Difference between revisions of "Talk:High Warden of Nature"

From AchaeaWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m (moar)
m
 
Line 11: Line 11:


-[[User:Halos|Halos]] 2015/04/03 02:47:15 GMT.
-[[User:Halos|Halos]] 2015/04/03 02:47:15 GMT.
*All I have to say is: Delphinus would have a ball arguing this point. --[[User:Krypton|Krypton]] 13:21, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 13:21, 3 April 2015

Here to make an argument for forestal philosophy as religion. Quoted from the religion category:

"A religion is a system of faith-based beliefs on mortal matters of morality and life. Notable aspects of religion include the worship of Deities, adherence to basic philosophies, and where applicable, participation in rituals and other traditions."(including Nature).

Quoted from Eleusis: Low, rhythmic humming resonates throughout the village, the rising of the sun celebrated in dryadic prayer.

Everyone knows Oakstone was basically the forest Church, and was intimately connected to the forest spirits. Oakstone was pretty religious, though not formally organized as such. It was founded by a Gaia. It had few doctrines, no organized dogma. It had its rituals, its customs, its formal laws. Its sole belief was that the forests should never be exploited for any reason, a belief obviously not shared by all Achaeans. Likewise, the High Warden of Nature is a position created by Gods to represent them in matters of forestal orthodoxy, namely, with this same belief. That sounds like the forestal corrollary. A Deacon of Celestia is a single person empowered by Gods of Good to excommunicate. A Dread Ecclesiarch is a single person empowered by Gods of Evil to anathematize. Is a High Warden not a single person empowered by Gods of Forests to do the whatever-the-forest-excommunication-is-called, and also enemy people, which makes forests attack them?

This seems pretty straightforward to me. Let's not nitpick. If Chaos can fall under religion category, I'm pretty sure the forest pope can.

-Halos 2015/04/03 02:47:15 GMT.

  • All I have to say is: Delphinus would have a ball arguing this point. --Krypton 13:21, 3 April 2015 (UTC)