I have been counseled by many to not respond to your allegations, but I
have never been able to sit stoically through abusrdities or avoid a
challenge, which is fairly tragic. Those who can do the above, teach me
your secrets, please!

First of all I would like to address Revan. Your post was a brilliantly
intuitive diatribe aimed at attacking my disposition. Of course since I
am defending Narsrim, we must have some sort of relationship. Hate to
disappoint you, but I've only seen Narsrim when defending Celestia from
tainted incursion. And so you know, I am defending what is right, not
Narsrim, but his current actions. But otherwise your post was a
masterpiece of unbiased logic. I commend you.

Aiakon, once again you have inspired laughter within me and astonishment
at those who refuse to see the obvious. I was immensely intrigued that
you chose to answer none of my points in any satisfactory or unbiased
written contemplation. Once again, I implore you to attempt the
analytical thought process of reason and logically explain a few points
that I will bring up as well as your distracting excoriations.

You and Nokraenom, the tainted debating duo, never cease to amaze me in
your ability to exhibit an aura of truth without actually addressing any
of the real issues. Oh, and before I truly begin my my rebuttal, my
apologies to Nokraenom for falsely proclaiming his guild to be the
Nihlists, apparently he has turned from the Demon Lords sadistic ways,
and taken on a marginally lesser evil as a geomancer. My sincere
apologies, maybe now you can dig for your soul.

First off, the blacklist. At the time of my post there was still a
blacklist in the Nihilists, this was verified, both through Nihlists who
had left the taint, and with my dreamweaving ability. Before you so
blatantly lie, you should at least reflect upon the possibility that I
can disprove you. Nice try, though.

"With regards to the rest of it:"

You were able to stave off the inundation of points I raised with
character assaults, a poor analogy, and the use of esoteric shards
destroying what I was actually saying, the term righteous vengeance
being a prime example. So, I will evaluate your "logical" analysis of my
post.

First of all I am not Lady Terentia's spokesman, not by any stretch of
the imagination. That was a poor assumption on your part and according
to your views, I would be unfit to be Her spokesman. As for righteous
vengeance, I never assumed to define the term, only to use it. So now I
will acquiesce to your gracious request and describe it relating to this
situating and in general. Righteous vengeance has different implications
in every scenario, but I can with confidence say that Narsrim was robbed
by Kaervas, and thus had no moral debt by taking vengeance. (Read on for
a more definitive structure) Fain approved of this reprehensible act.
You failed to address that in your response. As for attacking novices, I
have never, nor ever will I approve of attacking novices. Not all share
those same thoughts. Yet, even so, novices are granted certain
safeguards by the Divines for this, some may call it The Grace of
Innocence. Upon rejection, that novice, takes his or her life into their
own hands. So, an attacked novice is never truly a victim. "The
wholesale pillage of the innocent" you refer to is, what exactly? First
of all being tainted, and choosing to remain tainted is a crime in and
of itself, but we are not going to go into that, to much contreversy.
Secondly, those truly innocent are protected through the will of the
divines, so unless Tzara or Kaervas is an innocent then please explain
this concept.

Let me give you an analogy:

A man is being robbed and easily overpowered by his assailant. As he is
being robbed another man walks by, not wanting to get involved for fear
of some kind of repercussions, he turns away from the conflict. He has
the means and ability to help out the victim, yet he turns his head the
other way, and ignores the situation. So, who is more wrong, the robber,
or the man who turned away from the crime? They are both equally liable.
And you, Aiakon, turned away from the crime.



You exploited the term "righteous vengeance" in a manner that would suit
you. This is what I believe it to be. Righteous vengeance is the act of
righting a wrong that is done through honorable means, as to only take
it out on the accused and the ones who would not deign to absolve the
conflict and were in a position to do so. Dire circumstances that would
hesitate the iron conduct of honor have not yet occurred in this
scenario. It was at his own discretion, that Kaervas stole from Narsrim.
The honorable thing would, of course have been to give it back, and I
lack the conviction in Magnagoran honor to believe in that. But, please
prove me wrong. Those in Magnagora who sit on the Iron Council, who are
capable of dealing with this situation assume a hypocritical stance that
Narsrim is a thief and Kaervas is not, yet everything about it screams
false. Who stole first for the supposed "neutralization of a weapon?"
Kaervas. You admitted that much yourself. As such, if an item is deemed
to be a threat, then people are certainly a greater threat. And if that
is the case, I don't see the problem with Tzara and Ixion being
attacked. They are clearly weapons for the taint, Narsrim was
neutralizing them, and at the same time, taking reparations. Your
supposition is such that it is ok to rob someone blind, as long as said
person is neutralizing a threat.


Your next point has already been explained above, about Narsrim
escalating the conflict to include all of Magnagora, but remember,
Kaervas shook the hornet's nest, deal with the consequences.

At last though, you hit upon the critical truth of different viewpoints,
yet even then you are contradicting yourself. How can you judge
Narsrim's actions wrong, that is entirely a Serenwilde matter, and if
you can do that, why dont you judge Kaervas by your own laws? In
Narsrim's case, I believe he is justified. His laws may deny it, but
then so do yours. There is also a key difference between the two points,
Narsrim is right to not meekly subside and fight for what is his.
Kaervas broke your laws on stealing, for no better reason then the later
described neutralization of a dangerous gem. Sounds ridiculous to me. In
the case of Serenwilde's laws, I dont have to remind you who broke his
city's laws first. I don't believe recovering what was stolen should be
denied by law. In the case that it might be, those laws must learn to
adapt. Such is progress.

Also interesting to note, you labeled me as a disgrace to my Guild,
Order, and City, yet you are not in Celest, the Aquamancers, or Lady
Terentia's order. Am I wrong? On the other hand are a testament to your
guild and city for better or worse (I am leaning towards worse), and a
disgrace to the light, my guild, my order, and my city. I imagine you
are basking in the adoration.

As for Nil and Celestia, I would love to hear how discordant eternal
screams of agony are more preferable then the melodious singing of
jovial angels.

One last intiguing though, how can a people who believe death is power
and worship a God who's defining attributes are greed, lust for
conflict, and cruelty, and at the same time you are arguing against
theivery???

Once again I am proud to let my "mental deficiencies" reverberate
throughout the basin. Oh and if you respond, please address ALL
concepts, not a shard of a concept as is habitual for you. And sorry to
all for the slightly broken post, I had little time.

-Raizan


Penned by my hand on the 5th of Dvarsh, in the year 145 CE.