may return to them.

[Kay12]

Because of that, I say that a christian god would more logically be lawful/neutral good than the chaotic evil they almost always are.

How come chaotic? I think even the crusaders are lawful - they have a strong moral code and hierarchy.

[EveryZig]

How come chaotic? I think even the crusaders are lawful - they have a strong moral code and hierarchy.

One of the main reasons why crusaders were sent to kill and pillage in the Middle East was to divert them from their previous killing and pillaging in Europe. Sounds pretty chaotic to me.

Simply put, I think that in a low-tech world view, blood is only defined in its loss, and this dictates the nature of the blood priest.

That was how the one non-evil god of blood I can think of operated. From what I remember, Quetzalcoatl was mostly Lawful-Neutral, providing life through his blood (in the form of rain) in exchange for his followers' blood as sacrifices.

Still, in settings where gods are magical being defined by things/concepts (as opposed to settings where gods are shaped/formed by mass belief), you would expect a god to act based on what their element actually does rather than based on how people perceive their element to be.

No. They demand the killing of people so that the blood may return to them.

Do gods of knowledge demand books be burned as sacrifices to them? Spilling blood kills it rather quickly. (Unless you freeze it, but who other than doctors or clever vampires does that?)

[Kay12]

How come chaotic? I think even the crusaders are lawful - they have a strong moral code and hierarchy.

One of the main reasons why crusaders were sent to kill and pillage in the Middle East was to divert them from their previous killing and pillaging in Europe.

Huh. And I thought it had somethign to do with those sneaky Seljuks...

[Cruxador]

It would be interesting to see a nice healing-related god be associated with blood. I feel like it's been done, but I can't recall where. Probably Faerun, what with its several dozen gods.

A thought that recently occurred to me is that it is rather nonsensical that gods in christianity are always malevolent and murderous. This is because:
1) Christianity is based on a set of beliefs that inspire wholesome actions.  A god reveling in crusades would be like a god of the oceans reveling in deep net trawling.
2) Consider what Jesus actually did.  He nurtured and cared for people, rather than razing villages across the land.

Because of that, I say that a christian god would more logically be lawful/neutral good than the chaotic evil they almost always are.

This was just for fun of course, very interesting point you raised there.

Ugh, really? You are just trying to start a flame war and you know it.

Don't say it's just for fun, it's a sensitive subject for some people and you're derailing the thread.

No need to go off on a fellow for a silly point in relation to the OP.
Unless you're suggesting that there are people who strongly believe that the crusades were in fact correct as per the teachings of Christ? I haven't seen that opinion anywhere, except among people who seek to use it to discredit Christianity as a whole.

[EveryZig]

Huh. And I thought it had somethign to do with those sneaky Seljuks...

Well there was that too, and also an increase in religious fervor at the time. Say what you want about Pope Urban II's morals, but he was quite efficient at problem solving.

[Lectorog]

I guess gods of blood just have problems enjoying blood while it's still contained.
Just like gods of war don't seem to enjoy political battles, small-scale conflicts, and all that.
Gods like to go all-out.