There are better more controlled ways we can make the world interesting and introduce conflict than creating rampant evil things. Once was enough for me. A neutral god that creates challenges/dungeons is a way better means of fermenting conflict.
You know what, I'm sorry but I have to defend myself since it's now clear to me that if I don't, I'm just going to have people continuing to say this kind of thing even while I'm gone. I also have to consider that maybe you are honestly misunderstanding what I was aiming for despite my best attempts to explain, so I might as well seriously address the problems of what you're saying in a polite and earnest fashion.
Part of why I'm so offended on this point is that it implies I'm advocating for recklessly unleashing a mindless demon onto the world to rampage at random, which I have at no point advocated for under any circumstances. First of all, you have taken the First Principle out of context. Maybe the explanation after the opening statement was too unclear, so I will exposit my full ideas out in extensive detail for the sake of clarity, to make absolutely sure no one can misunderstand. The First Principle
does not make the bearer evil.
'But Zipf, it literally says it makes you evil! What else can that even mean?' Let's look at the rest of the text.
It says that evil is subjective, nonconformist, and then follows on that by saying the person who has the Mantle defines what it means to be evil for everyone else. The Third Principle further clarifies that the Breaker is able to see the world from a completely unbiased perspective without hatred or prejudice like an outsider, allowing them to come to their own conclusions about the world and act in a way that is true to themselves. The 7th Principle ensures that they are always forced to acknowledge anything that happens as a result. In other words,
it doesn't change the bearer into something they're not, and it forces them to be mindful of and engage with the damage they cause in a way that is honest to themselves. They remain a person with their own values and beliefs, their own personality, who knowingly takes on the Mantle as a burden to be carried and a mission to complete.
The Mantle rejects the concept of objective morality and declares that evil is whatever the bearer wants it to be, that good is a reflection of that as per the 4th Principle which also dictates
the Breaker will always lose no matter what, and then imposes that ideology onto the world for everyone else to follow after. They're a villain but they're the fairest and most honest villain you'll have in all of history, because rather than innately possessing negative qualities you're simply seeing only the worst in them, even as they become your personal antagonist with nothing but good intentions for the sake of your personal growth. It's an obligation they must fulfil and a role in other people's stories they willingly carry out, not an aspersion of their character.
Half the point of the Breaker is that they have a statement to make that they can only give as a villain. Sometimes on the way to losing they might build an empire and start a technological revolution, or destabilize the corrupt power structures of that very same empire a thousand years later, so the hero can sweep in and fix the problems they caused in exactly the way it needs to be a better system than it was before.
If the Breaker had no positive qualities, no one would want imitate them, and in later generations they could and maybe should be seen as heroes in themselves. They're only seen as evil because of the necessity it has to achieving their purpose, and also because their values and goals might very well be seen as revolutionary by their contemporaries.
The hero that appears in response to the Breaker isn't literally just some random force of nature or fated rival or something, it's another person who just fits into the Breaker's own worldview. Poetically, it represents the fact that even the person who should be the embodiment of evil themselves believes in something truly good to the point they would would become the Breaker for it, and that they can never overcome that thing should it confront them, not just because of fate or because it overpowers them or whatever, but because
the Breaker themselves wants the hero to win completely and utterly, to prove themselves right and demonstrate it to the world.
There is no form of conflict more controlled or limited than what the Breaker represents. It literally can't even cause permanent damage if you don't want it to as per the 6th Principle. Literally anything they do can be undone until their story ends, meaning
the only lasting consequences are the ones the people involved are willing to accept. It's the most kid's gloves form of conflict I could come up with. I literally tried so hard to make it as toothless and acceptable as possible so no one would be afraid of it.
So it hurts me to see people still mischaracterizing me as someone pushing ill thought out 'nonsense'. I was extremely careful to set things up in a way that it couldn't possibly lead to the world being destroyed or anything else like that happening. I tried my best to make it fit with the worldbuilding as it presently exists. I even tried to appeal to the people that wanted to give Nehu a happy ending, because as written if she became the heroic counterpart of the Breaker,
she would have a happy ending with absolute certainty regardless of anything else, because happy endings are hardcoded into the Mantle. As written, it could not 'corrupt' the Might of the Outslayer, nor could it kill Nehu without giving her a satisfying ending.
I can't emphasize this enough, there isn't any room for anything actually bad to happen as a consequence of this. At this point I feel defeated, why is a 'villain' in name only so terrible? Why are they worse than monsters who don't even have character motivations to justify their actions? Why does it feel like no one who actually disagrees with the Mantle understands that the Breaker isn't meant to just be another Outer God, or strengthening the Outer Gods, despite the fact that as described the Mantle of the Breaker does no such thing not even implicitly? The entire point of the Mantle is that it's supposed
to allow mortals to overwrite everything the Outer Gods were with their own belief systems, to eventually erase all memory of them by replacing their legacy with mortal narratives. It was made as a path of redemption for the Outer Gods in a moral sense, not some stupid empowerment system so they could destroy the world or whatever.
I would feel much less bothered about this if it wasn't obvious I was being taken out of context or ignored for the convenience of an argument. The issues I'm arguing against were addressed by the text of the Act itself. There have been multiple points where people have argued against the Mantle of the Breaker on the basis of things that aren't even within the Act, which I have never advocated for, and which I have explained are not part of the Act in any way, yet still I am subject to mean spirited remarks over it.
There isn't even actually a vote to bond the Might of the Outslayer with the Mantle of the Breaker. No one has created one and it's not part of my Act, meaning the only conclusion I can reach is that the people I was arguing with didn't read my Act and simply assumed it contained such a stipulation. If you don't like the Mantle I can respect that, but please at least dislike it for what it actually is, not based on this kind of misrepresentation of it.