There is a great deal about the morality of mortals that lies exclusively in the eye of the beholder. More often than not, when one is loud about something they find offensive to their sensibilities, it is one of these tenuous reasons that they are bristling. In letting it run its course, we often witness a singular outcome: argument over what does and does not fall under the umbrella of this thing that each mortal mind views in a different manner.

What is innocence?

There are two ways to utilize this word: as an adjective, and as a noun. Obviously, as an adjective, it is not a stand-alone claim. It describes something else. 'An innocent man.' 'An innocent child.' 'An innocent bystander unrelated to a situation.'

To describe something as 'innocent' requires something more. It requires the individual to lack guile, to possess naivety, and to be pure: infants, before they learn that crying is what earns them attention. After this point, there are no innocents under this definition, for we are all creatures of guile. Even babies deceive their parents at times, though this may also be deemed 'innocent' as there is no intent to upset another. They simply desire to survive.

If the will to survive negates guile, then perhaps we can indeed claim that innocents still remain until they lose their naivety. This occurs in late childhood when one stops believing in monsters and starts to realize that it is those in positions of authority who will lie to them the most.

Still, one might argue that children are pure. They have not murdered other mortals. Their malicious intent is still tied to pettiness, to emotion, and not well-planned for they are 'merely children'. They have not learned. An absence of cruelty is, after all, the hallmark of an adult mind, who has been educated that to survive amongst your peers, you must not cause undue harm.

If these definitions of innocent are utilized, then it is true that Duiran has killed innocents.

This goes back to my earlier statement, however: morality is full of mortal preconceptions. Where the Hammer of Dawn sees an innocent, Duiran may simply see a mortal. Spinesreach may simply see a test subject. Bloodloch may simply see new fodder for Shilkar's teachings.

The Hammer of Dawn grows angry for harm done to individuals that have nothing to do with it because they are 'righteous'. They are 'good'. They are many words that we all give separate meanings to and that the Gods Themselves likely do not agree upon. Their claims to virtue persist, though they have shunned Death Itself and muddied the waters of the Cycle in a baffling display of seeking power to fight their enemies.

As a member of Bloodloch, I can naturally understand this desire. The desire to be strong enough to stand against that which oppresses you does make the ends justify the means at times. Still, one must question whether or not you can still be 'righteous' and 'good' and 'full of virtue' if you reach for power. If you want something, does your greed not erode these terms?

Power corrupts powerfully, after all.

Penned by my hand on Closday, the 15th of Chakros, in the year 509 MA.