Confessor Dorian

You're so sure? What exactly have cattle, or fish, or cabbage for that matter done to make it not-innocent, and good to go for killing? Perhaps our own survival? We do need to eat.

Oh wait, you mean to say it's not our species, so it's okay? Mursaat weren't killing their own to keep that door closed. Pretty sure they were fine with that. Exactly what made them evil and every other living thing not? (everything must kill something organic to eat)

We don't NEED to eat meat. Honestly, no one cares [except vegetarians] about eating them. Unless they're furry and cute or endangered, any animal is edible. And... cabbage? What? There's nothing wrong with eating cabbage. o.O

You really can't talk about morals and nature. They have nothing to do with each other.

First of all, cabbage (ie any plant) is a living thing, just like you and me. It is very relevant to the discussion, since we're talking about different species interacting. What is right and wrong must radiate from the center - your own species first. Certain things are "ok" with regard to dealing with animals that aren't with humans (hit and kill a squirrel with your car - roadkill, hit and kill a human - manslaughter). Certain things are "ok" with regard to dealing with plants than animals. When discussing the Mursaat, this point is very important. They killed "innocents," however, they were "innocent" humans, not other Mursaat.

Second thing - morals and nature go hand-in-hand. I mean, unless you think our morals are embedded in our "souls" and handed down by God.

A plant can't really interact. I'm agnostic, so don't assume any religion's morals to be my own. How can nature and morals go hand in hand if animals besides us lack the ability to stop and think if what they are doing is right or wrong. Nature just happens and that's that. Nature doesn't need morals. Undomesticated creatures don't eat more than they need to to survive.

The Mursaat should have categories. Sapient beings and non-sapient. The innocents they killed were civil beings. I'm not really sure where I'm going with this, so I'm going to stop here.

Not sure if you're aware of this, but uhh, we are part of nature. We stop and think because we have that luxury. Place a human in the wild for long enough, and all that will be important is survival. They will stop and think just as much as any primate, or any other living thing with a brain advanced enough.

So, is it proper to only feel empathy for other living things that can also feel empathy? Is that what is truly good? Which, by the way, really screws over sociopaths who cannot, no matter how hard they try, feel empathy. Are they just doomed to be evil?

Sentient = feel
Sapient = know

I don't believe, in our current state, humans are a part of nature. If we wanted to, we could kill all life on earth. Nothing in nature can do that. This is why I think nature is one thing and morals are only held by humans. In our world, anyway; this doesn't have much to do with the topic.

Well if that was true, then why does both the official and unofficial GW-wiki, say different? If you look at both they give you the standard information about the Mursaat and the Seer’s. Unless you have hard evidence to prove otherwise, then it’s not a fact.

Offical
Mursatt
http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Mursaat
Seer’s
http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Seer
Unoffical
Mursaat
http://gw.gamewikis.org/wiki/Mursaat
Seer’s
http://gw.gamewikis.org/wiki/Seer

Therefore, what you are saying through those two paragraphs is basically an assumption of the fact. So the question I provide is still not answered, since theories are not fact.

No, we cant. In out current stage, it would be *impossible* for us to kill everything living on planet. And that is likely to be that way for thousands of years.

And evne if we were, it would be GG for us. No technology can replace what nature provides for us. Basically, we are still part of it, like it or not.

Were even incapable of killing every single human on this rock.

---

Anyway, gist of this discussion in fact that most people cant understand one thing:

Fighting evil does not make you good. You dont have to be good to fight evil. ... etc. Evil vs, Evil is completelly okay struggle, and history is showing that over and over.

Fighting is for survival and gain, noone ever fought for "higher ideals" (okay, common soldiers could think that, but thats propaganda.).

It has remained remarkably civil

One can disagree with many things, there are still people who *truly* believe the earth is flat and going to the moon was a great hoax perpetrated to convince us the world is round. That they can disagree doesn't change the truth at all (same thing goes for what I say - no amount of "other's believe" makes it any truer).

Easy - I follow that same bit of logic and determine that if they need to be removed from society that almost always "evil", though there are the occasional exception. You should understand that you also are not giving an objective step by step (even if hard to follow) definition of "detrimental to society", you are not holding yourself to the same standard you are me (I would guess for the same reason - it would take a book to explain it fully).

That is *really* belittling anyone who doesn't agree with you. Really, think that one over - so far have I (or quite a few of the other posters one here) even remotely resembled that post? Many ignore you simply after that simply because the actions Hitler did are inherently Evil, see part of my post as to why. An interesting counter the religious wars (and why I used him as an example) is that Pol-Pot took a large portion of your beliefes and (like the religious wars) took them to an extreme. He, and quite a few others, are the secular version of that. In modern time there have been WAY more people killed over secular non-emotional objective reasoning than religious wars.

There are two basic paths to where I figure they come from. First, is that regardless of anything else out there are are "morals" - even to some extent you recognize this in deciding some actions are "improper". In a sense this is the same question as to the US's Bill of Rights - they are simply inherent in the system. Effectively you have the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness and infringing on those is wrong (though not always evil and, obviously, with any one line it isn't a complete answer).

The second, and what I suppose you are searching for is my religious beliefs. They are generally something between a deist and a Christian. However many of the "morals" are personal (much like the Jewish custom of eating Kosher food). They are quite a bit different from what is being discussed - things like telling the truth, not cheating on your spouse, that kind of thing. Though even should it be shown there is no god I would *still* consider them to be the moral standpoint.

I realized that, as such I included both (the person had either legitimate reasons or a mental problem to think you were going to kill their family). In fact, as per this conversation I do not see any distinction as in both cases they person was still acting in good faith (there's that word again).

We can only go by what we know about a situation. Pol Pot did what he did systematically and with full knowledge of what he was doing. Of course, any megalomaniac or murder has - by definition - some type of mental issue. But, unless it is one where you can not control your actions (Schizophrenia comes to mind) I find it irrelevant. No, not arbitrary definitions but not living in a binary world however much you want to make me out to believe that.


No, agnostics do not know and will not say if there is one or not. If you believe there is no God(s) then you are an Athiest. Of course, and Athiest is also a weak version of a nihilist so I would VERY much say that it is true they would meet those two.

In what way do you disagree with it? In fact, you explicitly state: "In real life, there is no objective system you could use to determine who is evil and who is good." which is a paraphrase of most of that last line (and why I use the term "weak nihilist", though in some places you do follow into the "therefore who cares?" realm). As I said, you are more properly a post-modernist, but that is a specific subset of a nihilist movement. People generally use the term incorrect and focus on the latter part of the third point, however the first part tends to be more important to if it is a nihilist philosophy.

Once more, the strong version of a nihilist would be that way, but yours is a weak version of it.

You are almost a classic fit for that "pigeonhole" - everything you are stating here is a fairly basic belief system that has been around a long time. There is almost nothing new under the sun, you don't have an original belief system (in that you are the only one to think so), and you fit nearly 100% to it (post-modernism, which happens to be a subset of a nihilist movement). I haven't assumed anything you believe, I didn't even assume you were an atheist (though I figured you most likely were).

Just to make sure, your not getting angry over the "strong" and "Weak" thing are you? They are simply technical terms used in discussing things like this and there is no good or bad connotations with them and simply mean how far do you carry the beliefs.

Ah, but that is irrelevant to if it is correct or not. You are full of short easy to feed snippets also (we all are). A large part of good or bad is *why* - to manipulate for your own gain is bad, if you are recognizing a truth then not so.

To some extent, sometimes that makes for a better story, sometimes "good and evil" are better separated and obvious. I find each one interesting for different purposes.

I don't know how many of you have read Orson Scott Card's Ender's Game series, but I'd like to interject his "Hierarchy of Alienness" into this arguement.

It's described here in detail, for those that are interested:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarc...y_of_Alienness

How does this relate to the Mursatt?

The objective step by step is trying to find what works best in order for society to grow. It is nothing in particular, and in some cases, it may be. The point is, like the scientific method, it only ends up as a theory based on facts, rather than a belief.

Evil has many definitions. By some, I would agree that what Hitler, or Pol-pot, or whoever did was evil. Specifically this one: "anything causing injury or harm" or perhaps this one: "characterized or accompanied by misfortune or suffering; unfortunate; disastrous." What I think you're going on about is this definition: "the force in nature that governs and gives rise to wickedness and sin" or: "the wicked or immoral part of someone or something." If so, that I entirely disagree with. Those require some universal or even divine kind of morality that all life (or at least mankind) abides to.

I find moral value to be an extremely important as a survival factor. I've said that many times. However, I disagree that morality exists as an objective, solid, unyielding force of any kind. Its roots are entirely in what we as humans agree upon, be it in actual communication or evolved into our genetics (social abilities), and not some unseen force. Our genetics, however mostly universal in our species, does mutate and change. It is also adaptable, and varies from person to person. For this reason, while we have basic social aspects that are relatively the same, our very nature ensures they are as much different as they are the same.

As I mentioned before, sociopaths do not feel empathy for their fellow human. I think I read somewhere that every 1 in 10 people are sociopaths. This is an oddball trait, but it is still fairly common. Take one of these and put them in the wrong environment (abused as a child, etc), and you end up with what people would call an 'evil' person doing 'evil' things. Evil as in "causing injury or harm," verbally and physically? You bet. Evil as in inherently wicked? Well I guess you be the judge.

How would you know that? Unless you can read minds, you can't. But yet, you can readily declare someone or their actions as evil (wicked), when you don't really know?

You can control your actions, but what if your condition (or environment) makes it so that you don't want to? Think about severe drug addictions for what I'm talking about. Taking the 'moral high road' isn't always the best decision, either. Again, this is where that perfect knowledge thing that I was talking about comes in.

First of all, it isn't "believe there is no God(s)," it's "don't believe there is a God(s)." Big difference. I have no belief, but I am open-minded. I just need to be shown the proof to push me. Doesn't that make me at least a "light" agnostic?

Because good and evil don't play into the system. It's what is good for society (and advancement for humans blah blah blah), and what isn't. That's all. There is no system of who is good or evil, because there is no good and evil (in the 'inherently wicked' sense). I don't have a belief, nor do I adhere to any kind of specific philosophy, I simply try to understand the theories and apply them.

This will be the last time I will say this - stop pigeonholing me.

It can make for a good story. See: The Holy Bible.


Sorry, had to.

Don't forget that you can not judge the allegiance of an entire faction/race by the actions of one or more individuals.

It is like saying all Americans are evil, just because Bush is doing evil stuff.

Confessor Dorian might have been a nice guy in the past, his recent actions have corrupted him and he is 100% evil now in my book. The White Mantle just follows his command, but the individuals are not evil themselves. Look at Olias for instance.

Having said that, here is a proof of a evil Mursaat individual:
Lazarus the Dire: "Pitiful humans. My brothers are dead, but I will tolerate your existence no longer."
Justiciar Naveed: "Wait! It is me you're after, Lazarus. There's no need to harm these people any further. I... I surrender to your will."
Lazarus the Dire: "Surrender? That was never an option. Your only choices are death and... death. You are tool that has served its function. Your usefulness has ended. Disappear, now, from this world."
Justiciar Naveed: "Goodbye..."
Lazarus the Dire: "What...? What... is this? Something is wrong! My power twists upon itself! What have you done to me?"
Lazarus the Dire: "Accursed human! You have done this to me! I will not forget this!"
Lazarus the Dire: "Countless generations will suffer for your actions this day!"

It is the final quest in the questline given by Justiciad Navee, outside Tarnished Haven.

I think it is... interesting... how Rata Sum is an anagram of Mursaat plus the fact that the Mursaat have a hidden city deep in the Maguuma Jungle. Why can Asurans summon Mursaat at will? Maybe they were the hidden masters of the Mursaat.

I thought that as well. The Mursaat appeared to operate almost mechanically like the Golems, but in the new Saul mission, they appear to have a mind of their own. And the summons are a hard judge of a link mainly because the other beings they summon. No way they are the creators of Naga or Imps. Djinn, maybe, but no the other two.

I think one good theory of all of that is that where the Asura are now is what used to be where the Mursaat lived. The Asurans maybe studied them intently, and named their capital after them, perhaps intrigued by these beings from another planet. Maybe they tried to learn of their magic or technology that allowed interplanetary travel? Can we say "stargate?"

Definitely.

We kill Dorian in ThunderHead Keep because at the time we're led to believe he was evil, when actually It's been my belief for a while that the Mursaat (and by extension, the White Mantle) were "good" in a round-about sort of way. The Mursaat, through a need for self-preservation, had to keep the Door of Komalie closed, and used the White Mantle to make the sacrifices for them. As it happens, the rest of Tyria would have needed the door to be kept closed as well as the Mursaat, it's just the Mursaat seemed to know what was behind it.

I do not feel bad each time I kill Dorian though. I'm playing in-character and my Character doesn't know the whole story.

Explain to me how that makes Lazarus evil? It means that he, maybe like all Mursaat, sees humans as inferior, like how whites felt blacks were. To Mursaat, Humans are like sheep to be herded. Judging by all their gold and posture, I'd assume the Mursaat view themselves as the superior race. We may see that as morally wrong, but it's not evil.

That is your opinoin, that I disagree shows that I am right (after all, that is your point, correct?)

No, you complain about pigeonholing you and then you do so to me like crazy after finding out I mostly believe in a judeo-christian god. Until you quit doing this I am not going to respond to any of these taunts. At the least I have only argued about things you expressed as your belief and tried not assume the rest - you make no attempt at doing so.

Ok, so this a rebuttal of anything I have said you believe in what way? I understand that, I have agreed that is what you believe and stated why I think it is wrong.

Actually the altered state of mind that we humans can not control take very little to diagnose and do not need for us to read minds. These things are physical and are, as such, observable from the outside world. This also applies to the paragraph you write above this one - it isn't just some random observation any more and as the science progresses it is even less so.

Drug addictions and those conditions are controllable - thousands of people do it all the time. And before you tell me I don't know what I'm talking about you might want to think again on that one. You may understand it as I do, but I can assure you that you do not have a better idea of it than I do.

No, that would make you a weak Athiest. Do you *really"* want to get into this argument? You didn't know what a nihilist was and you obviously have no idea as to what "strong" and "weak" mean in this case. You can give all the smiley faces you want yet those are still standard terms and if you *really* want to pin your arguments on that I can provide links. However, like the nihilist stuff you seem to have acquiesced this too will be wrong on your part.

This may not be the last time I say this - then don't express your beliefs as nearly 100% in line with one of the pigeonholes if you do not want labeled as such. Nor am do I assume that because you fit it 90% the 10% you haven't expressed fall in line with them (unlike what you have posted to me).

If you want to have a fully original idea that no one else believes then I suggest being a Philosophy major and doing something no one you have studied believes. Otherwise, when you match a certain philosophy to the point you do then generally expect others to figure you, well, believe as such (and since you do believe as such I don't see the issue).

Why be sorry? The holy Bible contains lots of good stories. Even though I would consider them mostly works of fiction I find the Koran and the Bhagavad Gita do also (even though, like the bible, they have large parts of them only meant for Believers). I find a large portion of the Bible to be fiction also (hence the whole something between a deist and Christian). I can't see them lasting this long if they didn't do so, we studied them in our Fiction classes in college and that had been standard practice for many decades and should have still been so since I graduated. In fact, many of our standard archetypes come from those stories.

Good and evil is just a group of people's motives vs another, the end.

Wrong, morals is an artificial state of being as far as Human nature is concerned, humans is the most dangerous preditor earth has ever seen. We are the only species that kill for pleasure and sport.
And our "morals" have changed over time according to who has wielded the biggest stick. Even GOD (according to legends) sent his Angels to punish the humans for their behaviour (Sodom and Gomorra). And we try to say whats "evil" and whats "good", as if we are qualifide to make that judgment.

The thought itself is not evil. Thinking you are superior to others is not exactly evil. However, destroying things because you feel they are inferior is evil, for example, the KKK is pretty much considered evil.

there we go, considered, not is, now we are getting somewhere,
evil and good is what we consider it to be, it is in the eye of the beholder, nothing absolut, just an opinion.

ok ill do it for you:


EVIL
–adjective 1. morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked: evil deeds; an evil life.
2. harmful; injurious: evil laws.
3. characterized or accompanied by misfortune or suffering; unfortunate; disastrous: to be fallen on evil days.
4. due to actual or imputed bad conduct or character: an evil reputation.
5. marked by anger, irritability, irascibility, etc.: He is known for his evil disposition.
–noun 6. that which is evil; evil quality, intention, or conduct: to choose the lesser of two evils.
7. the force in nature that governs and gives rise to wickedness and sin.
8. the wicked or immoral part of someone or something: The evil in his nature has destroyed the good.
9. harm; mischief; misfortune: to wish one evil.
10. anything causing injury or harm: Tobacco is considered by some to be an evil.


gg

And that is Lazarus? ...... Mursaat killed the chosen, and others for self survival as far as we know.
Nothing Lazarus does sounds that evil, remembering that his "brothers" are dead, by our hands, he'd not gonna give us flowers now is he?

It's all depends on context. The Charr, Mursaat and Kournans were all shown as evil from our perspective but really they did what they did either for their own survival or because they were lead to do so

I actually thought of something that entirely invalidates all my points about 'evil.' In the context of the game and the fantasy world the story takes place in, there isn't necessarily religions set in 'beliefs,' but an actual reality. In other words, there really is magic, there are gods, and thus, there more than likely is a distinct good/evil system that governs all life in this world.

Example: Shiro. We can say that he had personal motives to his actions - revenge (he felt betrayed by his master, the emporer), fear (scared that he might die by the emporer's hand), and eventually that whole corruption of power. However, we did find out there was 'more to it,' and he was influenced at best, possessed at worst by Abaddon. If it weren't for some kind of evil, he may not have done the things he did.

I guess the only question that brings up in my mind is: Are the actions evil because of how they are perceived, or are they evil because they really do have an evil or wicked force guiding them? In GW, are people's actions guided by either the gods or evil forces?

Well, if so, then I guess it is possible to call the Mursaat evil, as long as the gods deem them so. If they oppose a divine decree, such as the Flameseeker Prophecy (assuming it is passed from the gods, and not just something Glint came up with on her own), then they are evil and must be dealt with, period. Them killing innocent humans is just icing on the cake, rather than the cake itself.

To Above: The Charr and Kournans were simply misled. They both fought for what they were led to believe was the 'right thing.' The Mursaat knew they were deliberately going against the prophecy. Whether they thought it was right or not is irrelevant because they, like the Margonites, were challenging the gods.

It implies that Lazarus is planning to inflict suffering on countless generations in retaliation for the events in that quest. Chances are, most of the people in those generations aren't a threat to him, so doing so isn't aiding in his own chances for survival. In fact, it actually decreases his chance for survival by increasing the chance that some hero will have enough and have a go at him.

I think causing harm to others while gaining absolutely no tangible benefit to yourself is pretty hard to not define as evil, bad, villainous (the current meaning - let's not get into an argument of semantics and the derivation of words), or some other term with a similar meaning.

Playing the devil's advocate, however, it is possible that the events of the quest has meant that Lazarus is now no longer able to do something that he'd planned to do that would prevent the 'countless generations' from suffering. However, it certainly sounds like he's threatening to enact vengeance upon innocents.

Even with this "revalation," I still feel bad for killing Hablion, he was my favorite NPC in all of GW
If only he put Gwen on the bloodstones >.<

I would say, any human that abuses or kills sheep just because they are inferior, are evil. Hence Lazarus = Evil.

It's true. Evil is a human concept. The enemies we fight were other races with completely different cultures.

Agreed. I hate Gwen so much. I do wish she could have died Charr food. That would have been more interesting.

What is Known from Prophecies
The Mursaat were manipulating the White Mantle. In the long run it was all to stop the Flameseeker Prophecies, which would release the Titans and spell doom for their race.

In ways they're not "evil", just saving their own hides. Though the Titans would have destroyed the rest of Tyria as well, but whether the Mursaat's intentions vs the Titans was just for them or all of Tyria is debatable.

What the BMP Suggests
It is apparent the Mursaat needed pawns to aid them in preventing the Flameseeker Prophecies. The way Dorian, Hablion, and Thommis act, it would appear that it was less of a "you help us, we give you phony religion and holidays where you can strip naked" and more of a "LUL PH34R US WE KILL JOO FRIENDS".

Again, this could just be ruling by force/proving a point to enlist the Mantle.

Oh wow. We think we are superior to plants and animals and we kill them as well. OMG WE'RE ALL EVIL!