Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9462558" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Okay so this is a thing I've seen a lot and I want to respond to it here."This is much better than the old thing" is not actually a rebuttal to the statement made. Imagine a person with celiac disease has starved for a week, and they're given a sandwich (meaning, something containing gluten.) The sandwich is better than starvation, that's a simple fact. Yet it is also a simple fact that a meal containing gluten is still not good. The starving person should still eat that sandwich, even though it will almost certainly give them intestinal issues, because starving is worse. But "better than starving to death" is damning with faint praise.You like it. Clearly, for you, this is not "celiac patient chooses sandwich over starvation." But it's not a rebuttal to a person who does have celiac saying, "I know I'm starving, but do you have any food that doesn't contain gluten?"You don't need to defend your liking of something. But to dismiss someone else's dislike because of the (alleged) improvement over what came before is a non sequitur at best. I am judging this black dragon, not any others that have been drafted in the past. I would like this black dragon to be other than what it is. It could still be different from what it currently is, and be different from what black dragons were in the past.Dragons are not creatures that evolved. This argument always strikes me as profoundly silly. Even in the context of actual D&D worlds, dragons are products of divine creation. They come from intelligent design, not evolution. They can have whatever traits their divine creator wished them to have. And all of that is still subordinate to Doylist perspectives. You could quite easily invent whatever reason you like.</blockquote>

Verification