>>Aspasia enters the grand meeting hall of the Crossing Paladin Guild.
>>A lull hushes over the crowd, as she ascends to the podium, thick stacks of parchment in hand.
>>Aspasia clears her throat. With a loud voice she begins her lecture, as the audience of fully armored paladins, prepares to listen.
Aspasia lectures: "As a paladin I do not agree with the particular idea of balance (the ideology that states that all things have an opposite; and the existence of all things relies on the existence of it?s opposite.) and I, being totally honest, think it is one of the most devious ideologies facing the guild today. The concept is so insidious and meticulously well reasoned that it renders the obvious and blatant wrongness of ?Darkness? weak in comparison. At the heart of the issue several challenges come to mind. The initial premise that opposites must exist for the sake of the other opposite is flawed based on simple reasoning. I do not think a rational mind can state that love would cease if their were no hate that light would disappear if darkness was gone and that justice would be impossible without crime. Contrary to what many proponents of ?balance? think the concepts of light and darkness, as they are commonly defined, exist as natural distinctions that would continue to exist despite the existence of their perceived opposite. An even greater point is, that light and dark would continue to exist even without the minds of people to fathom them. Some things will always exist regardless of whether people see them or not.
I cannot stress enough that idea of Balance is heresy to the ideals of our Guild. We strive not for balance, we strive for Light. When honorable people make allowances for evil to co-exist they actually wind up "Advocating" it. Instead of being champions of justice and virtue, they bare indirect responsibility for the suffering that results, and in that they shame and dishonor themselves. Neutrality or Balance really isn?t a middle ground, or moderate position it is position of indifference and complacency. The pursuit of a so called ?balance? permits evil to infest and prosper by default. So a neutral stance really isn't a stance at all, it's just another mask for "Darkness".
Some will argue that following a path of ?balance? does not require the ad vocation of ?darkness?. But how can a "Neutral" worshiper pursue morality and virtue, when he must make allowance for the rights of "evil" to co-exist? The ideas of morality and virtue are completely opposed to that of evil and the two cannot logically be quantified. Despite however you try, good and evil are opposing concepts; you cannot define one by the other
To be a so called "light" paladin means you must strive for light, despite whatever strange and bizarre beliefs others may hold. Besides that a truly compassionate paladin could never sit in her Ivory tower watching innocent people suffer for the sake of "balance". She would have to involve herself, fight for the innocent and uphold a universal sense of justice; it's easy to say "ahh, but the balance must be preserved", but try staring into the eyes of those who suffer while you say that. It is to those paladins who sit in their Ivory Towers preaching the brilliant insidiousness of Balance that I direct this to. The idea of balance is not something that is merely flawed and heretical, but dangerous and destructive. The concept of Balance is something that hurts people, and has been often evoked, in one manner or another, by cruel tyrants to justify their actions.
Furthermore, even if balance existed, which I don't think it does, the practicality of it would make it a principle nearly impossible to follow. It would call for suffering to counter balance prosperity, and the thought that a paladin would preserve or champion suffering is unthinkable. There is a greater value that is at stake beyond maintaining a theoretical balance. The value of mortal dignity and sacred life. This should be the priority of every paladin, even to the exclusion of an idea of Balance.
There are no such things as "neutral" gods. There are only dark and light aspects of a particular Immortal. Some people like to claim that the primary aspect or the Immortal proper represents a "neutral" aspect. While I won't argue with them, mostly because I prefer to keep my scope of interest limited to issues of light and dark, I wouldn't necessarily claim that to be credible truth.
Really, I think the majority of evidence points out the fact that the Immortals are merely the Immortals. None are perfect, or all powerful. Some have good sides and some bad sides. Some Elanthians choose to venerate specific aspects of the Immortals, this is where I theorize that allot of different Elanthian religions have immerged from. They may worship the same immortal but they have different teachings about who the immortal is and what the immortal truly represents. The aspects may in fact be different interpretations of the same being even though diametrically opposed religions may dispute that.
This is not to say that we should lump every primary aspect as being "Neutral" in itself. I for one prefer to think some Immortals are more moral and good than others, despite the aspects that others choose to worship. For instance Chadatru the primary aspect of Rutilor and Botolf, seems to be strikingly "Light" in nature.
One thing I would like to stress once more is that the gods in Elanthia are neither fully Omnipotent, Omniscient nor Omnipresent. The obvious conclusion is that they are not perfect; if they are not perfect then they are flawed. Incredibly powerful flawed beings, but still flawed and prone to forms of weakness, just like mortals.
An intelligent mind can quickly pick up on the nuisances of this assertion; based on this premise the immortals are unworthy of blind unfailing trust and faith. Some immortals advocate the use of murder, torture and theft, others oppose it. There's an inherent inconstancy in place among the gods. What one deems acceptable the other deems an abomination. This demands that we as mortals and followers step back and discern truth for ourselves, then decide who's worthy to follow and who's worthy to place faith in. After all if even the gods cannot come to some universal agreement, about morality for instance, then why not question what each one says? I think it would be foolish to assign all consuming credibility and blind faith in the teachings of anyone, even if they were an Immortal. One must remember the Immortals do not rule Elanthia, they merely compete for influence.
Aspasia says. "Thank you for attending, honorable guardians of the realms. This concludes my lecture for this week. Next weeks lecture will be THE LIGHT AND THE DARK, it will be held at the Crossing Guild again."
>>Aspasia concludes her lecture. With a gracefull bow, she descends the podium, after dismissing the audience.
Brittany (...the player of Aspasia Undojen'pelci)
