So, here's the story, man.
There's evil, there's super-evil, and then there's Grogar. Grogar was Evil with a capital E. One of the big prime Evils of the world. These days, Equestria is really peaceful, and there's a reason for that: The Evils were all killed. Not sealed, but flat out slain. Celestia and Luna saw to that. And there's a reason for that, man.
See, most 'evil' is only evil 'from a certain point of view'. Stallion steals bread, evil. But a poor stallion takes a loaf of bread from a fat and wealthy merchant to feed his starving family? Not evil. A lot of the things we see as evil are just a matter of perspective. A lack of context. When most guys do 'Evil', they don't consider it 'Evil', they have some sort of justification to it.
With guys like Grogar? The Evils? Completely different thing.
In The Beginning, when the Haz-Bo-Ro and the Faust wove the world together, there was a thing that was required. This thing was called Evil. The sum total of all Evil that was meant to be in this world was sealed away, so that only good could florish in the world of Equestria while the creators were at work. However, there was an argument between the Haz-Bo-Ro and the Faust, regarding things that our puny mortal minds cannot comprehend. In the end, The Faust and the Haz-Bo-Ro parted ways, and somehow, during this argument, the seal of Evil was accidentally broken, and darkness spread across the land.
At first, it was just one evil, an ultimate villain out to conquer the world, until a hero and his plucky band... yada yada, struck down the one true evil, you know this story, heard it a thousand times a thousand different ways, so I won't bore you with it. What mattered was the result. Evil was shattered into pieces. These pieces became their own distinct entities. They became... The Evils. And of all the evils, Grogar was the smallest and weakest.
So how did he become the most feared and the most terrible of all the Evils? Simple, man. Because he was the smallest and weakest, he had the greatest incentive to do something that the other Evils did not: Learn. The other Evils were massive and terrible things that could level mountains with ease. As such, they had no reason to learn anything new. Up until the rise of the alicorns, the Evils had nothing to fear, and by the time the Evils realized that the alicorns were capable of destroying them, it was far too late: Celestia and Luna went through the Evils the way a scythe goes through a field of wheat.
But Grogar, being weak, learned stealth and cunning. As such, he hid himself away in a small domain he created for himself, partly of this world, and partly hidden within the realm of shadows, that he named Tambelon. There he could gather power, while remaining undetected to the world at large. Grogar learned the value of having subordinates, and as such, he gathered the Trogs, misbegotten creatures that had no master, and made them his servants. He learned of treachery and deceit, and turned the court jester, Bray, against the princesses, making the donkey into his subordinate. He learned the value of theft, and stole the powers of the fallen Evils, and took them into himself. Grogar learned the value of patience, and spent decades gathering power. Grogar learned the value of wisdom, and spent that time learning all the spells of the world, and invented thousands of new ones as well. For nearly a century, Grogar prepared. And learned.
When Grogar finally appeared, he marched forth from Tambelon with an army of monsters at his back, and went unopposed for many weeks, as the princesses were ensorcelled into a death-like sleep from a vile enchantment that Grogar, working through his agent, Bray, placed upon the sisters. Had he not underestimated their strength, or the power of the Equestrian wizards that eventually broke the spell, then they might have been sleeping still. In the end, it very nearly did not matter: Grogar's army had conquered nearly half of Equestria before the princesses awoke, and had they slept even a week longer, then the final Evil would have won.
Instead, the princesses woke, filled with fury, and flew to engage the dreaded overlord, intent upon laying him low. You should have seen it, man. It was nuts. Fireballs, lightning bolts, the whole deal. The kind of battle that can't be described with words. In the opening moments of the battle, nine-tenths of Grogar's army was wiped away in an instant...
...But then Grogar took the field.
Grogar had spent decades gathering power, learning everything there was to know. So, by the time that he began his march of conquest, the weakest of all the Evils had become a force more powerful than The First Evil itself. The alicorn sisters found themselves completely outmatched. Every spell they cast was instantly countered. Every strategy they hatched was immediately recognized and thwarted. Every trick they tried to pull was shot down, almost before it could even be thought of. Grogar had their number, man, and it seemed that the two princesses would be completely destroyed.
But then they got lucky. The kind of incredible, impossible luck that comes about only once every thousand years.
You see, Grogar, being the weakest of the Evils, had a weak body. Well, weak for an Evil. He could contain power far greater than a mere mortal pony, but he'd barely be able to handle the level of power one might find in an alicorn. So, in order to be able to possess the power he did, he had to place it within an object. That object was a bell he wore around his neck.
In the final moments of the battle, just as Grogar was about to finish the princesses off, once and for all, Celestia fired off a last, desperate bolt of energy. This bolt was so weak that, even without all of his power, Grogar would have been able to shrug it off. However, the bolt just happened to hit the bell, and hit it in just the right place, with just the right amount of force, and...
The bell cracked. And then exploded. It was a massive blast, and had Luna not summoned a shield to protect herself and her sister, then the alicorns themselves would have been destroyed by it.
Grogar was slain by the power of the blast. Slain, but not destroyed. Bray, along with the remnants of Grogar's army, reclaimed their master's body, and took it back to Tambelon. The sisters, when they recovered, tried to enter the realm, and put an end to things once and for all, but found his domain impossible to approach. Grogar had placed enchantments upon his dread domain in order to protect it, and the spells placed at the height of Grogar's power were far beyond the power of the two sisters.
So instead, they used their magic to send the entire place away, fully into the realm of shadows. It broke their hearts to do so: Grogar's army had taken thousands of ponies as slaves, and by sealing them away, it meant that those slaves were beyond the reach of rescue, by the sisters and by anypony else. However, what choice did they have? Without that spell, we'd be at risk of invasion by the Trogs every hour of every day, and we'd have no way of stopping them, since they could just retreat to their domain whenever we sent an army after them. The princesses did what they could to keep Equestria safe, like they always do.
However, there is a fear that the princesses possess, a fear greater than any other: An Evil may be slain, but unless its body is completely destroyed, it may eventually come back. Worse, Grogar had many titles, and chief among them was Necromancer. Until and unless his body is completely destroyed, we will not see the end of him. Grogar, first and last, strongest and weakest, smallest and greatest, may one day return to wreak havoc untold upon the mortal world.
At least, that's what the shrooms tell me, man. But what do they know? They tell me stuff about pink elephants, and about ponies walking on the moon, and other wicked crazy stuff like that. You sure you don't want one? They will open your mind, man... that, or make you to go crazy. Or both. It's really hard to tell the difference.
People that are high make the best educators, but the worst orators.
7070302
I don't know I can spin a pretty convincing tale when I'm baked.
HAZ BO RO...
dsk2 Nashandra lore==your beginning, manus has been broken to pieces yada yada, the smallest piece feels her weakness and become the strongest.
Did i get the reference right?
Hey look Fiedor! It's the talking banana that tells me to burn people!
7070509
Agreed. I've seen some people bs their way out of some serious crap while they were high.
Nice creation story and reference to Lauren leaving the show.
If I remember your 'Who is this Lord Tirek You Speak Of' and it's lore correctly, I thought that Discord's magic kazoo banished him.
7070699 Wonder what that Thuum does...
7071645
It turns things into money. The cooler the thing you hit with it is, the more money you get out of it.
7071470 Different timeline I believe.
Bucking Nonsense! You're back!
What is tha-............oh
vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/logopedia/images/a/ad/Hasbro_Logo_(2009)_with_the_TM_Symbol.png/revision/latest?cb=20151216161552
I'll take 1000 of those shrooms
Aaand another weirdo goes to equestrian in the body of a villain... Well, standard response is in order.
Like. Fave. On my knees and praise the goat!!!
It is heartening to see that the mind one trying to speak of morals was ... encumbered. Much leeway can be given, and for the better, meaning it is one less thing to detract from ones immersion in the story.
you know, when I saw the title of the chapter, I thought of the Moochick...
Actually, from what I saw in the episodes, he seems to be more of a "Dark Sorcerer" than a "Necromancer", I never really saw him do much necromancy, more shooting lightning from his horns, putting ponies in cages, dark rituals, catching "winking/teleporting" unicorns and banishing to the realm of darkness kinda shtick, but I guess Necromancer could work, though it wouldn't exactly be something he'd be well known for, judging from his character and actions...might wanna add "Alchemist" there too, because of all the matter conversion and manipulation he seems to do, not to mention, making a civilization appear out of a pocket dimension, through the use of conversion...
This is funny, so I'm going to dispute a part of it for ideological reasons. Also I couldn't find anything else wrong with it so I chose to be offended instead.
On what is evil from a certain point of view, I disagree. Morality, like math, doesn't change. 1+1 will equal 2 no matter where you are, how poor or rich you are, whether you're daft or bright and whether or you live in Singapore(smartest people on average) or Equatorial Guinea (dumbest people on average) math does not give a shit. The same is true of what is evil, and what is not. Rules must be consistent or they're worthless. If you're going to argue that theft is evil. Then all forms of it are evil, no matter you race, gender, class, social standing, situation, or intelligence. It doesn't matter. Now to address your specific example. In most cases the owner of the bread would be understanding and is likely to forgive the thief. In that situation I would make that person work for me to earn the bread, but I recognize that most would just give it to them. That doesn't make the stealing suddenly not evil.
In conclusion my issue states that the bread thief is evil no matter what and that moral relativism is a great big crock of shit. Feel free to dispute this with me and I'll gladly defend and substantiate my beliefs
7253602 You could not possibly be more wrong. Morality is, always has been, and always will be, what we decide it is. It is the decision of society in general based on how we feel and what we value, and that tends to change quite rapidly. Generations pass and their morality dies with them.
I could give you enough examples just from the USA to write an entire encyclopedia. 30 years ago, being gay was a "dirty" secret you had to hide to protect your own life. 50 years ago, open racism was perfectly normal and acceptable and didn't automatically turn you into a pariah. 100 years ago, marriage was literally a business transaction between the groom and the bride's father.
But you're trying to argue that theft is immutably immoral, so let's focus on that one. No, it isn't. Whether we consider it right or wrong depends on who is stealing what from whom. It always has. For example, property is theft. We put fences around things and say, "This is mine, and you can't use it!" What gives us the right to tell others that they arbitrarily can or can't have something? Every inch of land used to belong to someone else, and now it belongs to the people who live there. Where you live was stolen from someone else, and since you live there now, you are complicit in that theft. And yet, it's considered so normal and natural that most of us never even think of it.
Hell, I live in California, which has been stolen in various ways at least three times, first from the natives by the Spaniards, then from the Spaniards by the Mexicans, then from the Mexicans by us Yanks. If either of the previous three groups walked up to me and said, "This used to be our land, and you stole it from us!" I would agree. They would be absolutely right. But you know what? This is still my home, I like it here, I was born here even, and I'm not leaving. And unless you were a serious asshole, you would agree that I have the right to stay.
Do you agree with President Lincoln and the Union freeing the slaves back in the 1860s? I sure do. But those slaves were property. They were taken from their former owners without any compensation, and often by force. That certainly meets the objective definition of theft, and yet most of us Americans consider it to be a moral victory. (You can find some Americans who disagree on that point, but hold your nose and keep a puke bag handy if you decide to swim in those fever swamps.)
Moral relativity is true, and anyone who says otherwise simply is not paying attention.
7256631 I suppose you're right. I mean I guess rape, murder, theft, and assault are all okay so long as enough people think they are okay. I mean morality generally has the same history as science. 500 years ago It was commonly held that the earth was flat. 100 years ago it was widely believed that heat was a weightless fluid that couldn't be measured. 200 years ago it was believed disease was caused by a "miasma" or it was caused by "night air" . And just like those things, they were never true. Just like how slavery is immoral now, it always has been immoral.
"Property is theft" No, it isn't. Though that does give me an interesting idea of your particular ideal government ideology. "What gives us the right to tell others that they arbitrarily can or can't have something?" Well the first thing would be if work has been put into the land. For instance lets assume that I have a twenty acre plot of land. The specifics of what is on that land don't really matter but lets say that it is arable. No one else is using it. It belongs to no one. If I start to build a farm on it, I fence it off to keep out wildlife, I go about and burn all the vegetation, a plow the land and plant the wheat. All of that work, That is what makes it mine. If I want to i can then take that plot of land and everything on it and exchange it for other goods. That land belongs to the person i traded it to, who worked to obtain the goods that i felt was worth the land. Now if someone were to come into that land and kill me, or i were to die of dysentery or if i were to abandon that land goes back to belonging to no one and can be claimed if you put work in to it. The closest modern equivalent would be the clam-steading and common law of the Canadian wilderness.
I'm not going to argue whether or not califronia was stolen or not. Your last example isn't true since it was given to us as a result of the war between mexico and the U.S.
As to your example of the union and Abraham Lincoln, I'm all for freeing the slaves, but that wasn't what the war was about. The war was about state's rights versus federal rights. And that entire business could have been handled peacefully. It did in Canada, It did in the UK. So that entire business was terrible, and wasn't even the goal of the union in the first place. Lincoln said himself "If i could end this war without freeing a single slave i would" The goal had been to keep the union together, and lincoln was doing whatever he could have to achieve that goal. That is how that went down.
You want to make a rational argument for moral relativism by all means go ahead. What is commonly accepted as morality Isn't the same thing as morality. Just like how what is commonly viewed as the truth in terms of science wasn't actually the truth. The closest thing to the truth in terms of morality i think is the ideas of the non-aggression principle and U.P.B. If you have an alternative by all means bring it up. Morality cannot be subjective, just like how math cannot be subjective. To suggest otherwise is to champion the destruction of your civilization.
7257387
And since you are on the side of those people who say so, you certainly can't disagree with that without making yourself a huge hypocrite. Maybe you could be consistent on this if you were an utter pacifist, but you've already implicitly admitted to thinking that some wars are good. So no dice there.
Yes it is.
And let's assume that someone else had it before you did, because of course someone did. And let's further assume that, at some point, it was the subject of a bloody dispute, because of course it was. Now, where in that chain, exactly, do you have any real claim to it? You can talk about the work you put into it, etc. etc., but the people who had it first could make the exact same claims. Nonetheless, it was taken from them.
Now, people who look down on theft generally declare that stolen property still belongs to the person or people it was stolen from, no matter how the current "owner" managed to take possession of it. So if you insist on trying to justify your ownership of this land, you are left with two options: make excuses for the theft, or pretend that it wasn't theft in the first place. You are clearly doing the later, but that doesn't make you any less of a hypocrite.
OK, we can add "doesn't know shit about history" to your list of foibles. Mexico didn't "give" us California, we annexed it and went to war to force them to sign it away. And the "state right" in question was the right to own black people, as the secessionists themselves explicitly wrote in their various articles of secession. Perhaps you should try checking out a few primary sources instead of just accepting whatever you saw on TV or read in your elementary school history book.
By the way, please note that I didn't even mention the Civil War in my previous post. I only mentioned freeing the slaves, full stop. Your ignorance on the causes of the Civil War notwithstanding, the fact remains that freeing the slaves was, by definition, a massive theft of property. And you are now on the record agreeing that this theft was for the good.
Now, if you want to claim that morality is some immutable truth, go right ahead. But you really can't build a credible argument for immutable truth if you start with a foundation of mistakes, falsehoods, and hypocrisy.
7259221 My problem with moral relativism is that if I decide that those things are okay, that morality is just as correct as if they weren't okay. I mean who cares what morality I have, everyone's is different, and they all are equally correct. That is what moral relativism is. To say that flys in the face of every other science we have.
Here's a newsflash for you, if you don't take care of, and make use of the land you don't own it. And that's concerning land, are you seriously going to make the claim that owning the computer that you used to respond to this message somehow it being yours is theft from everyone else?
And you know what, that example with California, even if it's true, they still gave it to us. War is wrong no doubt, but those are the realities of it. The loser generally gives over ownership of the contested item. That doesn't mean it is theft. War is a barbaric conpetition and the us won that one and those are its spoils.
As to your point about the civil war, this is where you are full of shit. The south's entire industry was based on slavery, and the north didn't care at all about them. Lincoln would have kept the slaves exactly where they were if he felt that it would keep the union together. Me recognizing that good things happened as a result of that is not me supporting it. If that was the case then you can call me a nazi since a lot of what we know in medicine is a direct result of the horrible experiments nazi scientists allegedly conducted on the Jews. In the former case it was an unnecessary violence that led to the destruction of all the wealth in the United States at the time, yes some good came out of it, but that does not make the theft okay.
I am not being hypocritical in any way. And name one science that didn't start off on a pile of failures and misinformation. Times change and as they do the truth is revealed more and more. When it comes to truth that has always been the case. Morality is only morality if it isnt subjective. And you pushing Marxist idealogies is not going to change that.
7259430
What you fail to understand is that your moral absolutism has the exact same issue, with the added flaw that you can't even admit the issue is there, let alone deal with it rationally. You have yourself believing that you've got an objective source for your morals, but you don't. Just like everyone else, you believe what you can rationalize to yourself. But in your arrogance, you've decided that your morals are absolutely true, and therefore superior, and you are completely unable to admit that you can be wrong.
And as 7258618 explained so well, that belief is violent and poisonous. The best we can expect from people with your attitude is that you lot merely keep it to yourselves and don't use it as an excuse to hurt others for being "wrong". No, I take it back. The best we can expect from people with your attitude is that you one day learn a bit of humility and stop pretending that your subjective opinions are objective truth.
Oh, apropos of nothing, but science is a fluid and ever changing thing, about as relativistic a system as there has ever been. Just thought you might find that fact interesting.
7256631
7257387
About morality, I believe there are some morals that are universal. Specifically rape, murder, theft, kidnapping, etc. You know, the "basics". Every culture in the world no matter how primitive reacts badly to those things. Though, different cultures tend to have different views of what counts as one of those things. While moral relativity does exist, it tends to show itself as variations of moral absolutes. Both are true, both are right in their own ways, and co-exist in a symbiotic relationship. That tends to be true of most seemingly contrasting opinions.
For the record, Lincoln only freed the slaves in states that were "currently in a state of rebellion against the Union". None of the Confederate states were rebelling as they had already left the Union. Since the Constitution does not mention leaving the Union, it is constitutionally a right of the States. There were still some Union slave States he did nothing about and persisted for some time after the war.
Then the only explanation for the princesses not rescuing the enslaved ponies is pure cowardice. It would be like a Space Marine not rescuing civilians (...assume I mean the Salamanders or Celestial Lions, lol) out of fear of a handful of Ork Gretchin. Really? Seriously?
7274879 Um, they couldn't get to where the enslaved ponies were though. Yeah they could wipe out the armies there, but the place they come from and retreat to is unassailable, and even if they killed every last trog that wriggled out, they still wouldn't be able to reach the slaves.
7274865
On Lincoln. Let's make this clear: he hated slavery. His election triggered secession in several states because they thought he was going to infringe on their state given right to have slaves. Lincoln didn't originally intend to free the slaves because he knew he legally didn't have the power to.
So when Lincoln enters office it's into a nation on the verge of collapse, and he had to be careful about what he did. Both states surrounding the capital, his home state, and NC and TN all allow slaves, but are at this point still in the Union. As it was, Lincoln (probably overstepping his bounds) had to suspend Habeus Corpus and toss some legislatures into prison for a time to keep Maryland from seceding. He COULDN'T free the slaves because to do so would fracture an already divided nation. What did happen, however, is that the Confiscation Act was passed, which allowed federal troops to seize any property used to aid in the rebellion. "Property" also included slaves (it was argued that the Confederates would use their labor to build fortifications). Before 1861 was out slaves were flocking by the hundreds to Union lines.
No matter what some people born a hundred years later might come up with, I'll take the words of Frederick Douglas, a former slave who met Lincoln multiple times.
Sorry for the rant, passive on slavery!Lincoln is a huge pet peeve of mine.
Hahahahaha whenever you write a story, its pure gold.
7268642
7259430
The two of you are, in my opinion, suffering under the assumption that the other is wrong.
You are both right, and just don't see how this is true.
Moral Relativism: From the individual point of view, societies morals change much like the tide; constantly and consistently. This is even more obvious because of the ease of access we have to knowledge and information. People want to be free to do what they want, and the slow degradation of morals over the years contributes to this. What we consider perfectly fine today would be unthinkable to any of our great grandparents. This does not mean it is wrong, as without Moral Relativism you cannot know how to respond to a new situation properly in the modern day. The phrase "When in Rome" comes to mind. Morals were a certain way in the past for good reasons. Typically economic, social, legal, and even religious reasons. Us in the future have changed our Relative morals from theirs because our situations seem different.
Moral Absolutism: Looking at the laws and trends that cause them, and also logically thinking through what is good and bad for a society and people as a whole says that yes, there are things that are wrong, regardless of our personal Morals. Stealing, Rape, Murder, Theft. These are all things that hurt society in every instance, and if left unchecked can cause the moral degradation we can see in our society even now. Now I want to make clear I'm not saying Moral Absolutism is perfect. As it was said in this debate prior, if a man steals some bread it is up to the owner of the bread to decide what happens, or at lease that's how it use to be. I'm meaning everything we do is intrinsically good or bad for us, regardless of our belief.
Summation: Moral Absolutism is best phrased as the consequences of our actions. When we do something BAD, BAD stuff happens to us. When we do something GOOD, GOOD stuff happens to us. This is not something we, as people have the option of changing. That is just how the world works for us. Moral Relativism is how society sees things, and can at times, be used to change the intensity of Moral Absolutism, but that is based on the situation. For example, if you break the law, you should expect to get punished, not forgiven because you don't think the law is important because your morals are different then the countries. At the same time, you should not instantly condemn because the person has broken the law. The situation states how you should respond.
Personally: I feel more emphasis is being put in Moral Relativism these days than is healthy. As you can see from the above, I am on the Moral Absolutism side of the camp. This is because anyone saying "It's my life, and I can do what I want." is an idiot more interested in getting what they want now than thinking through the consequences of their actions. Society at the moment is pandering to the least common denominator, meaning the Relative Morals of the country is going down, lowering the average morals for the group.
Which is bad.
Which is why I'm putting in my two bits in this debate. On the internet. Where no one cares.
Crap... I just wasted my time didn't I...?
Nice intro, my only question is: Was Treehugger the one doing the intro?
And since apparently no one has done this yet:
One Bell to rule them all, One Bell to find them,
One Bell to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
In the Land of Tambelon where the Shadows lie.
Haven't read this, but:
From this description and the title I briefly thought this was a Goat Simulator crossover.
You know, I think I can see this happen.
can Grogar posses ponies if his body is destroyed?
I read the whole thing in the voice of Vic from Red vs Blue and replaced all "man" with "dude".
7536329
Literally cracked up laughing at this.
That does seem to fit perfectly.
7784631
Are you a genius , no don't answer that it should be clear to everyone that you are a genius
That.... That was certainly something.
I should get fucken stoned out of my mind sometime.... Whadoigot... Pot... Hashish... LSD... Peyote... Psilocybin... DMT... Amphetamines... Barbiturates... Nutmeg... Peanuts... Hydr-...not hydrangea. Not that one. I dunno, though, I have ODD knowledge, along with probably being on several lists somewhere. I know for a fact that I can't legally fly to Russia or China, simply by my parents being who they are.
Hey, guys, want a laugh? Try reading this whole chapter in the voice of Basehead from the Black Dynamite cartoon.
TreeHugger must be proud of her dad, I mean he's an accredited historian and he still found time to teach TreeHugger the value of Shrooms.
I like this narrator! Can we keep him Fizz!?
8779779
Nay! He is mine! A bad guy belongs to ThatBadGuy!
8793308
Guys, guys! I'm sure Mr. Shroomhead has enough availability for the both of you!
Just finished reading it. It was AMAZING I really hope you make more
7536329
I want one. Now.
Shrooms! I want some!
Anyways, great start so far. I can already see myself inhaling this story down the road.
Cheers
thats one hell of an into.
thumbs.gfycat.com/CalculatingInsignificantGuppy-max-1mb.gif
i really like the prologue
Great start.
Very Very interesting but I Really REALLY don't want to read about grogar doing the smex so I hope everything lewd is kept to a minimum.
🐉❤