If Zaros rises....

[Peronix]

"Empty Lord"? What kind of alignment is that? Unless he's completely braindead he must have some kind of alignment. Given his track record he seems to fit nicely into lawful evil. I believe what Jagex said was that Zaros wasn't the "God of Evil", not that he wasn't evil.

[Hajutze]

There's a huge difference between saying he's not the god of evil, and saying he's not evil.

Being evil is subjective*

/thread ?

 

*Any living being does w/e it feels right FOR ITSELF. If you somehow manage to be on the "winning" side (the side that benefits) you will view that being as good and vice versa. Even gods have those needs. They do what is best for them (in the case of Zammy - [cabbage] up Zaros and steel his powers) if you benefit from it you will view the deity as a good one. In other words the current population of runescape are the followers of the gods that were enemies of Zaros thus they see him as an evil deity.

[Zaaps1]

On the Edicts or whatever you want to call them. Zaros not only wasn't there at the time the gods agreed (or rather were forced to agree to) the Edicts, but it's also been hinted that he's just as powerful as Guthix. Imo, if anyone can get away with not following them, it's Zaros.

 

I'm pretty confused by people who claim Zaros isn't evil. We know that Zaros:

 

-Disdains modern "prayers" in favour of "curses".

-Was an enemy of not only Saradomin, who is somehow popular to dislike recently, but also Armadyl, whose primary tenet is justice.

-Employed demons, vampires, etc in his army.

-Stole the allegiance of the Mahjarrat, all of whom seem to view humans like bugs, by promising them war.

-Appointed the likes of Zamorak and Azzanadra as his most trusted lieutenants.

 

Now sure, there are lots of things we don't yet know about Zaros. But I think that even with indirect evidence, his track record is pretty clear. When people say things like "He wasn't evil, just strong and cruel" -- er, what definition of evil are you using exactly?

 

None of that is proof he is evil.

 

1. He prefers his own form of prayer, who's to say that "different" means "bad"? Sure they are called curses, but that name alone means nothing. They are curses because they have a negative effect on your opponent. So what? Does that mean it's evil, or just tactical?

2. Just because he has a quarrel with Armadyl, doesn't mean he opposes justice. Armadyl symbolizes justice like a judge would. If someone has a personal vendetta against a judge, does that mean they hate law, order, and justice? Does it make them evil?

3. So he decided to get strong, easy-to-recruit soldiers in his army. Who wouldn't? He had the chance to enlist a large number of capable troops to fight for him. If he passed his opportunity, we would just call him stupid.

4. His rallying of the Mahjarrat to his side is the same as the above. He realized that if he played his cards right, he could convince a race of some of the strongest warriors alive to join his side and fight for him. If you were someone looking to seize power, wouldn't you do the same?

5. Zamorak and Azzanadra are not evil either. Zamorak is just insanely power-hungry and decisive, and perhaps that's what draws the connection to "evil" in our minds, fine. Regardless, he was a fantastic general, Zaros' best, as a matter of fact. I don't at all blame Zaros for appointing Zamorak.

 

Zaros just wants power and is willing to take it through conquest. How would we describe this? Ambitious. Greedy. But evil? We do not look at the Romans as evil, despite the fact that they conquered a huge amount of land. Alexander the Great did so as well. Conquest, War, and Power are sometimes things we look down upon, but to take part in them certainly does not make someone evil.

[Alphanos]

There's a huge difference between saying he's not the god of evil, and saying he's not evil.

Being evil is subjective*

/thread ?

 

*Any living being does w/e it feels right FOR ITSELF. If you somehow manage to be on the "winning" side (the side that benefits) you will view that being as good and vice versa. Even gods have those needs. They do what is best for them (in the case of Zammy - [cabbage] up Zaros and steel his powers) if you benefit from it you will view the deity as a good one. In other words the current population of runescape are the followers of the gods that were enemies of Zaros thus they see him as an evil deity.

 

There are some moral issues that are subjective. There are also some that are not. Not all of morality is based upon what you feel like doing.

 

As just one point, if Armadyl represents justice and Zaros is an enemy of Armadyl, then how does he manage to be unjust yet not evil?

 

 

@Zaaps1: I'd like to repeat my earlier question inquiring just what you would use as a definition of evil? You obviously believe that going to war purely for the sake of conquest and power is not evil, which I find curious.

[michel555555]

If Zaros does wage war against Zamorak the only other gods that might aid him would be Scarabas and maby Guthix himself because Juna does say that zaros returning will bring more balance.

 

Scarabas did support him in the past but with the desert pantheon in chaos right now because of the devouerer theres not much the desert pantheon can do. And even then the desert pantheon might be split in its decision. Ikthalrin might feel responcible for the rise of Zamorak as a god the the destruction caused by the god wars so he might side with Zaros. Or he might feel that it was Zaros's fault for stealing the marahajatt from him and so side with Zamorak. The devourerer would either side with Zaros to kill Zamorak, or choose whatever side Ikthalrin is not on to kill him. It all comes down to whether she hates the marahajatt or the god that brought them to the world more. Rest of the pantheon might remain neutral not wanting to start a war with their siblings.

 

If Zaros returns peacefully and Zamorak attacks him then Guthix would side with Zaros. But since Zaros is most likley coming back for revenge its debatable if Guthix would side with him when he wakes up. There might be a few Guthix followers who would side with Zaros anyway. The black guard dwarves would probably join with Zaros to get revenge on the chaos dwarves and dwogres, and the gnomes might side with him agains the khazard.

 

Armadyl might have supported him, either for revenge on the other gods for wiping out the avanasies or for justice for the theft of Zaros's powers, but has to few followers left to actually do anything and so he left Gilenor.

 

Bandos does not have enough power left to interefere in the world since his avatar was destroyed. And without any more ourgs or a leader to lead his lesser followers, they would be a minor annoyance at best.

 

Seren would side with whatever Guthix chooses. However, depending on who the "dark lord" is, if its actually zamorak or one of his followers, then some of the elves would side with Zaros to get revenge. If its something els then Seren would probably remain neutral.

 

Marimbo has no intrest in the affairs of humans.

 

The question then comes down to will Zaros go after Saradomin as well? After all it was a saradomin mage who cast the spell that made it possible for zamorak to sneak the staff close enough so he might be holding a grudge.

 

If he goes after both Saradomin and Zamorak at the same time then things could get interesting. The white and temple knights might not want to side with the kinshra (black knights) and vice versa against Zaros. And lots of Saradomins human followers hold grudges against Zamorak, the mages in the wizards tower hold a grudge against the zamorkian mages who burnt the tower to the ground. The people of varrock have grudges against Zemourgoul and the dagon hai mages. Falador is split between Saradomin and Zamorak over the white and black knights fued. And then there's the whole secret dealings between ardougne and the elves. In short, they are both dead if Zaros goes after both of them.

 

 

-Employed demons, vampires, etc in his army.

 

And yet he also had the biggest, most fertile land on gilenor at the time. That implies that he kept his darker minions on a short leash.

[Howlin0001]

I'm pretty confused by people who claim Zaros isn't evil. We know that Zaros:

 

-Disdains modern "prayers" in favour of "curses".

-Was an enemy of not only Saradomin, who is somehow popular to dislike recently, but also Armadyl, whose primary tenet is justice.

-Employed demons, vampires, etc in his army.

-Stole the allegiance of the Mahjarrat, all of whom seem to view humans like bugs, by promising them war.

-Appointed the likes of Zamorak and Azzanadra as his most trusted lieutenants.

 

Now sure, there are lots of things we don't yet know about Zaros. But I think that even with indirect evidence, his track record is pretty clear. When people say things like "He wasn't evil, just strong and cruel" -- er, what definition of evil are you using exactly?

Firstly, the Ancient Curses aren't Zaros's own Prayers, also, Jagex have said Zaros is not evil, only the empty lord.

Do you happen to have any link to where Jagex says that?

 

 

 

 

I'm pretty confused by people who claim Zaros isn't evil. We know that Zaros:

 

-Was an enemy of not only Saradomin, who is somehow popular to dislike recently, but also Armadyl, whose primary tenet is justice.

I'm not sure how this example is going to work out but

In real life, take America as Zaros and Saradomin, Armadyl etc as the some middle east countries.

The middle east countries see Zaros as being evil, yet Zaros mightn't exactly be evil.

 

It all depends on if the views you hold are the same as everyone else, plus the other Gods just might want to have more power and followers but since Zaros was in their way of they, they labelled him evil.

 

EDIT:

 

If he goes after both Saradomin and Zamorak at the same time then things could get interesting. The white and temple knights might not want to side with the kinshra (black knights) and vice versa against Zaros. And lots of Saradomins human followers hold grudges against Zamorak, the mages in the wizards tower hold a grudge against the zamorkian mages who burnt the tower to the ground. The people of varrock have grudges against Zemourgoul and the dagon hai mages. Falador is split between Saradomin and Zamorak over the white and black knights fued.

Isn't there all that sheep in wolves clothing about the Saradomin knights in Falador?

(that is if Juna can be trusted, although I don't see why not)

[Zaaps1]

There's a huge difference between saying he's not the god of evil, and saying he's not evil.

Being evil is subjective*

/thread ?

 

*Any living being does w/e it feels right FOR ITSELF. If you somehow manage to be on the "winning" side (the side that benefits) you will view that being as good and vice versa. Even gods have those needs. They do what is best for them (in the case of Zammy - [cabbage] up Zaros and steel his powers) if you benefit from it you will view the deity as a good one. In other words the current population of runescape are the followers of the gods that were enemies of Zaros thus they see him as an evil deity.

 

There are some moral issues that are subjective. There are also some that are not. Not all of morality is based upon what you feel like doing.

 

As just one point, if Armadyl represents justice and Zaros is an enemy of Armadyl, then how does he manage to be unjust yet not evil?

 

 

@Zaaps1: I'd like to repeat my earlier question inquiring just what you would use as a definition of evil? You obviously believe that going to war purely for the sake of conquest and power is not evil, which I find curious.

 

Oops sorry if I missed your question before, I will answer it now though.

 

Evil is sheer cruelty. Evil is when you make others suffer for no better reason than because it is fun. Evil is when you go out of your way just to make sure someone else feels worse.

 

There are things that are "wrong", but not "evil". War is one of those things. War is very wrong and personally I am against it and dislike it. It means unnecessary killing most of the time. However, it is not evil. More or less, it is an innate part of the human character.

 

I believe that humans, when they have differences, have a natural tendency to fight and stand by their rights. I do not believe that humans have a natural liking to watching others suffer, and that is why I believe that is evil.

 

Nor do I believe conquest or the quest for power is evil. That too is a natural part of the human persona. If you a presented a chance to give yourself something you want, I believe it is a human's natural instinct to take it. You could call it greed. It is also part of the human character to seek power. It is ambitious. Depending on how it is carried out, it might be "wrong". But in no way do I think it is "evil".

 

Zaros, of course, is not human. But he is created by humans and therefore I think analyzing his actions as human actions is ok to do.

 

Zaros wants power.

 

Almost every nation has its leader who wants power. Do we call them evil?

 

He is willing to take opportunities given to him to achieve that power. Who wouldn't? If you wanted to be President, and sudden this chance to become President was thrown at you, would you take it, or at least, consider it? Obviously if you felt strongly enough about it, you would.

 

Furthermore, he is willing to act on what he wants. He gets what he wants. You see this in little children all the time. It's a natural human tendency.

 

All we know, of course, is that Zaros ruled a large empire he gained largely through conquest. That alone does not prove to me in the slightest that he is evil. It tells me he is ambitious, opportunistic, strategic, and intelligent. To prove he is evil, we need more specific actions of what he does. HOW does he rule? HOW does he treat his subjects? What did he do with the conquered?

 

Look at all the empires throughout history. They've all been built on conquest. But I don't think for one second any historian, teacher, or history study thinks of any of them as evil based solely on that fact alone.

 

You can say that Drakan is evil. He is treacherous and back-stabbing. Like Zaros, he is a conqueror, but look at how he treats his subjects. Can anyone really say he is not evil?

 

Then look at Zaros. During his reign, there was peace. The Wilderness blossomed and as the richest and most beautiful land in the world. Look what happened when he left. We have every reason to assume that Zaros was a well-meaning and respectful ruler.

[Alphanos]

 

 

I'm pretty confused by people who claim Zaros isn't evil. We know that Zaros:

 

-Disdains modern "prayers" in favour of "curses".

-Was an enemy of not only Saradomin, who is somehow popular to dislike recently, but also Armadyl, whose primary tenet is justice.

-Employed demons, vampires, etc in his army.

-Stole the allegiance of the Mahjarrat, all of whom seem to view humans like bugs, by promising them war.

-Appointed the likes of Zamorak and Azzanadra as his most trusted lieutenants.

 

Now sure, there are lots of things we don't yet know about Zaros. But I think that even with indirect evidence, his track record is pretty clear. When people say things like "He wasn't evil, just strong and cruel" -- er, what definition of evil are you using exactly?

Firstly, the Ancient Curses aren't Zaros's own Prayers, also, Jagex have said Zaros is not evil, only the empty lord.

Do you happen to have any link to where Jagex says that?

 

 

 

 

I'm pretty confused by people who claim Zaros isn't evil. We know that Zaros:

 

-Was an enemy of not only Saradomin, who is somehow popular to dislike recently, but also Armadyl, whose primary tenet is justice.

I'm not sure how this example is going to work out but

In real life, take America as Zaros and Saradomin, Armadyl etc as the some middle east countries.

The middle east countries see Zaros as being evil, yet Zaros mightn't exactly be evil.

 

It all depends on if the views you hold are the same as everyone else, plus the other Gods just might want to have more power and followers but since Zaros was in their way of they, they labelled him evil.

 

 

 

Again, I agree that some things can be subjective. However, when Zaros' army primarily consists of creatures that i.e. must eat people to survive (vampires), then it becomes difficult to argue that it's simply a conflict of geography.

 

One potentially plausible way to reconcile these differing viewpoints would be if Zaros were the Runescape god of monsters. Then it would make sense that he would support those creatures who eat humans, while others like Saradomin oppose them.

[Grimy_Bunyip]

 

 

I'm pretty confused by people who claim Zaros isn't evil. We know that Zaros:

 

-Disdains modern "prayers" in favour of "curses".

-Was an enemy of not only Saradomin, who is somehow popular to dislike recently, but also Armadyl, whose primary tenet is justice.

-Employed demons, vampires, etc in his army.

-Stole the allegiance of the Mahjarrat, all of whom seem to view humans like bugs, by promising them war.

-Appointed the likes of Zamorak and Azzanadra as his most trusted lieutenants.

 

Now sure, there are lots of things we don't yet know about Zaros. But I think that even with indirect evidence, his track record is pretty clear. When people say things like "He wasn't evil, just strong and cruel" -- er, what definition of evil are you using exactly?

Firstly, the Ancient Curses aren't Zaros's own Prayers, also, Jagex have said Zaros is not evil, only the empty lord.

Do you happen to have any link to where Jagex says that?

 

 

 

 

I'm pretty confused by people who claim Zaros isn't evil. We know that Zaros:

 

-Was an enemy of not only Saradomin, who is somehow popular to dislike recently, but also Armadyl, whose primary tenet is justice.

I'm not sure how this example is going to work out but

In real life, take America as Zaros and Saradomin, Armadyl etc as the some middle east countries.

The middle east countries see Zaros as being evil, yet Zaros mightn't exactly be evil.

 

It all depends on if the views you hold are the same as everyone else, plus the other Gods just might want to have more power and followers but since Zaros was in their way of they, they labelled him evil.

 

 

 

Again, I agree that some things can be subjective. However, when Zaros' army primarily consists of creatures that i.e. must eat people to survive (vampires), then it becomes difficult to argue that it's simply a conflict of geography.

 

One potentially plausible way to reconcile these differing viewpoints would be if Zaros were the Runescape god of monsters. Then it would make sense that he would support those creatures who eat humans, while others like Saradomin oppose them.

zaros also built shining cities according to azzanadra, i don't think the type of followers he had is enough to label him as good or evil.

[Hajutze]

 

 

I'm pretty confused by people who claim Zaros isn't evil. We know that Zaros:

 

-Disdains modern "prayers" in favour of "curses".

-Was an enemy of not only Saradomin, who is somehow popular to dislike recently, but also Armadyl, whose primary tenet is justice.

-Employed demons, vampires, etc in his army.

-Stole the allegiance of the Mahjarrat, all of whom seem to view humans like bugs, by promising them war.

-Appointed the likes of Zamorak and Azzanadra as his most trusted lieutenants.

 

Now sure, there are lots of things we don't yet know about Zaros. But I think that even with indirect evidence, his track record is pretty clear. When people say things like "He wasn't evil, just strong and cruel" -- er, what definition of evil are you using exactly?

Firstly, the Ancient Curses aren't Zaros's own Prayers, also, Jagex have said Zaros is not evil, only the empty lord.

Do you happen to have any link to where Jagex says that?

 

 

 

 

I'm pretty confused by people who claim Zaros isn't evil. We know that Zaros:

 

-Was an enemy of not only Saradomin, who is somehow popular to dislike recently, but also Armadyl, whose primary tenet is justice.

I'm not sure how this example is going to work out but

In real life, take America as Zaros and Saradomin, Armadyl etc as the some middle east countries.

The middle east countries see Zaros as being evil, yet Zaros mightn't exactly be evil.

 

It all depends on if the views you hold are the same as everyone else, plus the other Gods just might want to have more power and followers but since Zaros was in their way of they, they labelled him evil.

 

 

 

Again, I agree that some things can be subjective. However, when Zaros' army primarily consists of creatures that i.e. must eat people to survive (vampires), then it becomes difficult to argue that it's simply a conflict of geography.

 

One potentially plausible way to reconcile these differing viewpoints would be if Zaros were the Runescape god of monsters. Then it would make sense that he would support those creatures who eat humans, while others like Saradomin oppose them.

Don't tell me that you are a vegetarian because if you aren't .. you are like those vampires. There is nothing evil .. or even wrong to eat to survive. Even the towns with the ... poor humans in them aren't evil nor wrong. They are just a way for the Vyrewatches to be sure that they are going to survive (in other words to be sure that they will have enough food) ) It would be evil if they were doing it for fun. (You know ... like the humans when they are hunting for the sport and no other benefit).

 

Anyways you CAN'T judge a commander/general/someone by his minions.

[Ts_Stormrage]

Let's do a thought experiment here...

 

A chicken would think of us as evil, because we as humans eat them by the masses... Yet because of our hunger for their tasty meat, it means that there are over 8 BILLION chickens alive in this world at any given point in time... A lion that kills and eats a couple of humans of an african village is soon hunted down... Not to mention any other lions that get caught in the crossfire... In this case the simple hungry lion is considered evil and us poor chicken eating humans are not...

 

So we can establish that evil is only in the eye of the beholder...

 

Back to the Zaros case; this means that everyone we know of would think of Zaros as evil because he might have hurt them or their interests, directly or indirectly...

 

Certain gods have certain ideals, none of which are completely evil or good...

 

Saradomin surely is not the god of good, but his ideals come pretty close to what most of us would think of as good thigns... Protection prayers are granted by him, they make us live longer, so we think Saradomin is the god of good... But we all know tht Saradomin and his followers aren't the goody-two-shoes that we might believe him to be... Why else would he align himself with the very people that caused destruction to your lands? Sure, Zamorak and his allies turned against Zaros who was apparently an even bigger threat, and therefor an opportunity for Saradomin, but would this not fall udner the heading of opportunism..? Time and again Saradomin shows that there is definitely a difference between advocating peace and preventing war...

 

I judge Saradomin to be the god of order, and willing to go to great lengths to keep this order... Humans tend to be content with the way things are if they aren't horribly terrifying, or much much better elsewhere (such as within the kingdom of Zaros from before the godwars), and that is why they are attracted to Saradomin...

 

 

A close ally of Saradomin is Armadyl... He claims himself to be the god of justice, but there cannot be justice without freedom and equality... Equality and freedom basicly means that "I can have what you have" is the code to live by, and in an utopian world, this might be true... Another form of justice, one which I think Armadyl's attitude is much closer to, is the eye-for-an-eye kind of justice...

 

This is nothing short of vengeance, and in my point of view, not all honorable either... So far that is 2 supposed gods of goodness debunked...

 

But let's look at the other side too...

 

Zamorak has long been thought of to be the god of evil, although recently people have accepted him to be more attuned to chaos and destruction... Chaos and destruction are not the first things you think about when you consider general "goodness"... But not all destruction is bad... I take as example the aboriginals of australia that still burn the forests in order to make room for new plants... These young plants then encourage wildlife to come and feedthemselves on the succulant plants, which in turn feed the aboriginals... Do we consider this destruction?

 

The same goes for the example of chaos... If you have been oppressed, slandered and pushed almost completely out of your lands, you'd want to cause a little chaos too... Zamorak is doing exactly this... In fact there are many occasions in many quests that you can find friendly and helpful Zamorakians... One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, so could Zamorak be the god of true freedom?

 

Bandos is an interesting case as there was never any doubt that he is the god that represents certain races (much like Armadyl represents the Aviantese)... Goblins, Hobgoblins, Orks, Ogres (and all variations) and maybe even Trolls and Cyclopses all worship their Big High Wargod believing that they may one day lead them to victory (over what?)...

 

To me though, this is the god of the stupid... Not only do seem most of these races to be of below average intelligence... But much like today's religious people they too believe that some powerful being will take them to some magical place where everything is awesome... Moreover, they will do whatever anyone who claims to speak in their deity's name tells them to do... The ONLY difference between the poor goblins of RuneScape and the people from my real life example is that the poor goblins have some tangible evidence that their god might exist...

 

There we go; both good and evil (sort of) debunked...

 

 

 

For the tl;dr people: There is never an absolute morality, nor should there be... Good and evil are terms that you may apply only to your own viewpoints, but never label someone or something else with them... Good and evil are in the eye of the beholder, and no book, person or or set of beliefs can lay claim to being good or label something to be evil...

 

You can only say "I think that x is good/evil, because..." and finish your argument with "but that's just my opinion"...

 

Therefor, Zaros cannot be evil, nor is Guthix any more evil if he decides to remake the world and doom us all along with it...

 

PS:

Anyways you CAN'T judge a commander/general/someone by his minions.

 

I can if this commander/general/god/someone claims that they are indeed his minions... Otherwise they should at least be fired/killed...

[Saunamajuri]

 

 

I'm pretty confused by people who claim Zaros isn't evil. We know that Zaros:

 

-Disdains modern "prayers" in favour of "curses".

-Was an enemy of not only Saradomin, who is somehow popular to dislike recently, but also Armadyl, whose primary tenet is justice.

-Employed demons, vampires, etc in his army.

-Stole the allegiance of the Mahjarrat, all of whom seem to view humans like bugs, by promising them war.

-Appointed the likes of Zamorak and Azzanadra as his most trusted lieutenants.

 

Now sure, there are lots of things we don't yet know about Zaros. But I think that even with indirect evidence, his track record is pretty clear. When people say things like "He wasn't evil, just strong and cruel" -- er, what definition of evil are you using exactly?

Firstly, the Ancient Curses aren't Zaros's own Prayers, also, Jagex have said Zaros is not evil, only the empty lord.

Do you happen to have any link to where Jagex says that?

 

 

 

 

I'm pretty confused by people who claim Zaros isn't evil. We know that Zaros:

 

-Was an enemy of not only Saradomin, who is somehow popular to dislike recently, but also Armadyl, whose primary tenet is justice.

I'm not sure how this example is going to work out but

In real life, take America as Zaros and Saradomin, Armadyl etc as the some middle east countries.

The middle east countries see Zaros as being evil, yet Zaros mightn't exactly be evil.

 

It all depends on if the views you hold are the same as everyone else, plus the other Gods just might want to have more power and followers but since Zaros was in their way of they, they labelled him evil.

 

 

 

Again, I agree that some things can be subjective. However, when Zaros' army primarily consists of creatures that i.e. must eat people to survive (vampires), then it becomes difficult to argue that it's simply a conflict of geography.

 

One potentially plausible way to reconcile these differing viewpoints would be if Zaros were the Runescape god of monsters. Then it would make sense that he would support those creatures who eat humans, while others like Saradomin oppose them.

Zaros has an opportunity to get the support of demons, vampires etc. who are all one of the strongest beings there is. I could perfectly understand why he would recruit them in his army.

[Unknown_Warrior]

Zaros was a powerful, totalitarian ruler. That doesn't necessitate evil though. Think of a medieval king or emperor. They, too, wanted to rule over as much land as possible, but not necessarily at the expense of the land and its inhabitants. Comparable to Julius Caesar IMO.

 

Here's the entire timeline:

 

1. Mahjarrat as pulled from Freneskae by Itchlarin.

2. Mahjarrat grow weary under his rule, Zaros tempts them with the promise of war. They happily comply.

3. Zaros takes over (nearly) all of Gielinor. The land under his rule was said to be prosperous and fertile.

4. Several of the Mahjarrat grow tired of the prosperity under Zaros' rule.

5. Spearheaded by Zamorak, a plan for betrayal is forged.

6. Though sheer stroke of luck, Zamorak attains the Staff of Armadyl.

7. Zamorak heads to Zaros' castle, along with his allies Hazeel, Viggora, Drakan, Thammaron and Zemouregal. Lucien hid himself.

8. Zamorak creeps up on Zaros and sticks the spear to his back. Zaros, enraged, turns around and tries to strangle Zamorak.

9. Zaros slips and drives the spear through both him and Zamorak, there's a sudden flash. The Stone of Jas may have been involved.

10. Both disappear. Viggora finds himself fading from existance through the curse uttered by Zaros.

11. Zamorak returns, now a God.

12. Zamorak rewards his allies. Hazeel gets what is currently known as Ardougne, Drakan gets Hallowvale.

13. Zamorak starts the God Wars. Armadyl and Saradomin see this as a good time to reobtain some control. Bandos sees this as a good time to kick some ass.

14. All of Zaros' former troops are eradicated or hidden.

15. God wars rage.

16. Guthix wakes up, stops the war. Forced the Gods to never again directly interfere with the world.

....

17. Player finds Zaros artefacts.

18. Player re-awakens Azzanadra.

19. Azzanadra gets in contact with Zaros.

 

 

Now, what I think is most likely to happen is that Zaros returns just in time for the Ritual. You, being the ONLY person to know of the Ritual without needing to attend it (assuming Ali the Wise is Wahisietel in disguise) are most likely to do covert ops. Lucien, being smack-dab in the middle of the fued between Zaros and Zamorak will not bode well. In fact, I'm almost certain he's going to be one of two Mahjarrat that'll die.

[The Dark Lord]

Almost every nation has its leader who wants power. Do we call them evil?

 

If you're the American government, yes.

[Articultural]

Almost every nation has its leader who wants power. Do we call them evil?

 

If you're the American government, yes.

 

That's spreading negative propaganda, exactly what Saradomin/Zamorak want to do with regard to Zaros.

 

If you want people to turn against a certain group, branding them as 'evil' is an easy way to achieve your aims.

[Kata_Phfract__the_slayer]

if zaros comes back:

 

where stuffed.

:razz:

 

but really,

he (he?) is not known to be evil, and truth be told, we dont even know if he will want revenge on zamorak. ok yes its like 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999% chance but no one ever has sayd "zaros wants to kill zamorak" have thay?

we dont know what he is the god off. its even posible he is not the god off anything. (what is jas the god off?)

 

all i know is that if zaros where to rise, guthix would probably be confused, but happy. (asumeing the act of him comeing back does not make a god war of some sort.

[Dragonkng198]

Just a little thought while reading the first page of posts, the player changed the balance of such things in the world too much towards the good when they

 

[hide=SPOILER]helped Zanik destroy the Bandos Avatar, robbing him of those that the gods see as his to rule (remember Juna being a bit testy because you helped Zanik?).[/hide]

 

An army that will most likely be out to cause trouble for the good peoples of Runescapes (Saradomin followers screaming 'omfg wtf zaros army we are all teh doomzored') is likely to throw that balance back into... balance? I can't see Guthix interfering with this with his edicts.

 

Just my thoughts on some of the things I've seen about various gods and what not in this thread (the following are completely opinion and speculation on my part. Don't try flaming me, because I couldn't care less <3:):

 

Zaros - Not evil per say, just doesn't care what anyone thinks and does what he wants when he wants. I think if he retunrs, he'll probably start trying to build back his power base of previous years, and that means taking over a fair amount of land, but with at least two Gods that would oppose him, I can't see him doing this any time soon

Zamorak - Not evil too, being the God of Chaos can be seen as evil, but it depends on your perspective. He's there to balance out Saradomin in the whole scheme of things. It'd be boring to have a world run by only the followers of a goody two shoes God. Zamorak is probably gonna be wetting himself in fear though, because the inclusion of more active Zaros followers into Runescape will only boost the power/influence of Zaros, and what helps Zaros can only be bad for good ol' Zammy

Saradomin - Probably gonna try and stop the Zaros if he can, even if this means joining forces with Zamorak to do this. Both Gods dislike/fear Zaros more than they dislike/fear each other.

Armadyl - Taking a break from the current Runescape celestial plane to greive for his Aviansies nearly being driven to extinction doesn't mean that he can't pop back in if he doesn't want to. He still has an army of Aviansie, his general and a couple of human followers if he wants to throw his weight around a bit.

Bandos - Can't see this guy doing more than maybe helping out another God in some form or another. Probably still reeling from

 

[hide=SPOILER]the destruction of his Avatar by the cave goblins, so he'll keep a low profile or just do his same old thing of attacking everyone and everything[/hide]

 

Lucien - Why would he get involved? He probably wants to be the most powerful 'God' that he can make himself into, so what's stopping him from letting the fighting go ahead without him, and just picking up the pieces when it's all finished?

Zemmyorgal - Too un-important to do anything too big in my eyes

Bilrach - Big Zamorak supporter probably won't take the trouble to stop trying to summon Zamorak from a realm through Daemonheim, so I don't expect him to get involved.

Siliske and Azzandra (fail spelling for the win) - Will probably help out Zaros in their own little ways, I can't see them getting involved with anything to do with the God Wars Dungeon, they have their own little projects

 

Well.. that post got a lot longer than I expected, I kinda got into it :P

[@Dan3HitU]

I'm sure I read somewhere on the RSOF posted by a Jagex staff member saying Gods get more powerful over time and that since Zaros has been hidden for such a long time it would be harder than he thinks to seek revenge.

[Slayer_Jesse]

@dragonking, bandos is pretty much completely banished. and since the gods need followers for power, arma, if he did come back, would be extremely weak.

[Kata_Phfract__the_slayer]

@dragonking, bandos is pretty much completely banished. and since the gods need followers for power, arma, if he did come back, would be extremely weak.

 

bandos was banished? i knew the defeat was, well, really it could only be described as a pain beond most mortal understanding. but i never did see anything about going away.

 

as for arma, the thing is, even in the pethetic state hes in now, hes still probably got more followers then zaros (even if none are marjhJAQHJSFJ) although the act of zaros comeing to this world would change that very quickly.

side note: i wonder, arma is the god of law, but has such little power. things dont apear to be very un-lawfull at this time.

but even with zaros's problems, i dont see any major efect army could have. at all.

[Alphanos]

A chicken would think of us as evil, because we as humans eat them by the masses... Yet because of our hunger for their tasty meat, it means that there are over 8 BILLION chickens alive in this world at any given point in time... A lion that kills and eats a couple of humans of an african village is soon hunted down... Not to mention any other lions that get caught in the crossfire... In this case the simple hungry lion is considered evil and us poor chicken eating humans are not...

 

So we can establish that evil is only in the eye of the beholder...

 

The difference between humans eating chickens, and vampires and/or demons eating humans is sentience. Now, some moral principles do become more complex in a fictional world with multiple known sentient races, but basically our standard definition of murder should be extended to all sentient beings.

 

Now let's look at an example. Goblins can eat people, or they can eat other types of food. As people are sentients, the goblins eating people should be opposed, and the goblins eating other food should be respected. HAM would be justified in combating the goblins just east of Lumbridge since we can see from the houses there that those goblins are killing sentient humans. On the other hand, when HAM attacks the peaceful Dorgeshuun, they are the ones in the wrong.

 

As far as we know, most or all vampires kill and eat people. That should be opposed, since people are sentient. If vampires can coexist with humans without eating them, then we should reconsider. For example, if vampires could eat non-sentient food such as cows, this would be acceptable. Let's avoid getting into a debate about vegetarianism and at least agree that sentient lives should be prioritized over non-sentient lives, in the same way that vegetarians prioritize animal lives over plant lives.

 

Alternatively to feeding on animals, perhaps a more equitable blood tithing system could be established where vampires act as the military force protecting a kingdom from invaders in return for controlled nourishment from the human citizens. Even if the current Drakan blood tithing system resulted in no deaths (not the case from what we've seen in quests), it would not be acceptable in its current form since it amounts to slavery. Those humans in Meiyerditch are enslaved and kept in squalor for fear of the vampires' food escaping. I can recognize that the vampires want to eat, but a better system can and should be constructed - if they had any interest in acting morally, which currently at least their leaders do not.

 

Using reasoning such as this, it is actually fairly easy to construct a reasonable, and universal moral standard. Sure, it can be the case that vampires just care about eating, and not about humans' lives - but this is wrong. Whether or not the vampires realize it.

 

Incidentally, this same reasoning makes nearly all player characters the most crazed psychopaths in Gielinor. For example, in my early levels I remember training on Varrock guards, etc. However, we'll have to gloss over this for the time being. This truth has no impact on the analysis of others which we can perform - to state otherwise is a common logical fallacy.

 

 

Saradomin... Sure, Zamorak and his allies turned against Zaros who was apparently an even bigger threat, and therefor an opportunity for Saradomin, but would this not fall udner the heading of opportunism..?

Dhalak, a follower of Saradomin helped Zamorak without informing Saradomin of the situation. The obvious reason why he did not talk to Saradomin about the matter is that he assumed Saradomin would not agree with his intent. In the current day, Dahlak realizes the error of his ways, and Saradomin was never involved in this matter at all.

 

 

A close ally of Saradomin is Armadyl... He claims himself to be the god of justice, but there cannot be justice without freedom and equality...

Another form of justice, one which I think Armadyl's attitude is much closer to, is the eye-for-an-eye kind of justice...

 

This is nothing short of vengeance, and in my point of view, not all honorable either... So far that is 2 supposed gods of goodness debunked...

 

Sorry, I could follow your argument about Saradomin, but this comes out of left field. Did you base this on anything other than the fact that a Runescape god of good, known to have opposed Zaros, would be inconvenient for your argument of Zaros not being evil?

 

 

Zamorak... has long been thought of to be the god of evil, although recently people have accepted him to be more attuned to chaos and destruction...

 

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, so could Zamorak be the god of true freedom?

 

Okay, seriously. I can sort of see why people question whether Zaros is evil, since we haven't seen all of what he did when he was around, but I don't think anyone can doubt that Zamorak is evil. The first thing he did upon attaining his current powers was to try to kill and destroy everything that didn't do what he said, and some that did. He told his followers that if they killed or enslaved all the people currently living in various lands, he would let them act as regents over those lands. If he supports "true freedom", it is freedom from any kind of lawfulness and civilization, allowing (and encouraging!) people to kill whomever they like.

 

If you think the above is not evil, then our definitions of evil are so vastly different that any further conversation becomes almost pointless. You can't debate whether or not a certain being (Zaros) is evil when the word means utterly different things to those discussing the matter. Also, if you think the above is not evil, you may be a sociopath. :wink:

 

 

For the tl;dr people: There is never an absolute morality, nor should there be... Good and evil are terms that you may apply only to your own viewpoints, but never label someone or something else with them... Good and evil are in the eye of the beholder, and no book, person or or set of beliefs can lay claim to being good or label something to be evil...

 

You can only say "I think that x is good/evil, because..." and finish your argument with "but that's just my opinion"...

 

Therefor, Zaros cannot be evil, nor is Guthix any more evil if he decides to remake the world and doom us all along with it...

 

Of course you can claim Zaros is not evil if you define evil as being a label which can't be applied to anyone or anything. However, this is meaningless. I think just about everyone agrees that Hitler, for example, was evil. For the sake of this discussion let's agree to call a being evil if they predominantly perform evil acts, even if it is the acts that are evil and the being itself may not be intrinsically evil. Even if we define evil as a label that can't be applied to anyone or anything, it doesn't change our understanding of Hitler. It just means that to discuss him, we'll need to invent a new word to describe our consensus opinion of his acts rather than "evil". That's a waste of time, in my opinion - let's just use the word we've already got: evil.

 

Following my earlier statements, murder of sentient beings is something that is fairly universally recognized as evil. Now, we know that Zaros readily employed known sociopathic murderers in order to wage war. Based upon the idea that murdering sentient beings is wrong, I would say that warfare, which entails killing sentient beings en masse, is also generally wrong. The real question is, were there some extenuating circumstances of which we are not aware? I would certainly argue that merely a desire for power over those being conquered is insufficient to morally justify warfare. On the other hand, a war of defence would likely be justified in the same way that self-defence is a valid defence against murder.

 

The morality of war is certainly complex. However, warfare simply because you want to rule people you don't currently rule is wrong. It's unlikely that everyone taking part in such a war is evil, but someone planning and controlling such a war is.

 

I don't think its reasonable to say that Zaros isn't evil, he simply employed known powerful, bloodthirsty sociopathic murderers to wage war upon and conquer all who didn't follow him. That's not evil, it's just being ambitious? Ambition is one thing, but killing your way to the top is another.

 

If it turns out that there's some hidden lore here making Zaros the aggrieved party then I'll change my opinion of him. For example, maybe he was peacefully ruling Gielinor and it was all a utopia before the evil Saradomin and Armadyl decided to attack him in a reckless war of conquest, so he simply fought back for the sake of his people. However, I think we all know that this is hypothetical nonsense. Besides all of the lore already mentioned, try listening to the Runescape music track "Zaros Stirs" - it's obvious that Jagex is foreshadowing the ominous nature of Zaros' return. Also, look at some of the dialogue of another of Zaros' chief lieutenants, Nex:

 

# Mortals, only death awaits you here

# Release me and know despair

 

There's a fairly obvious pattern here, and until new evidence arises the clear trend is that Zaros supports evil.