Well, now we know he is the good guy, as it were. Control fought against chaos in the god (cold) war, and was an ultra secret spy agency... now... where is mr Maxwell smart?

You.

So what do you propose we do about getting to that 250k?

Zaros as god of Control versus Zamorak's Chaos certainly explains why the balance was upset when Zaros was betrayed. It also explains why Zaros built a huge empire. I think I would see Zaros mostly as a god who controls the world, as opposed to Guthix' laissez-faire attitude (which is not necessarily related to Balance, by the way - Zaros could still be after Balance). It's a bit like Lawful vs. Chaotic being unrelated to Good vs. Evil.

 

I think Jagex wants to move gods away from the Good vs. Evil axis (certainly away from Evil) and put them more on the Lawful vs. Chaotic axis to allow people to identify a bit with all of them.

I think one misconception people seem to have with the God of x things:

It is NOT a descriptor of their powers directly; it is their ethos of HOW people should live and why. And in order to achieve this Ethos they may not live by the same rules as they set their people eg Sara wants peace and love and all tht but he knows he can kiss-ass if needs be to sort it out.

 

Zaros as God of Control means his ethos is that everything should be controlled so people know their place and stick to it; which is a fine line away from Saradomin's order - everything should have a place and a purpose but theres room to move around and its more self regulated than a strict line of command.

Zamorak's Chaos means he thinks everyone should be left to their own devices essentially - murder, betrayal, hardwork it doesn't matter how you do it as long as you do it.

Armadyl's Justice - there is a set of rules governing everything and justice will be served if they are breached, but aside from that do as you please.

Bandos War - proving self through battle etc.

I don't think Zaros has anything to do with restoring balance. If anything, he had dominated for far too long and it was his downfall which actually restored balance by shifting power away from him and dispersing it through the other Gods (though ultimately Saradomin). Also, although they are going for the whole 'it isn't black and white, it's gray, and all the Gods have their own perspective" shtick at this point, I think Zaros certainly seems to have an evil side to him. The Lord of Empty promises, and his seduction of the Dragon-Riders (and subsequently leading them to their extinction) certainly seems to be unsavory.

 

I do think Guthix was more balance than laissez-faire, and I don't think there's really a law vs order axis coming along.

Zaros was powerful, but that doesn't mean there was no balance under his rule - his empire was pretty successful.

 

It's like Law vs. Chaos (Law vs. Order is err, my mistake), different outlooks on how to achieve certain values, e.g. the translation of values into rules you can follow. Guthix' values are things like balance, peace, freedom, mortal independance of gods, which he tried to achieve by not interfering at all (laissez-faire) - didn't work so well in the end of course. Zaros, if he had the same values, would be more likely to maintain control himself, e.g. promoting balance/peace/freedom by forming a huge empire. We don't know Zaros' values, probably not balance, but if he had the same values as Guthix, he'd still be different than Guthix.

 

(of course it should be noted that every god has some form of control over some things, and typically they want more not less)

We totally need a dedicated lore thread. Or just add 'Lore Discussion' onto the end of this one.

eg Sara wants peace and love and all tht but he knows he can kiss-ass if needs be to sort it out.

I assume you mean kick-ass, because I just had a bad vision there :sad:

I think the way guthix put it in his noragi civilization test was best when describing how the gods are. For example Zaros might play "puppeteer" by using an outside concept such as creating a counsel of elders. Whereas Saradomin might keep a "holier than thou" mentality and pick one person who is the strongest, most devote and shows the most righteous foresight to his cause. In the end both gods end the issue of not having a leader.

 

... Zamorak might just slaughter the rebellious people and stand up the ones who are the strongest, vicious and dedicated to his cause. This would all be despite the people's wishes.

I think the main difference between Zaros and other gods is that he didn't limit himself to any particular form of coercion like the other gods. Whereas Bandos only values war for the sake of ruling by brute force, Zaros would not be as closeminded to take a more nonviolent approach if it was more useful or effective. Whereas Zamorak only values raw power, Zaros sees the use of having somebody like Sliske around to get certain things done. Armadyl's belief in justice would prevent them from resorting to certain tactics that Zaros would readily employ. He would not share Saradomin's sense of morality that would hold him back or get in the way of his goals because he wouldn't need whatever flimsy justifications Saradomin comes up with to convince his followers that they're doing the "right" thing. Zaros and his followers understand their goals, and do not hesitate to act on them. Even Nex and Char, two of the most hot blooded, foul tempered individuals put on this realm, are willing to hold back on the wrath if they have to.

 

This is how both Azzandra's and Sliske's abilities play into his philosophy; Azzandra is a charismatic figure tempered by power and intelligence who prefers to reason with their opponent, while Sliske is a sneaky bastard who is always playing the long con. They both believe in controlling the situation in their own ways, and they respect each other's ways to the extent that both of their methodologies are perfectly valid means towards the same goal, and their worth is only measured by how effective their strategy is in a particular situation. Even if Sliske totally derails the original plan with his own, everybody understands to an extent that what he did served the same purpose and might even hold more utility than what they would have learned (while possibly being more successful than the original plan, given how the circumstances played out, and the conditions under which Guthix would have even allowed anybody to get that close to him), even though nobody really likes Sliske anyway because he's still a huge jerk.

 

In short, Zaros is willing to resort to ANYTHING to get what he wants. I believe this is why the other gods feared him, because there was no limit to what he would do in order to gain more followers and power. This would also explain why everybody was so eager to bleach the world clean of his influence; it was no doubt a dangerous force even when Zaros was gone, and they didn't want to take any chances.

Zaros was powerful, but that doesn't mean there was no balance under his rule - his empire was pretty successful.

 

I don't see how a successful empire can be conflated with balance. Furthermore, in Guthixian terms, the rule of Gods itself is pretty unbalancing (something Guthix spends most of his life trying to prevent), so I can't see how one particular God being so dominant would be balancing in any sense.

 

It's like Law vs. Chaos (Law vs. Order is err, my mistake), different outlooks on how to achieve certain values, e.g. the translation of values into rules you can follow. Guthix' values are things like balance, peace, freedom, mortal independance of gods, which he tried to achieve by not interfering at all (laissez-faire) - didn't work so well in the end of course.

 

Guthix certainly wants independent mortals, but his view can hardly be described as 'laissez-faire'. His impact and interaction with Gelinor is far too extensive and deep to be called laissez-faire at this point.

 

Zaros, if he had the same values, would be more likely to maintain control himself, e.g. promoting balance/peace/freedom by forming a huge empire. We don't know Zaros' values, probably not balance, but if he had the same values as Guthix, he'd still be different than Guthix.

 

All the God conquerors (save for Bandos perhaps) reward their followers with a certain kind of peace and freedom but I don't think Zaros is particularly interested in promoting 'freedom' or even 'peace' in a general sense. Forming large empires inherently requires mass murder, subjugation, dominion, and the cultural extinction of all those who oppose your way. An empire, by definition, cannot be peaceful. Zaros' war credentials are well established at this point; he had to break quite a few eggs to form the giant omelet that was his empire. So I don't think it's fair to associate him with either peace, or freedom, or balance.

 

---

 

Also I have been thinking about a lore thread for a while too.

... you are misreading my posts again. I did not say that Zaros shares Guthix' values, I am saying that if he did, he would nevertheless be different from Guthix, because he would implement them differently.

 

And yes, Guthix is deeply involved, but at the same time his ideal and his goal has always been not to be. You can say he failed, but his preferred method is still one of non-interaction.

 

Finally, the rule of gods is not necessarily unbalancing at all. Guthix' desire for balance is in his mind connected with a god-free world, but that is more to blame on his mortal experiences than any sort of logical connection. Zaros' empire was built on war, certainly, but it was also prosperous and it was possible to travel from Senntissten to Ghorrock safely, which you can hardly say is true today. I don't see why you would say that empires by definition cannot be peaceful, that is not the definition of an empire at all. There is no known mass murder or 'cultural extinction' in the history of plenty of/most empires (and none of those things are confirmed/known in the history of Zaros' empire), and subjugation and dominion are merely coloured terms for a power relation, which is implied in empire, but not necessarily a bad thing either.

I don't know why you people are excited about Zaros.

He is as dead as guthix, because he was killed with the same weapon.

Obviously, you are being played the fool by either Sliska or Azzandra (sic).

The only path forward is to obviously destroy the gods left who aren't smart enough to leave.

... you are misreading my posts again. I did not say that Zaros shares Guthix' values, I am saying that if he did, he would nevertheless be different from Guthix, because he would implement them differently.

 

Fair enough. What I was saying was that given Zaros' history, I don't think he can ever be seen (even hypothetically) to embody those values even if we make an allowance for his own twist on 'balance'.

 

And yes, Guthix is deeply involved, but at the same time his ideal and his goal has always been not to be. You can say he failed, but his preferred method is still one of non-interaction.

 

I don't think that was always his goal. It might have been his goal after a certain point, but early on, he certainly doesn't seem to hint at such a goal. He, after all, made the rune stones, and brought other races to Gelinor, and 'shaped life' with it for quite some time. He went out of his way to do those things, so I don't think they can be described as "Laissez-faire". It was only after many years that he began to loath himself and feel guilty for having become that which he loathed (a god). It was also after quite some time and interaction with the mortals that he decided that he didn't want to be worshiped or inspire cults after him.

 

Finally, the rule of gods is not necessarily unbalancing at all. Guthix' desire for balance is in his mind connected with a god-free world, but that is more to blame on his mortal experiences than any sort of logical connection.

 

From my understanding, Guthix's antipathy towards God rule comes from having witnessed both God Wars and the destruction that the Gods have typically left in their path. I think that's fairly logical.

 

Zaros' empire was built on war, certainly, but it was also prosperous and it was possible to travel from Senntissten to Ghorrock safely, which you can hardly say is true today. I don't see why you would say that empires by definition cannot be peaceful, that is not the definition of an empire at all. There is no known mass murder or 'cultural extinction' in the history of plenty of/most empires (and none of those things are confirmed/known in the history of Zaros' empire), and subjugation and dominion are merely coloured terms for a power relation, which is implied in empire, but not necessarily a bad thing either.

 

Yes perhaps the qualifications of 'by definition' and 'inherently' were too strong, so I would replace that with usually.

 

Empires can play a progressive role, and achieve great things, but expansion (particularly in the case of large empires) usually implies the things I mentioned previously. I don't think it is a stretch at all for to me assume that not everyone who Zaros came across wanted to worship him/join him, and that he would be willing to use and indeed did use force to submit them to his will. In fact, according to the lore, Zaros waged war on the Khandirian lands -- again I can't see that as too peaceful. The lore also speaks of his conquest during the 2nd Age. Again, conquest usually means forcibly submitting others to your will and eradicating those who will not do so.

 

An Empire may be peaceful after it has solidified control, but the construction of large empires usually requires pretty violent things. I should also add that I am saying all of this without any value judgment. I am not trying to say empires are evil (in real life history, many have accomplished marvelous things) but what I am trying to say is that they usually require things that most people would not consider 'peaceful'.

 

Dominion and subjugation are certainly somewhat subjective terms, they are usually employed by the victims of empire; for such people, it is obviously a bad thing. If they weren't bad things, such people would obviously not try to color the existing power relations with such negative connotations.

I don't know why you people are excited about Zaros.

He is as dead as guthix, because he was killed with the same weapon.

Obviously, you are being played the fool by either Sliska or Azzandra (sic).

The only path forward is to obviously destroy the gods left who aren't smart enough to leave.

 

 

Ooh Zaros is not death at all! He is perhaps a shadow of what he once was now he has no body!

Zaros is not dead. He is incorporeal, floating in space or something, having lost most of his power.

We have talked to him, and I doubt Azzanandra would fake Zaros, he's pretty devoted to him. I think Zaros mostly needs the Stone brought to the Temple at Senntissten, that would certainly bring him back, assuming the dragonkin don't go crazy.

It's worth noting that most of our information about Zaros comes from either his (extremely loyal) generals or from his enemies.

There's no way to get an impartial view of any God.

Zaros dead thing: As confirmed by Mod Osbourne, one power Zaros acquired over the years was to take on a spirit form and leave his body entirely, in the instant Zamorak stabbed him in the back he used this power, so whilst his body died and with it a portion of his power (which Zamorak got) he did not die entirely.

 

As mentioned, also by Mod Osbourne, only Saradomin made it back thus far as all the other gods have 'wandered far' (eg Armdyls prob off on his home world sobbing over Avianses still) and/or have other blocks in their way. For Zaros this block is the lack of a body, hence the need for a host that has risen in other discussion.

 

I know we kinda covered it, but I felt it needed a more thorough answer.

It looks like whoever is pulling the strings on the Zaros puppet is going to have a ton of blind players doing their bidding.

I however will be smiting the gods in honor of Guthix's memory.

We have talked to him, and I doubt Azzanandra would fake Zaros, he's pretty devoted to him. I think Zaros mostly needs the Stone brought to the Temple at Senntissten, that would certainly bring him back, assuming the dragonkin don't go crazy.

Perhaps that's another reason why Sliske presumably allied with the dragonkin.

We have talked to him, and I doubt Azzanandra would fake Zaros, he's pretty devoted to him. I think Zaros mostly needs the Stone brought to the Temple at Senntissten, that would certainly bring him back, assuming the dragonkin don't go crazy.

Perhaps that's another reason why Sliske presumably allied with the dragonkin.

>allies with dragonkin to get SoA

>kills guthix w/ SoA and becomes more powerful then dragonkin

>forces them to allow him to use the stone (presumably guthix was powerful enough for this)

>uses stone to bring back zaros

Zaros is presumably in another dimension/world floating around as a Spirit. It is not clear to me, at least, that the Stone's power could be accessed from so far. Also, I'm 75% sure that Sliske is probably using the stone to secure his own Godhood rather than bring back Zaros. He seems far too treacherous to ever be faithful to anyone aside from himself.

Zaros is presumably in another dimension/world floating around as a Spirit. It is not clear to me, at least, that the Stone's power could be accessed from so far. Also, I'm 75% sure that Sliske is probably using the stone to secure his own Godhood rather than bring back Zaros. He seems far too treacherous to ever be faithful to anyone aside from himself.

 

I'm not so sure, his methods may be different but he could be setting himself up as host for zaros. Also, does anyone else think Armadyl is an ascended aviansie? It would explain why pretty much all of his followers seemed to be aviansies and why he grieved so much at their loss.