The purpose of this blog is to provide a space for the now classic debate of Pirate vs. Ninja (started by Trey Barth and Blake Michelson about 6 years ago, seriously). However, our goal is not to continue the sophomoric argument of whether a Pirate or a Ninja would win in a fight, but to expand on the theory; to raise the dialogue to a new level that questions the very nature of warfare, survival, and existence as we know it.
To explain further, Blake and I have decided that pirates and ninjas fall into two larger, more encompassing categories: Warriors and Pillagers. Warriors, spearheaded by the Ninja, encompass any type of fighter who is tactically trained, methodical, and follows (to some degree) a higher order of justice, honor, or dedication to a greater entity. Pillagers, flagshipped by Pirates, include any person/creature/animal that is not trained through method and order, but through blood, rage, greed, infections, etc.
As an example, I will demonstrate a simple and brief classification; Robots and most Aliens are Warriors, Ghouls and Bandits are Pillagers.
People who become authors on this page are also allowed, and encouraged, to establish examples of new Warriors and Pillagers by posting pictures/videos, giving descriptions and facts, and classifying said individual.
And now to start off the discussions...
Are sharks Warriors or Pillagers?
4 comments:
Sharks like Jaws (ie killing people just for the taste of blood) are probably pillagers in your definition. However, I think that normally sharks are warriors because they answer to a higher calling (ie their hungry tummies).
Good point, Eve. While I do agree with you that sharks (other than Jaws) are Warriors, I think the higher calling to which they answer is not hunger, but the Code of the Shark, which requires sharks to be the most vicious killers in the seas.
I believe that the question of the shark poses a more difficult question..."Where does instinct fall into line?" Both the Warrior and Pillager show the instinct for combat, but often the Shark is acting on instinct alone.
Pillagers are often Nomads and have the instinct to survive, much like babies have inherint instincts to eat and sleep. That brings two questions...are all forms of pillagers "good" or "bad," or do they just pillage and all morality must be cast aside? And, where do babies fall into place?
In most cases, I think instinct applies to the effectiveness of the skills. For example, sharks have a very strong instinct to kill things in the ocean. Therefore, they are naturally very good at it.
But for other things, like Pirates or Snipers, instinct doesn't really play a role. Their driving forces come from things like greed and missions.
So, as you mentioned during our phone call, I think it's safe to say that instinct most often applies to deadly animals' abilities. In other words, instinct is the training animals recieve from mother nature.
As far as "good" and "bad"... well, I think we're getting into the realm of subjectivity and perspective with that one. For example, spiders are bad because they bite us and are scary. But, they're also good because they eat mosquitos, moths, and other pesky bugs. I'm sure with most things there are both good and bad ways to look at it.
But at the same time, I'm finding it difficult to think of Pillagers that would be considered "good." So your question remains open. It is a topic that will probably be brought up frequently within these dialogues.
P.S. Babie, like fields and teachers, are neutral. They do not really factor into battles of any kind.
Post a Comment