Lyanna

No time to do a detailed analysis, but very well done. Probably the best character-driven story I've read so far since the new Storylines Procedures were initiated. Do take time to proofread your work before submitting, though. There are some punctuation and grammatical errors which could be ironed out, as well as word usage problems ("the feint sounds of humanity" ). Also like your ability and daring in writing in other people's characters into your story. It's not every day you find someone who can (1) be willing to take on such a challenge and (2) pull it off successfully. -Lyn-

There are three things a story can focus around that are important to all stories: Character, Plot and Theme. Strong characters make people care about the story, good plotting makes people want to continue reading the story, and strong themes makes people think about and remember the story long after they finish it. A good story writer must show skill in at least two, and preferably all three, of these. You've got some basic ability at plotting (most people do), but no theme. This "introduction" story is testing you on your characterization skills. How well are you able to show us who the character of glontol is, and why he acts the way he does? If you're unable to write a good character, it's very difficult to write a good story. That's why you need to work on your introduction. -Lyn- EDIT: Arguably, Setting (descriptions of places and people) is a fourth factor that makes a good story writer. However, I don't really count it as high as the first three, although it IS also important. But that could be due to personal preference. Some people like strong settings (like Sistema), other people (like me) can exist without them.

There is a big difference between a story about you playing the game of EL, and a story about your character existing in the world of EL. What you've written is a story about you (the player) playing the game of EL, through your avatar. Can you write a story about you (the character Scullsyk) existing in the world of EL, with no reference to the player? (Tip: Think of Scullsyk as being a different person from you, the player. Who is he? Why is he called "the Mighty"? What is interesting about his life or his personality?) That's the fundamental thing that is required for good character-based stories in EL. You're not writing about a player playing the game. You're writing about a character living within that world. -Lyn- Side-note: Of course, some writers are able to mix their playing experience into their character-driven story and disguise it very well. But it's usually a difficult thing to do, and not a good idea to attempt for beginners.

I'm a bit confused by your use of weaponry in the story. Why is Chuny "shooting" his axe? And if Chuny retired and gave you his axe, why are you facing and challenging people with your steel sword instead of Chuny's axe? Yes, I know it's probably because in the game, all you have is a steel broad rather than an axe, but still... a story can go two ways. Either write one about your character that ignores what you have/are now in the interests of making a good story, or write one that explains what you have/are now in the interests of being a good role-player. Both are equally valid. But writing an explanation that is sort of half-half generally doesn't do as well. You don't need to be so impatient to write "real" stories for EL. In essence, this IS your first "real" story - the story of your character. You have to show your ability to write stories with the one thing that you, above all others, should know best... yourself. -Lyn-

This reads like the Gospel according to Poet, mixed with Pilgrim's Progress, mixed with The Lord of the Rings... all compressed down into 1,500 words or so. Be patient and spend more time in developing your plot ideas before writing them out. I don't mind reading a novel which has all the ideas above fully detailed out... the question is whether you are able to write one. Right now, things and concepts are just whizzing by the reader's head with little to no explanation... and that can confuse a lot of people. Confused readers = not a good sign. -Lyn-

@ anthropologist: I think Wizzkidd addressed the issues you brought up sufficiently well, and they were the same things I would have said anyway, so I'll just focus on the last point that he didn't cover. You're right in that the conquest of canaan described in the book of Joshua is largely a huge ongoing war and genocide. I don't deny that. However, I dispute the claim that it was racist and ethnocentric. Instead, what I want to point out is that this act was still consistent with the transcendental moral nature of God. The assumption underlying your argument is that God is JUST a loving and kind God, missing the fact that God is also the ultimate moral and righteous Judge of the Universe. In view of God's righteous nature, though, the conquest of canaan is seen as God's punishment upon the canaanites for their sins, using the Israelites as His instrument of justice. That's why there was genocide. When an entire race becomes so corrupt that it has to be cleansed off the face of the earth, God sent Joshua and the Israelites in as exterminators. And that same God is still around today. His nature hasn't changed from the Old Testament or the New Testament. He has a Divine responsibility to punish sin and wrongdoing. So He did. The entire sins of all of humanity was imputed onto His Son, and He took it all out on Jesus, at the cross. That's the message of Christianity and salvation from sin. The punishment for sin is death. In the Old Testament, this death was borne by the sinners themselves - executed by the Israelites. In the New Testament, this death was borne by a completely innocent being, so that the sinners have a second chance. That was God's solution to the conflicting responsibilities of having to punish sin, and wanting to reconcile with humankind. Or to put it another way: Jesus bore the same effects that caused of genocide of the canaanites in His single Person. He took on Himself every sin, and every punishment, known to mankind during His death on the cross. (Since you're an anthropologist, you should probably be familiar with the term "whipping boy". Jesus fulfilled that role for us. The sin was still punished. It's just that the punishment fell upon the innocent instead of the guilty.) Of course, you could try arguing that the canaanites were, in fact, not sinners. That they were innocent beings who just got in the way of a vicious, bloodthirsty race who wanted their territory and used religion as an excuse for slaughtering all of them. If you can prove that link, then my argument falls apart, of course. That, by the way, is the argument used for the Crusades. While I accept that it is valid for the Crusades (and place the blame firmly upon the corrupt leaders of the church at that time), I do not accept that it is valid for the conquest of canaan by the Israelites. Study the cultural practices of the canaanites, and see for yourself whether they could be accused of offending God so much that He decided to exterminate them. Oh, and nice explanation on the evolution issue. Yeah, the central problem isn't the phenomenon of evolution itself, nor about natural selection (although we would probably argue Divine selection instead of natural). The main issue is about the origin of life. Living matter to living matter is simple reproduction. Non-living matter to living matter is ridiculously hard to achieve, unless you assume primordial conditions which are very very different to what scientists say was the actual state of the Earth back then. (I'm very rusty on this, but if I recall correctly you needed massive lightning storms running through a heavy nitrogen-ammonia atmosphere... which would basically poison and kill the cell as soon as it was created. ) Science, by itself, can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God. It's not qualified to answer the question, since it deals with the natural world, not the supernatural. @ ateh: Well, I have browsed through portions of the apocrypha... the book of Maccabeus and the Gospel of Thomas, if I remember correctly. It was a long time ago, and I wasn't really that interested in them at the time. About the ultimate fulfillment thing... well, maybe the phrasing could have been better ("evolved" was just the first word to pop into my head when trying to explain the concept of progressive revelation in a non-theological sense. ), but in essence, I do believe that Christianity IS the fulfillment of Judaism. I don't think it's condescending, exactly... or rather, it's condescending only if you wish to view it that way. You see, it all boils down to whether you believe in Absolutism or Relativism. If you believe that there is such a thing as Absolute Truth in the world around us / reality, then some things must be closer to the truth than others. Almost all belief systems are founded on the idea of Absolute Truth, including Christianity, Judaism, and even paganism and atheism. (They disagree on what that truth is, but they all believe that there is some form of truth out there...) In that sense, Christianity and Judaism are on the same "line" towards Absolute Truth, but we just believe that Christianity is further ahead in the line. That doesn't mean that Judaism is WRONG, or we shouldn't value it. It is just a less-complete understanding of the truth than Christianity is, because they lack knowledge of the Messiah. An analogy would be thinking of Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein. Newtonian physics of motion and gravity isn't WRONG, but Einsteinian physics comes closer to describing the real situation, because it takes into account the theory of relativity. If you believe in Einsteinian physics, you're not being condescending towards Newton or devaluing his contribution to science. You still accept Newton's laws of motion as being real and true for their situation. It's just that you have a deeper or more sophisticated understanding of the truth. If your physics teacher teaches you Newtonian physics first, he's not teaching you the wrong thing. He's just preparing the foundation for more advanced learning later, when you become aware of Einsteinian physics. Now, if you imagine God to be playing the same role for humanity as a physics teacher does for his students, I think you'll understand what I mean by "progressive revelation" - which was the concept I was trying to explain earlier. God is slowly teaching us things about the nature of Himself and reality as time goes by. That's why people study the Bible and theology even today. It's not a dead book. There's still more and deeper things to learn. Of course, we also have to be careful to weed out inaccuracies, because God isn't the only one speaking out there. The Devil's making a lot of noise, too, trying to confuse the issue or lead us down false trails (more commonly known as "heresy" ). <Running out of time and getting very tired, so I'll quickly sketch out the rest...> Your characterization of Paul is incorrect. He DID make contact with Christian groups - both in Jerusalem and outside. And it wasn't Paul alone. Further reading of the New Testament show plenty of other authors and missionaries. The Council of Nicea really deserves a more in-depth treatment than what I'm going to say, so I'd be happy if someone else could take it. Before I nod off, though: - Christians had a vested interest in preserving accurate copies of the books regarded as Scripture, even before they were compiled into the canon of the Bible. Don't assume that historical inaccuracies crept in during the space of 300 years. There were multiple copies of each letter and gospel circulated among the churches, and any inaccuracies in scribing could be easily spotted by cross-referencing. (Remember, these people were memorising the Scriptures by heart. They would definitely find any mis-scribed copies.) - Admittedly, the development of many Christian rituals and sites had roots in paganism, including Easter and Christmas. The concept sometimes can overweigh the origin. And many rituals are merely symbolic, anyway. It's the relationship that counts in Christianity, not the place or procedure. Frankly, though, I'm skeptical of Helena's findings myself. Doesn't invalidate the story of the crucifixion, however. (Analogy: "A total nutcase claims to have seen Elvis at a hotel recently. Since it's been so long since Elvis was said to be dead, obviously this hotel and Elvis has never existed! Elvis must just be a fairy tale that this nutcase made up." You can see how the logic doesn't hold.) That about wraps it up for me. Too sleepy to think now. -Lyn-

I must say, this is great work. Fantastic poetic imagery. Speaking as someone who could never do this sort of thing, you've got talent. -Lyn-

If you guys liked Fullmetal Alchemist, you should also consider watching out for Scrapped Princess. Pretty good story as well, about a princess who's prophesied to destroy the world when she turns 16... except for the fact that she seems to be a pretty nice, normal teenage girl who doesn't have a trace of planetary-destructive personality or power within her. Everyone's out to try and kill her before she turns 16, though, so she's doomed to a life of wandering and hiding her identity, being protected by her adopted elder brother (a swordsman) and adopted elder sister (a magic-user). But I prefer high school romantic comedies. School Rumble FTW! (alongside Ouran Koukou Host Club, The Melancholy of Suzumiya Haruhi, Full Metal Panic - Fumoffu! season, Ranma 1/2, etc.) -Lyn-

Thanks, Beorn. I always loved my character Lyanna, who I placed as a bystander in major events. What I wanted to show was that good stories could be told about simple people as well, not just heroes and heroines. Common folk, not setting out on grand adventures to change the world, but just trying their best to get by. And sometimes they fall to weaknesses and things that are too much for them too, just like the plague, and the death of her mother. You don't need to be a great adventurer or a powerful wizard to have a good story told about you. -Lyn-

Just to support the new Storylines initiative. Can't believe it's been nearly three years since I wrote my first story for Eternal Lands. -Lyn- Memories of a Healer II During the Great War, our peace was shattered. The comfortable, pleasant life that I had been leading in Portland as an assistant to an apothecary shop was destroyed when Mortos' army invaded and sacked our coastland. I saw my mother's grave desecrated by the stamp of wild men and orcs - that accursed race that was kin to the Orchans which had raped and killed her all those years ago. Our city guard was unable to stop them. Weeping, I boarded the fleet that had been organised to evacuate the civilians from the town amidst the shouts and cries of the soldiers who died so that we could escape. The last picture I had of my home was of the city going up in flames. The passage across the ocean was horrendous. We were cut adrift from any hope of safety - a thousand or so civilians aboard a hundred ships, with no home to return to and limited food supplies. Children and women used to cry themselves to sleep at night, as storms raged outside the battered hulls of our refugee ships. When plague broke out amongst the lower decks, the captain of our ship asked me to assist in combating it. I readily assented, requiring work to keep my thoughts occupied from the gloom and despair that pervaded the ship. Quickly, I set to work, visiting the sick, creating curative potions with what limited items we had, and exhausting myself every day by expending all my healing magics until I was drained. It was a ragged, heart-breaking journey. Every day, I lost another patient. Every day, the food became lesser and lesser, and we all grew gaunt with hunger. Desperation set in. My greatest enemy, death itself, was slowly taking away the people I cared for one by one. And I could do nothing to stop him. My greatest weapons - food, shelter, security, and hope - were all stripped away from us. By the time we came into sight of the shores of Tirnym, I had caught the plague myself. I remember little of what followed. Antalya, the human woman who had assisted me during the voyage, told me later that I had been feverish and delirious, often babbling about Orchan cruelty in my sleep. I could recognise no one. However, she also told me that my patients gathered around me in a show of care and support that was unprecedented. "It was amazing," she said. "Each and every one of them took turns to watch over you, even when they were sick themselves. They loved you, Lyanna, and wanted to repay the favour." It was at Tirnym that I recovered, along with the rest of those struck by the plague. The presence of our great Goddess Aluwen was sufficient to banish all death and disease from us, and we regained our strength. When the final battle came, I was far away from the frontlines, helping to care for the sick and elderly at the south port. I had had my fill of slaughter and bloodshed. However, I too was witness to the cataclysm that tore Tirnym apart and ended the war. No one in the region could miss the earth-shaking sound and the sudden stillness that ensued. But more than that, as all Elves knew, the presence of our Goddess had vanished. For one agonising moment, I had thought Mortos victorious, and our beloved Aluwen destroyed by forces unimaginable. But that was not to be. A still, small whisper in my soul told me that our Goddess was still alive, but merely bereft of all her powers in the mighty struggle that had taken place. It would be many more years before she would regain sufficient strength to manifest physically once again. ... As the remnants of our surviving peoples scattered across the lands to rebuild their lives and homes, I pondered my course. The home and place I had made for myself in Portland was gone. My employer had been killed in the war, and many of my clients had lost their lives. I briefly considered trying to return to my mother's people in Tirnwood Vale, hoping that perhaps our shared sorrows might create a new future for us. But that was only a brief dream. Having lived in cosmopolitan Portland for so long, I could no longer remain in the quiet solitude of the Vale and be content. It was Antalya, my erstwhile aide, who gave me the answer I was searching for. She approached me, telling me that she and her husband were planning to join a caravan to rebuild Corren Town, and that they could use someone of my healing talents to help take care of the minor ills and complaints along the way. I saw then a useful occupation for me, and a purpose for my life. I could travel the lands, freely assisting the rebuilding efforts and healing the sick and the wounded along the roads. I would require no pay but the thanks and gratitude of others, as those on the ship had demonstrated. My fight with the plague on the ships had taught me that there was much I still did not know about disease, and I meant to travel the world in search of knowledge to increase my understanding of the healing arts. How many more could I have saved if I had only known what the most effective remedies were? One day, perhaps I would visit the great magic libraries of the world, and aid in the research efforts to discover new cures for the problems that afflicted all of Seridia. But for now, my course was set. I would be an itinerant Healer, and travel the roads to aid the sick, the wounded, and the weak as they began the great task of restoring order to the Lands. -Lyn-

Gah. Note to self: When thinking about whether to get involved in an ongoing discussion/debate over the Internet, make sure you actually have TIME to respond to people's responses to your post. Okay, very quickly before I rush off to another project meeting: @ anthropologist, RunTime (and ttlanhil, to some extent): Some Biblical scholars have argued that the figure of 144,000 mentioned in the book of Revelations refers only to Jewish Christians, not to the rest of the world. As I'm not an expert on this particular area, I won't say much about it. Just pointing out the alternative explanation before I move on to another topic. You're right, the problem of free will versus damnation is one of the classic troubles that Christianity faces. RunTime managed to state the Roman Catholic perspective quite nicely, I thought. Of course, there is a major difference between the Roman Catholic dogma and Protestant dogma over the very issue he brought up - Protestants all believe that faith, not works, is what gets you into heaven. That's why there's no concept of purgatory, or working off one's sins, in Protestant theology. You don't have to be perfect to enter Heaven. (I'm not sure where the Orthodox church stands on this issue... it's been a long time since I read my History of Theology book.) Hmmm... I've actually posted this before in another discussion over two years ago in this forum, but I actually view Hell/damnation as the ultimate concession to human free will that God made. If you want to spend eternity away from Him, then He lets you do so. The trouble is, of course, that God is the source of all love and goodness. (That's what Christians believe, anyway). Thus, an eternity away from the source of all love and goodness is essentially Hell, continually tormented by regret for the lost chance of ever being with Him. Some have argued that the descriptions of Hell as a fiery place, or outer darkness, are merely metaphors to describe the extreme anguish and despair that will grip the souls of those who realised they have lost everything. (I don't entirely subscribe to that, but since I haven't actually seen Hell myself, I'm not entirely prepared to decide one way or another whether we're talking about real flames or metaphorical anguish here.) In other words, Hell is the Eternal Absence of God, whereas Heaven is the Eternal Presence of God. And since God is Love, God is Light and God is Good, Heaven is paradise while Hell is suffering. Nevertheless, the question arises: if God is Good, Love and Light, won't it be natural for humans to choose what is good over what is evil? Thus, aren't we still faced with a non-choice? No one has willingly embraced Evil when there has been Good available... or have they? It depends, doesn't it? Humanity's history is full of stories of people who have traded long-term good for temporary pleasure but eventual corruption. The rise of AIDS. The destruction of the environment. Nuclear waste disposal. Affairs, divorces, cheating, unethical business practices... you name it, we've probably done it. All the way back to eating that first bit of fruit in the Garden of Eden. The question is why? Why do we do so? The answer? Pride, and sin. You see, I define sin as "choosing something other than God's purposes". Most of Christian theology has a similar definition (it varies a little in the wording and the nuance, and there are other connotations involved as well, but it is essentially that). When we think we have a better notion of what's good for us than the omniscient God does, and we value our own judgement over His, then we have sinned. That's basically what Adam and Eve did in the Garden of Eden, that's what got Lucifer kicked out of Heaven to become Satan, and that's what we're still doing today (and why this debate even exists). If you choose something other than God's way of doing things, then you have sinned, and thus you have two choices - either come back around to His point of view (salvation), or continue doing things your own way (damnation). Yes, I realise that this means right and wrong, salvation and damnation can be seen to be arbitrary - decided on the whim of God. I don't deny that. That's what the Christian faith is - the belief and trust in God's person to do what He thinks is best and good for us, because He loves us. You don't have anything else to rely on but the nature of God. No hard and fast moral principles, no set-in-stone rules or regulations - just a Person to guide you through life. That's why Christians often call Christianity a relationship, not a religion. Now of course, this may seem distinctly offensive/foolish/weird to non-Christians, especially the notion that right and wrong are decided by God. (i.e. "So if God were to say that killing innocent babies is morally-right, then it is?") It's not an easy answer to make, but the Christian answer is "Yes". There is no moral principle higher than the will and nature of God. Thus, whatever God thinks is right, is right, and whatever He deems to be wrong, is wrong. Sin is deviation from what He defines to be right and good. This may put a lot of people off Christianity, until you look at the issue closer and realise the alternative. If not God, then who determines the issue of right and wrong? Humanity? Yourself? Are you morally-righteous (or at least, not morally-condemned) just because you say you are, or other people say you are? Is human wisdom that great and infallible? It'll basically be your word against God's, and that's equally arbitrary. If you're willing to accept arbitrary definitions of right and wrong from yourself, or from other people, why not from God or the church? (The standard answer will probably be "because I trust myself more", and the standard reply to that is "that's because you haven't met the Person you could trust better than yourself yet.") Or, alternatively, you may believe that there is no such thing as morality - that "right" and "wrong" are merely social conventions that can be thrown away when necessary. Of course, if everyone does so, it would lead to absolute chaos, wouldn't it? In fact, it would very much resemble what I picture Hell to be like, don't you think? Everyone doing precisely what they want, without thought or concern for whether it would be right or fair to other people. The moment you bring in notions of justice or morality, you end up in the previous debate about who determines what is right, fair and moral. The third question is, of course, where do we get this sense of right and wrong from? Is there such a thing as inner conscience, or is our conscience entirely shaped by society? When you accuse God of being "not fair" or "not right", you are inherently imposing a moral judgement on Him. What is the basis for that moral judgement and moral standards? Accusing the church is one thing - we freely admit to making mistakes and being sinners in need of salvation and moral guidance. Accusing God of "not being good"? Where did you get this idea of "good" from? (For more reading on this, I highly recommend C.S. Lewis's books Mere Christianity and The Abolition of Man) @ Ateh: Actually, the name would be Yeshua (meaning, "Saviour"). Yehoshua is the Hebrew for Joshua (meaning, "God is Saviour"). I think it would be more accurate to say that the Jewish faith, or Judaism, is part of Christianity rather than the other way around. We view Christianity as the ultimate fulfillment and "evolved form", if you will, of Judaism. Or perhaps another way to look at: Christianity is a returning to the original relationship with man set out by Adam and God, while Judaism was the preparation of humanity to accept the idea, and showing what an ideal life might be like. Judaism differs from Christianity in one main point: the Messiah (i.e. the Saviour). Judaism believes that the Messiah has yet to come to save Israel from her physical suffering, and that it would be a physical salvation (meaning, a great leader and king will rise up to physically rule Israel). On the other hand, Christianity believes that Jesus was the Messiah, and already came to save Israel and the world. It's just that because His salvation was a spiritual one (forgiveness of sins and restoration of a relationship with God) instead of a physical one (gathering of the people and throwing off the Roman Empire's oppression), the Jewish leaders of that time did not accept Him. They were too bound up by their own pride, self-made rules and regulations as to what their idea of a Messiah was to recognise the real thing when they saw it. So instead of hailing Him as their Saviour, they crucified Him instead. Still, most of the first 10,000 or so converts to Christianity and Jesus was Jewish. Jesus himself said that He was sent to the Jews first, and the Gentiles afterwards. (Incidentally, Islam also recognises Jesus as the Messiah and ultimate saviour and judge of the world. However, they believe that the message He preached was corrupted by his followers and thus God had to send the corrected message once again through the Prophet Muhammed. And the Prophet was the last messenger of God, thus Islam holds the true and final uncorrupted Word of God.) To summarise: The Jews are still waiting for the Messiah, the Christians already found the Messiah and listened to His Word, the Muslims said that the Christians corrupted the Word and thus preach the "true Word". Of course, we Christians think we got it right the first time, and it was the Muslims who twisted it later. And as for the different branches and denominations of both Christians and Muslims, they're all about how to interpret and apply the message correctly into human living. That's your Judeo-Christian heritage for you. Now I really have to rush off. -Lyn-

Finally have time to come back to this topic. Let me just state my own personal belief and story before adding my scattered thoughts on the subjects discussed so far. I realise that some of my words may be offensive to certain people. Please understand that occasionally I may use words to provoke a reaction. My main objective at all times is to get people to think more, and one of the best ways to do that is to make them irritated. I don't really like to do it very often, but I do feel that a lot of people are too complacent or treat religion too lightly, so I'm deliberately stirring up some controversy as a way of getting people to think seriously about the subject. I was raised in a Christian family in a decidedly non-Christian country (Malaysia, which is an Islamic state with strong Buddhist and Hindu populations as well). I have Buddhist family members, was raised by a Hindu babysitter, and have Muslim schoolmates and neighbours. I've also met and chatted with a couple of Sikhs, have people in the neighbourhood who believe in witchcraft, and know plenty of agnostics. I have never met a Zoroastrian or pagan in real life, and very few atheists. In any case, this actually gives me a rather unique perspective, as the tenets of each religion becomes very clear-cut and it's easier to separate what each religion says from the rest, as well as from the general non-religious "let's all just behave good and we'll all go to Heaven" mentality. (By the way, Ateh, where on earth did you get those stories about Buddha, Mithra and Krishna? In all my talks with my Buddhist and Hindu friends, don't think I've ever heard those before.) To be honest, I think it's only when you face difficulty or social persecution for believing what you believe that you find out whether you really believe it or not. It's very different from the "post-Christian" mentality of a lot of North American or European countries, where Christianity is seen as part of "the establishment" and it's considered cool or independent to go against it and explore other alternative religions. In a sense, people in North America or Europe are only seeing the bad effects of Christianity and the nice face of all the other major religions (except perhaps Islam, after the 911 attacks). Try living in a country where all four have held sway for a long time, and you won't be so fast to embrace the others. And likewise, try living in a Communist country for a while to understand what atheism endorsed by an entire society can do. Don't knock the Christian church for its mistakes when you haven't seen the mistakes made by the other religious bodies and the ANTI-religious bodies. Humanity has misused the name of religion as well as atheism to do a lot of damage to its members. (No one has misused agnosticism, as far as I know, but agnostics don't stand for anything anyway. You can't really do anything to others in the name of "I don't know and I can never know.") Even though I was raised in a Christian family, I didn't really accept Christ as my own personal Lord and Saviour until I was 15 or so. At that time, I was struggling in a losing battle against an addiction to pornography, and it was the presence of God and the salvation He offered that made Christianity come alive to me. Since then, God has surprised me in so many different ways and shown more and more of Himself and His nature to me. I love my Lord and my Father. I don't completely understand Him yet, or why He does the things He does, but I'm trying to learn. In short, I'm an evangelical, charismatic, non-denominational Christian. So, having said that, let's move on to what's been discussed so far: Anthropologist explains the idea of faith and belief in the presence of God very nicely. I do agree that most believers feel that God is a theological/theoretical necessity to explain otherwise unexplicable phenomenon in life. Of course, this basic faith is then supposed to develop into an actual relationship with God, which perhaps is a different and superior thing altogether. To extend the "love" analogy, knowing that God exists is like knowing you're in love. But moving on from that, committing yourself to one system of belief (i.e. religion) is like making a marriage commitment. Don't take it lightly, and make sure you know enough about your partner during the courtship stage. Likewise, however, there are plenty of people who are married without being in love, just as there are many people who profess a religion without experiencing the presence of God in their lives. Can the experiences of those who are married without love prove that love does not exist? (i.e. "I was a Christian, but I never saw/knew/experienced God in my life, thus God does not exist.") Could the lack of love in a relationship be the cause of violations of the marital code of conduct like adultery? (i.e. "I've seen plenty of people who call themselves Christian, but who behave like sinners", or "The church is full of corrupt hypocrites") Does that mean then that the behaviour of these loveless individuals trapped in marriage shows that love itself, or marriage itself, is WRONG? (i.e. "Does the behaviour of people who call themselves Christian but have never experienced God in their lives show that Christianity itself, or God Himself, is wrong?") (Yes, I know I'm using rhetoric. Forgive me. ) The point I'm trying to make is this: the behaviour of individuals who profess something doesn't necessarily invalidate the belief system itself. Christianity (and a lot of other religions as well) openly admits that its members are human and can make mistakes. That's why we don't look to humanity to solve our moral dilemma or set ethical standards. We look to God instead. We don't trust humans enough to think that we are wise enough to know what is good and strong enough to act upon it. We need an objective viewpoint that is superior to ours. A second and different point to make is to urge you also to look at the opposite case scenarios. Why do we point out those that have failed while leaving out those who have excelled? The Methodist church led the fight to abolish slavery in England. The Catholic church was the only thing that kept scholasticism alive in Europe during the Dark Ages. Missionaries around the world have planted schools, hospitals, orphanages, relief centres and other welfare organizations that have helped raise the standard of living and brought aid to innumerable people who were suffering. If you want to bring up the Crusades, the Salem Witch Hunts, and the Spanish Inquisition, please also allow the Christians to bring up Mother Teresa, William Wilberforce, the Salvation Army and the stories of every saint and missionary who have given their lives to the service of the poor, the hungry and the needy. I think we'd win the argument about the net positive/negative effects of the church in the world. Not that that's important or anything. One of the main issues that the debate over Christianity has been about what constitutes necessary proof before God can be accepted as a reality. So far, it's been largely the atheists and agnostics on the offence and Christians on the defence. If you don't mind, I'd like to try the opposite for a change. I've seen the following arguments said for why God does not exist: 1) If God were to exist, He should appear before me in a flash of lightning / speak out of thin air to me (or some similar special-effects-loaded supernatural manifestation). He has not done so, therefore I do not believe that He exists. 2) If God were to exist, He should have made the world a better place for me/us/the human race to live in instead of the mess we have now. Since the world is in such a huge mess, and God is supposed to be in charge, God either does not exist or doesn't care about us, thus there is no point in believing in Him. 3) We cannot know whether God exists or not because the only thing that tells us God exists is an old book which seems to be written by humans, and whose truthfulness / historical validity is doubtful. I won't have time to cover them all, so let me just do the third point. You realise, of course, that the authorship of Bible and its validity rests a lot on the initial assumption you have about the existence of God. In other words, if you assume that God exists and is actively trying to communicate, then it makes logical sense for Him to preserve His Words in written form for us to read. On the other hand, if you assume that God does not exist, then whatever is written in the Bible must be of human hands and thus subject to human fallacies. Let me just point out a few things to think about. If God does not exist, and there is no Higher Power guiding us, then the highest moral/ethical standard we have is that set by humanity. Regardless of its historical validity, the Bible IS clearly regarded as one of the top books on ethics and morals written by humanity. Thousands who have listened to and obeyed its teachings have gone on to live exemplar lives. (The saints, missionaries and whatnots I mentioned earlier). As such, would it do much harm to live according to the things the Bible teaches? (And please don't start quoting Old Testament sacrificial laws at me. You and I both know better to take things at face value. Likewise, don't be so quick to assume you know what the Bible is teaching after just a cursory read. You don't mess with something like your life without at least reading advice carefully.) A second assumption to point out is that all humans have traditionally relied on authority to tell them things that they do not know about. To ask people to "think for themselves" is a dangerous task. 99% of what we "know" about the world around us is taught to us through the media, the school, and various people. Only 1% comes from direct experience. (And even that is suspect, according to some philosophers ) We have scientists to tell us about science, geographers to tell us about geography, art critics to tell us about art... who is to tell us about the existence of God? Is it not people who have spent their lives studying the subject - theologians and priests? We accept the existence of black holes, the el nino effect and the Surrealist movement, because experts tell us so. Why are we so reluctant to accept the existence of God? Could it be because - unlike black holes, the el nino effect and the Surrealist movement - the existence of God may pose a threat to the way we live our lives? If God exists, He may not approve of the way we are living now. The three classic ways that humans deal with disapproval or guilt is to either deny it exists, seek for other approving sources to counter the disapproval, or face it and try to rectify the problem. Likewise, if there is a God who judges us guilty, we can either deny He exists, look for other gods who have less demanding standards, or face Him and try to obtain salvation. This is my personal charge against atheists and even agnostics. I have found that many people tend to embrace these two views NOT because they are looking for 'proof', but because they are looking for validation of their way of life. In other words, there are plenty of insincere, hypocritical atheists and agnostics too. They want to continue the way they have been living, do not wish for a morally-righteous God who can pass judgement on them, so deny He exists and use "the lack of proof" as a defence for not subscribing to a religion, rather than admitting their fear that He might change them. My first question to all the atheists and agnostics is: Are you really looking for proof? Or are you just running away from guilt? This isn't really a flame, but it's a serious issue I want people to think about. Very often, atheists accuse religious people of "being too afraid to face the truth that we are alone in the world." I just want to show that the opposite is also possible: religious people can also accuse the atheists of "being too afraid to face the truth that there will be a God to judge us." Don't take double-standards. If you want the argument to be fair, make sure you apply it to yourself as well. I'm perfectly willing to talk with a serious, committed atheist or agnostic. But a different approach is needed for someone who is just running away from religion. The second issue deals with moral relativists. The belief that "It's my life, and I have the right to live it my way" is so ingrained into their culture that no one ever questions it. Are you sure that's the right belief to have? Up until the 1600s or so, most people did not believe that. And even after the 1600s, it was largely only the people in Europe who believed that. What makes you so sure that's the right way to live - that no one has the right to pass judgement on the way other people live their lives? You see, if Person A believes that 'no one has the right to impose their beliefs or pass judgement on other people', Person A must live according to what they believe in. However, if Person B believes that 'I have the right to impose my belief and pass judgement on other people', then Person A cannot stop him, since that would be against Person A's principles. However, Person B is freely able to preach to and judge Person A, since that is consistent with Person B's principles. To stop Person B and tell him to shut up, Person A would need to violate his own principles and be willing to impose his beliefs onto Person B. The only way to spread the principle of non-imposition of beliefs is to break it. (To put it bluntly, you can't argue for everyone just living according to what they believe in and not trying to convince anyone else without being untrue to your own sayings. You need to convince me to stop convincing you.) The argument for everyone living their own way doesn't seem to be able to stand. So we are down to a battle of ideologies or beliefs. There are beliefs with opposing viewpoints. ("There is a God" vs. "There isn't a God"). One of them must be right, and the other must be wrong. And this must be true for all humanity/reality. The question is which one? I don't have time to write more, but let me sum up the purpose of me writing this post. What I wanted to do was point out some of the hidden assumptions that people were making, and some things that they were leaving out. Most of it was spent 'balancing' - pointing out the opposite cases to things mentioned previously, like the good effects of the church and the charge against atheism. And lastly, I pointed out how moral relativism (everyone lives their own way) gets you nowhere, and it really comes back to the battle of beliefs. Other writers can take it from here. If you want more of this kind of stuff, though, I highly recommend listening to or reading Ravi Zacharias, a well-known Christian apologist who was born in India and lived in Canada. He often gives talks and lectures defending the Christian faith at universities like Harvard, Oxford and Princeton. His homepage is at http://www.rzim.org -Lyn-

Just found this thread. Don't have time to pursue it (really busy right now), but suggest investigating the prophecies about the Messiah found throughout the Old Testament (c. ref. traditional Judaism teachings, which are separated from Christianity and can serve as an independent source) as a starting point for proof of Jesus being the Messiah, hence Son of God, hence a valid teacher of the nature of God and reality. I think it was generally accepted in the thread above already that the Old Testament's historicity is valid. If you can link the Old Testament's prophecies about the Messiah to the New Testament's accounts of Jesus, the argument for the validity of the New Testament and the message of the Gospel becomes much stronger. Rather exhaustive research may be necessary. Many Biblical scholars have devoted their entire lives to the study of this topic. -Lyn-

Hmm... that's an interesting idea. Gnomes based on Chinese culture, eh? Well, from what I remember of my fantasy, gnomes were usually inventive, small-framed, mercenary (i.e. money-minded), and well-travelled. I think the original concept was based off the Jews or gypsy cultures. But since the Chinese are considered "the Jews of the East" (ironic as that sounds), it's seems to suit quite well. Plus, they invented gunpowder first. Oriental gnomish architecture? -Lyn-

The Tale of Vermor Castle At the dawn of the new century, Vermor Castle was a proud building, full of the grace and splendour that characterised its inhabitants. A large family lived within its walls – descendents from the great King Vermor himself, who once ruled all of the White Stone area. Of course, those days are long over now. The head of this family was simply known as Lord Vermor, and his domain encompassed the castle grounds only. Nevertheless, many of the leaders of the surrounding villages still continued to look to Vermor for guidance and justice, for it was well-known that the family of Vermor was honourable and fair to a fault. “And then what happened, Uncle?†The boy was fair-haired and tanned, a scrappy youth barely 7 years old, but already showing the promise of great height and breadth. His younger brother, a dark-haired, pale-faced 6-year-old, was playing in the corner with his cousin, a girl about two years his junior. “Yes, what happened, Papa?†The girl left her playmate and climbed into her father’s lap. She was fair of skin and boasted a full, rich head of golden hair. Disgruntled, the younger boy left his fascinating toy boats and followed his cousin, sitting next to his brother. They were a study in contrast as they sat together – two young boys only separated by a year, and yet so wildly different in appearance and character. The old, grizzled sailor smiled, remembering another pair of boys who looked about the same. Then his smile turned sad. “Then, one night, a foul mage crept into the castle and killed all of the Vermor family except for the youngest son, who happened to be away at the time taking a midnight stroll. He returned to find all of his family murdered, and vowed revenge on the mage who had did this to them. Alone, he went down into the dungeons of the castle and came face to face with the evil mage. The mage had heard him coming, however, and caused the staircase he was on to collapse, burying him in a pile of stone and wounding him dreadfully.†“Oh no!†the little girl gasped. The two boys stared wide-eyed at their uncle. They were trembling in suspense. “Did he manage to escape? What happened?†the elder boy blurted out. The old man smiled, patting his daughter’s head, and continued. “Don’t worry, dear heart. He survived. You see, although the stones had gashed his legs, they hadn’t hit his head. Eventually, he managed to pull himself out of the rubble, but by that time, the mage was gone. The man was able to stand – barely. His legs had been terribly cut open. He left the castle to find a healer…and was never seen again.†“What?! Is that all? What happened to him, Uncle?†the boys shouted, clamouring for more. “Did he go back to Vermor Castle? Where is he now?†They were jumping up and down with excitement. “Nobody knows where he is, boys. And as for Vermor Castle, a hedge maze grew up after that day to surround it. Nobody knows how to get in anymore. I went there to check myself, and couldn’t find a way in.†The old man held his hand up to forestall arguments. “Now, that’s enough. I told you your story for the day. It’s time for bed. I still have customers to serve downstairs.†The old man tucked them into their beds, kissed his daughter good night, and then limped towards the stairs, closing the door behind him.

Congratulations. It has certainly been an interesting journey to watch from the forums. -Lyn-

Hehe. This was a good laugh. -Lyn-

It's been a long time since I've been thinking about this, so perhaps my ideas are now impractical. I was thinking of ways to keep players actively engaged in quests at higher levels, and borrowing some ideas from the other successful MMORPGs out there, as well as EL's past. How about the concept of a raid? I'm not sure if the Orchan (Volcano) Islands are in the game already, but if not, that would be the perfect place for what I was thinking. Basically, you've got a map or two which is locked away from the normal continent and populated entirely by mid-high level aggressive monsters, and some unique enemies. It is also the only source of a very important mineral (what mineral that is, I leave it up to you... maybe Rostogal Stones) that can be harvested. The only way to get to that map is by collecting the ingredients for a long-distance teleportation spell to be cast by the mage NPCs from the continental coast. (It's basically similar to the fee charged for accessing the ship to Irilion) The difference is that you are only sent to that map for a certain period of time. After a while, say 20 minutes or so, you're teleported out again. The map also has #beam and rings disabled, so the only way off is to survive until teleportation or die (and drop everything you've harvested). So basically, for high-level players, you would need to do the following: - Collect the ingredients needed for the teleportation spell and pay them to the NPC. - Get teleported into the map and fight your way across the horde of monsters out to get you. - Reach the harvest point and start collecting as much of that rare mineral you can. - Survive for 20 minutes until you are teleported out again. - Start collecting ingredients for the next raid. We'll probably need to playtest and tweak the monster balance to make sure that it's very hard to survive. It's possible that high-level players might eventually go in groups, with one person doing the harvesting and the rest fighting to block monsters from reaching him/her, so we'll need to account for that. I'm also not sure if the 20-minute timer thing will require more coding than it's worth. Since I now have little knowledge of EL's economy, I obviously don't know what the mineral needs to be that would make it worthwhile for players to go for it, yet not ruin the game. Rostogal stones seemed like a good option, but there may be others that I'm unaware of. However, if this is done well, it basically provides the alternate to the GIWS. Players, in this case, PAY to fight monsters and harvest rare minerals, not pay to avoid them. -Lyn-

Amusing. Any particular reason why the last stanza only has three lines? -Lyn-

Heh. Brings back old memories. I remember scripting an invasion like this once, except that it was set in Morcraven Marsh (that being the only non-PK multi-combat map at the time). I think it was the fourth or fifth invasion to ever get implemented. In general, I've always liked the idea of big, epic-scale invasions, but I hated the work that had to go into scripting them. (One decent half-hour invasion takes up 2 hours of planning, at least. If that ratio is still in effect, you're talking about at least 8 hours worth of writing broadcasts, hunting for spawn coordinates, balancing creature strengths, and estimating timings, etc...) Unless you're planning on scripting it yourself (if you are, go PM Derin or Acelon and volunteer to learn ), I doubt it would be taken up. Ideas are cheap, implementation is expensive. Even then, the difficult part isn't really writing the script... it's implementing the loss condition/punishment scheme, I think. I'm pretty sure that's going to need extra coding on the server level and may require server restarts. Perhaps you could suggest a different form of loss/punishment scheme? -Lyn-

I have no interest in the contest, but I like riddles, so... "A forge of martyrs" ---> a creator of martyrs. What creates martyrs? ---> Devices that cause death. What types of martyrdom was common in history? Crucifixion, burning at the stake, ritual sacrifices on an altar, hangmen's poles, executioner's blocks, etc. Maybe something along that line might help. What creates martyrs ---> A cause worth dying for. What types of causes have people died for? Their religion, their country, their people, their leaders, their crackpot ideas. How are these symbolised in the game? Flags for countries and cities, temples for religions, legends in history (see backstory for Idalaron in "Tales of Irilion" --> 21st Legion), significant figure worth dying for... What creates martyrs ---> People or other living beings who kill them. What are the things that kill people in the game? (I doubt this is the correct line of reasoning, but just for the heck of it...) Whee! This is fun. -Lyn-

Nice story, although it raises more questions than it answers. (Who were those mages? What are totems? What was the legend behind them?) Still, it's short and sweet and gives a decent explanation of the spawning at beam. (And I'm eternally grateful for someone who knows well enough to format text to make it readable on the forums, instead of just one massive chunk of run-on sentences with no paragraphing. ) -Lyn-

Well, I would disagree that mixing sci-fi and fantasy means a silly story. Anne McCaffrey's Chronicles of Pern novels and Piers Anthony's Apprentice Adept novels have both done it extremely well. Likewise, in games, there was an implementation of some sort of magic-technology balance in the single-player CRPG "Arcanum". Even the Civilization series spanned the ages. So the idea itself isn't impossible... but it all comes down to how well it's told and implemented. One big question from the "progressive evolution" model from Iron Age to Sci-Fi tech, though, is what happens after the players hit sci-fi? Since an MMORPG is persistent, does that mean you'll constantly have to add more and more advanced technology to research all the time? Or perhaps a restart of the tech tree would be better, making the alternate-planet an iterative game played in "rounds". That has been done before in other multiplayer games. (A Tale in the Desert is an example of an MMORPG of that nature.) Another issue which might come up, is the perceptions of game balance by the different types of players. For example, if a player using a portable rocket launcher fights against a player using a magical thermal serp, who's supposed to win? Technology (in an RL earth context, at least) has always meant a large increase in power. (Consider how gunpowder revolutionised warfare...) Therefore, I would suggest complete separation between planets, not allowing items to be brought over at all, instead of just being very difficult and not worth it. Just my two cents worth. -Lyn- EDIT: (Referring to Acelon's post above) Oh dear. Delete this post as necessary.

I just HAD to come back to show you guys this thread. It's absolutely hilarious! :D This is a forum RP thread, made by serious roleplayers, trying to commit all of the worst mistakes in RP history. I couldn't even get past the first page before falling off my seat in laughter. (I think it was the RP'ing in 1337 that did it... ) Do have a read. The RP of NOT what to do -Lyn-

Glad to see the Goddess is rewarding healers. (though I thought that Istina would have been the more logical choice than Aluwen, but I guess it still works either way) -Lyn-