The Light and Darkness

Thank you as well Atrus,

Yours was certainly more poetic, though I may offer you similar criticism. There was no attempt by you to justify why you would need your god Glomm in your own mind or in the minds of others in order to come to this conclusion. You have dodged the challenge, as there is nothing beneficial or just or ethical that you could do in your dark faith, that I could not do.

You diverted initially to your Taoist background, which by my understanding is atheistic in tradition and concerned more with the "void" as a concept of a sort of dark and still beginning, like a pond that is awaiting an action of having a stone tossed into it, or for the fish to jump.

Correct me if I am wrong but your only case against my beliefs is that ; and I paraphrase "Persons who claim to follow the light, sometimes do bad things, and so I in turn must follow Glomm's teachings" Glomm who holds you hostage against your will. Glomm who would torture and mutilate your body because you have not done enough to sow dissent and sorrow, disease and mistrust. Does that sound like a solid platform to argue your desire for justice and fairness from dear Atrus?

I told you I would protect you from any who might cause you harm if you choose to seek redemption. My offer stands, if you would extend a hand for help, any agent or entity of darkness which would come to destroy you or reclaim you, would have to cut first through me.

I pray for you Atrus

Listen well Cleric,

I am held by none against my will. I found more peace without eyes than I have known for years. And I will most certainly not get into the intricacies of Rituals, Ceremonies, or the idea of Penance in any public forum. Nor the lessons which pain, or darkness have.

Your own argument begets a circular discussion in which one side can make very similar claims against the other. I do not generally engage others or indulge others in these sorts of arguments because it is self-defeating. This is often the issue with discussions of faith, many require further education and understanding of faith as a whole before debating the ideals. So, I could debate ideals which you have and hold dear, and what you understand about my followings, but the issue at hand is that first you would need to be educated upon them, versus arguing a point of view and opinion about something that is not readily understood. This would be akin to me telling a sorceror that his rituals were off, and he should work on some aspect of his casting of runes.

In short, if you wish to have some drawn out discussion, I'm readily available for it in person, but am not going to go back and forth while discussing religion as a whole and the ideals of the Gods as a whole and necessity for each and every God, whether you find that distasteful or not, or whether this answers some challenge about ideals and understandings which are not fully realized on your part, does not concern me.

Ava has brought up some good points recently, and at this time I defer to her wisdom.

Atrus, priest of the cult of Glomm

I am aware of the dangers of a circular argument. This is not that. If you asked the question in turn to me. My reply is easy and natural. I can pursue healthy and deep bonds of fellowship with people whom I dearly love. You cannot.

If you did, your god will demand more "Penance" from you in the form of your disfigurement. Due to your unwilling enslavement and because in your heart you know Glomm is lying to you most of all.

There was contempt in my heart when I first looked upon you, but now I feel only pity for a man whose most dangerous mistake was to believe a lie.

I will see you Atrus, for who you are, even if you will never allow yourself to see me.

You two.

Let actions speak louder than words. NO, NOT HONOR COMBAT...

Rather... see where circumstances lead you both. There are things each can learn from the other, no matter how high your respective hackles are raised. Words on parchment are hardly as personal as time spent within each others' presence. Perspectives... they can change. And a lot of times, it's for the better.

I consider you both my friends. Perhaps the three of us can sit down to a meal together and have a conversation and discuss things. Without yelling or storming off or fisticuffs. We are all civilized folks here, aren't we?

That was not Penance.

It would be my solitary pleasure to show you what Penance is like, if you are so willing; good chance a man of your strength may even survive it.

'Priest,' 'Cleric,' 'Mother,' 'Father,' 'Monsignor,' these are your words, not ours, please do not label me as such, I much prefer the derogatory slurs and insults instead.

To open, let me open by saying that I couldn't give a shit about the politics of the churches of light and darkness if I tried. I actually did try, briefly, but instead of enlightenment I ended up with needless frustration. I do not write to defend your light or darkness, but to differentiate between the concepts of good and evil and just speaking out to incite more conflict for shits and giggles.
First, let's clear something out of the way. Light indeed is an exertion of energy with a luminescent effect, and darkness is it's absence. That's it. Erroneously, you and yours have tied this one example to your concepts of good and evil, as you could see in light and lose most sight and all sense of color in darkness. One cannot light a candle by giving all their money to the needy, and fires will continue to burn despite the number of helpless orphans murdered in cold blood. Such a silly concept could easily be applied with opposite outlooks to other polarities, such as air, which your kind can breathe, and water, which you can't. The waters remain unknown to you to this day, which easily can be misconstrued for "evil". Yet it exists in the rain, snow, even in the precious air that you breathe. Not only that, you need it to survive. I've seen what happens in your dehydration, and it's not a pretty sight. In fact, there is an argument that could be made that air is simply the absence of water.
Now that we've stripped the incorrect imagery from your concepts, let's take a peek at the world without a single "good" or "evil" within it, and use Valos and Malyc as our examples. Valos represents justice in forms deemed largely unselfish and productive for your society. You no doubt have shaken in the horror of a world without that justice: with people doing what they will when they please without regards to its impact on others. Trust me, that world scares me: I grew up in that, and left for a very good reason. Order exists solely in who is strongest, through fear of ostracization, and through sheer and utter apathy at the fates of your fellows. Now let's look at Malyc's purview, chaos. While often interpreted as simply a force to fight order, chaos is a synonym for change. It is the promise that things will be different, ever so slightly, seconds from now. In a world without it, one of two things would happen. One, everything would freeze, never to move or change again, though this is unlikely as I do not believe our world has ever experienced this. Two, there would simply be a repetition of events between a certain time frame, and nothing would change within this period. A time loop, the very phenomenon we so recently fought like hell to escape from.
A certain story comes to mind when thinking of balance and faith. A friend of mine was speaking to a Galladelite on such matters, and mentioned offhandedly that he had considered baptism to Galladel, but cared too much for his vices, such as alcohol and trickery. In response, the Galladelite picked up a bottle of ale, drank it all in one swig, and slammed the bottle on the table. He explained that it's okay to indulge in vices, just not to let them consume you. That is balance. It is passion without obsession and an understanding of both sides of the scale. This is Galladell's holy symbol, I presume, for a reason. He advocates balance and moderation. It is in the radicals where we see the worst of what any race or creed has to offer. Yes, radical followers of Malyc, Aguara, Galmachis, and Glomm have caused general mayhem, but with the attacks from Xualla an his demons, moderates emerged in defense of themselves and their homes. The same goes for followers of your church. Many of us recall the Order of the Hammer, a group of Valosians who sought to (illegally at the time) slaughter whatever followers of the opposite church as they could. When a dear friend of mine, an Andorran priestess, tried to calm their captain down, he shouted (and I quote) "shut your whore mouth" and downed her. The radicals are the followers who force their will upon the unwilling, and it exists on both sides of the aisle. This radicalism is the true enemy to Travance and it's people.
After all, there would quite literally be no true order without chaos, no compassion without suffering, (compassion actually comes from an old Kormyrian word meaning "to suffer with") no life on this plane without death, and no balance without anything to tip the scales.
Now, you believe this notice is to reiterate the glory of the "light" and combat what you believe is a threat to the safety of Travance. You believe this will change minds and laws. But let me tell you what will really happen. People will come in from both sides to incoherently argue their points. There will be some moderates that attempt to quell the rage that results, like myself, but we will all be ignored. Finally, a noble will get upset enough to step in and officially close the issue before an all out civil war begins, one which, in the state of our world, is something we cannot afford.
Lucien, I consider you a friend. You've saved my life and kept me safe with your shield and blade covering my back. That's the exact reason I decided to put in my two copper. Take a step back and look from outside of yourself. Are your words peacefully evangelical or violent? Will people read with open minds, or flee in fear of impending slaughter? I know I worship none of the gods on the sides of your good and evil, but I know I am fearful, for the fervor that comes with wiping out an entire group of people will not die when that group does. It spreads to the hatred of others, and I'm not exactly in a social majority here.

Please, consider the implications of your words, and the traits of your true enemy.

Regards,