People speak of freedom, of equality, of goodness, and of what's sad.
Equality ever being realised we can all scratch off the board, for any
equality made generates and inequality on the opposing end of the
spectrum. But you say that Mhaldorians are free. Now, you must agree
with me when I say that freedom is a good thing, so we must define it in
a way that is good for everyone, as it must be by the use of the word.
((For those of you not familiar with the laws of language, a word's
definition is based on how it is used, not vice versa. Common
misconception, but key to my first point))

For a person to be free, they must live well, and be able to do what it
is that makes them happy. I think we can all agree on that. A man dieing
from leporacy isn't really free, and a man who can do anything he wants,
save for the one thing that will make him happy is equally miserable,
and thus not free, again because freedom must be a good thing. So, do
define freedom, I shall say that it is offering the way to well- being
and happiness by a person's own will, and a person's actions if they are
so capable. ((A person incapable of walking, for example, would need
assistance to achieve certain capacities of his freedom))

Now, I think we can all agree that we want people to be free. Only the
foulest of the foul, the people beyond reason, ((Those of you subsribing
to egoist ethics, by the way, grrr on you)) would say that they don't
want peopel to be free. Then what of the people whose happiness depends
on the depriving of others of their well- being? This is where an
ethical issue is raised, what of supporting and allying yourself to
those whose happiness and freedom depend on the misery of two, three, or
dozens of people? Can you track down those victims and tell them that
not only is their freedom less valuable to you than the other persons,
but that the freedom of 12 people is less valuable to you than the
freedom of a single person? I pity and person who is heartless enough to
say that. If you can, you need help.

Now, this is a response to an article written by the lady Renaissance,
and those of you who read this intending to view a proper refuting of
her words are likely wondering when I will be getting to that. The words
against the city as a whole is in everything that the city stands for. A
citizen of a city supports that city in many ways. The effects of those
who directly fight for their city is obvious, but many miss the passive
parts of it. Citizens that buy credits from Sarapis see their city grow
from it, as a protege who buys credits has a mentor who profits. To live
in a city is to support the city, and thus the guilds it houses. To live
in Mhaldor is to support everything within. It doesn't make you a
necromancer, but it does make you the next best thing.

This last part is to you, Renaissance. I know you, I've spoken to you,
and you have a good heart, and a good soul. I've never heard you plot to
do anything truly wicked, and should I have to classify you as
something, I would place you, solely by virtue of your merits contained
within your nature and personality, as neutral at the absolute worst. It
is your support for a city based on the ideals of gaining strength by
any means neccesary, including the harming of innocents that makes you
evil. I could pull out any number of cliches here to emphasise that it
does not take many foul actions to ruin the merit of a person, but I
think anyone still reading this is less than effected by such things.


For the light,
Sir Elrus Sioraiocht



P.S. I wrote this quickly and on short notice. I'm sorry about the
little things like spelling and gramatical errors. I tried, but I
already see a few places where I slipped up.

Penned by my hand on the 17th of Scarlatan, in the year 335 AF.