Reflections on the Book of Evil - Jezebeth Ryann

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jezebeth: Reflections on the Book of Evil

Sun Apr 24 12:40:25 2011

To: Ibiza

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The following are my initial thoughts on the "Book of Evil."  

Evil

I would first like to touch upon the subject of Evil, and the meaning of

Evil.  

The problem with using this word - "Evil" - is that is a subjective term. 

Let us start with the definition of the word, as most of us have learned it.

Evil - morally bad or wrong; immoral; wicked; sin; characterized or

accompanied by misfortune or suffering

Most everyone lives by what they believe to be the "right" way to live. 

Their own set of standards for how they chose their path in life.  Their own

morals.  Does this not mean that anyone who chooses to not follow that same

path through life is, to that person, evil?  They believe that person, and

how they are living their lives, is immoral.  Wicked.  Sinful.  

As for suffering, we are all capable of inflicting suffering upon others. 

Even if it is not done directly, or physically.  

Who among us seeks out to live a life contrary to what we believe?  Who

actively seeks to be "evil" in their own eyes?  Not a sane man.  So,

insanity aside, we all actively choose the path that we believe to be the

correct one.  A path directly opposite what each of us considers "evil."  

Evil for some may be a lack of order.  A lack of leadership or purpose. 

Pure chaos.  While to others, evil may be someone else telling them what to

do.  Evil can be peace.  It can be war.  It can be love, or hate.  It is

entirely dependent upon whom you ask.  

Therefore, to call ourselves "evil," is it not suggesting that we are living

a life contrary to what we believe to be the right way to live?  And that is

simply not the case with any sane man.  

Others have defined selfishness as evil.  Every being upon Algoron is

selfish, albeit perhaps in varying degrees.  Why does the Knight of Gareth

help someone?  Because, in his heart, he believes it to be right.  To help

that person.  But what are the motivations behind it all?  Behind it all,

he's doing it because it also makes him feel good, to be following a path he

considers righteous.  

It is in our very natures to look out for ourselves, and to serve ourselves.

The only truly selfless act is to sacrifice ones own life without believing

that they will be rewarded for it somehow in the hereafter.  

If Austinian is the God of Good, and Kwainin the Master of Neutrality, it

certainly stands to reason that Necrucifer would be the God of Evil. 

Therefore, I can see why some have chosen this term.  I believe both "Evil"

and "Good", however, to be misnomers.  As I said before, it is all relative.

The Book of Evil writes of the Antithesis approach to Evil.  In this

approach, one considers the position of Good, and acts the opposite.  As

explained by the book's author, the problem with this approach is that it

both lacks creativity and is defined by the opposite of what is Good. 

Ironically, is it not this very approach that even leads us to the word

Evil?  If the followers of Light are defined as Good, we must be Evil - the

opposite of Good.  However, as the author so aptly put it, we're letting

ourselves be defined by being the opposite of Good and lacking creativity -

and in this case, we're doing it to define our very philosophy.  

It is for this very reason that I believe so many of us have characterized

our beliefs with the word "Darkness".  It is not people trying to skirt

around calling themselves Evil - which, truthfully, is an understandable

enough reason.  It is all of us seeking to be defined by a new standard. 

Using creativity to identify ourselves not merely as the antithesis of

so-called "Good".  

In the end, however, the word we use to describe it is just that - a word. 

Call it Darkness, call it Evil...  In the end, it means the same to each of

us.  

Within this writing, for the sake of uniformity and understanding, I will

continue to use the term Evil in reference to Higher and Lower Evil, as

mentioned in the Book of Evil.  

Reflectionism

According to this text, I would be a reflectionist.  Obviously, I do not

believe myself to be "Evil", and have explained why it is incomprehensible

to me that anyone should ever choose to do so.  

At the end of the "Reflection" section, the author asks us a question.  "If

Evil and Good are the same, that is trying to be of a better moral position

than the other, then why is there conflict?  Certainly there appear to be

real differences between Austinian and Necrucifer.  However in the absence

of the personality of the Gods, would good and evil be the same?"  

I have been asked this same question, and it is absolutely an appropriate

question, given that the Knights of Storm live their lives much the same as

the Knights of Gareth.  

Magus Vadol recently asked it to me thusly: "But is it even a good idea to

adopt an identical system of leadership to your enemy?  What advantage do

you offer, then, instead of what the opposition stands for?  The issue

becomes philosophical only."  

Certainly, there are philosophical differences.  But the true difference

lies in intent (as well as capability, which I will touch upon later).  The

purpose behind our beliefs and actions.  You can have an identical system of

morality, but an entirely different purpose.  Your morality is merely the

path that you take to serve that purpose.  

Our intent could not be more clear.  We seek the fulfillment of the

Prophecy.  To see Necrucifer walk the face of Algoron, and change it as He

sees fit.  

The issue of what exactly He sees fit is where many of His followers differ

in opinion.  And rightfully so.  None of us can truly know or understand His

purpose or His plans.  

The Knights of Storm and those of what the book terms "Higher Evil" believe

that His coming will herald a time of unequivocal peace.  An end to chaos. 

A time to unite those willing to bend to His will, and to conquer those who

will not.  

His followers within Bloodlust perhaps see His coming, or at least the

transition period of His coming, as a time to lie, deceive, and steal to

their heart's content.  But what happens after this transition period, when

everyone is at peace?  Subverted to His will, or perished.  How will their

chaos continue?  Will they turn on others of His followers, only to continue

their lies, deceit, and stealing?  This is unknown to me.  Thankfully, most

of them seem to have not considered this.  

His Will, His Way, The Psalms, and His Tenets

These were obviously written specifically for what the book's author terms

"Higher Evil".  Which makes sense, since they are the only ones likely to

truly strategize the fulfillment of His Prophecy.  

The logic behind them all seemed quite sound, and lie along the same paths

as what I believe.  The actions defined within will serve to either convert

others to His will, or do away with those that cannot be convinced to sway

their path.  

These make use of honor as a tool to achieve these goals.  The difference

between "honor" VS "chaos" and "good" VS "evil" can be a very thin, hard to

understand line for many.  

But it is only with this honor and this sense of structure and order that we

can truly bring unification under His Eternal rule.  

The real reason behind its use lies again with intent, and also with

capability.  These so-called "Higher Evil" are the only real source capable

of the unity that we seek.  

Consider the Knights of Gareth.  Consider also that Austinian wishes to

unify all upon Algoron, under His rule.  Such a thing would never be

possible.  There would come a time when a Knight of Gareth, a member of

arguably the strictest and most rigid order upon Algoron, would simply not

be able to do what would need to be done to achieve this unity.  Killing an

innocent, young child that refused to bend to Austinian's beliefs, for

example.  

Consider another follower of Austinian, one who does not live by any set of

rules other than to "do good".  They could be convinced to kill this child,

possibly.  But they would not have the strictness or the order to keep chaos

from running rampant.  Algoron may be under Austinians rule, but one could

not call it "unity" in any sense.  

The same would hold true with persons of "Lower Evil" who were seeking to

bring about the fulfillment of the Prophecy on their own terms.  Chaos would

run rampant, bringing no sense of unity.  

Worst of all, consider a follower of Kwainin.  For them to even conceive of

the concept of unity is against their very belief system.  They

strive for eternal conflict.  Without this eternal conflict, there

is no balance.  Unification would be against everything they believe.  

"Higher Evil" are the only group capable of conceiving and implementing this

unification under one God.  

All followers of His Darkness certainly have their own view of the Prophecy

and what it shall bring forth.  Indeed, all followers of a God or Goddess

must have some kind of ultimate goal in mind for those of their faith.  But

it is His Prophecy, and the beliefs of the "Higher Evil" that truly set us

apart from the rest.  

     Acolyte Jezebeth Ryann