Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Saeviomagy" data-source="post: 2351487" data-attributes="member: 5890">Here's the thing about assumptions - they're a valuable tool. If I explain my assumption to you, and you refute it in a polite and intelligent manner, then I gain some understanding of the situation. If you don't refute it, then again - I gain some understanding of the situation - namely that the situation is as I had assumed.It is only when I ACT on the assumption without confirming it that anyone is going to suffer.You brought up the possibility that a vampire could not gain sustainence from animals. Further you seem to classify feeding from animals as some sort of horrendous evil act.Eating meat = murder. Humans cannot gain sufficient sustainence from vegetables. Therefore paladins cannot adventure with anyone who is not a vegetarian. That's the sort of leap that you're making to say &quot;paladins can never adventure with a vampire&quot;.Maybe you could actually put forward a convincing argument here, instead of ad-hominem stuff...Sure - but drinking someone's blood isn't necessarily torture. My dictionaries primary entry for &quot;torture&quot;, and the only one which doesn't mean that paladins cannot attack another creature, is &quot;The infliction of severe bodily pain, as punishment or a means of persuasion&quot;. Drinking someone's blood to live doesn't come under that heading.The only one which it MIGHT come under is &quot;A cause of severe pain or anguish&quot;, which basically covers any violence caused to a person... And that means the paladin can't take part in adventuring AT ALL.Oh, you mean like saving the world?You just said that anything that follows an assault on someone is a crime. Prior to that you said that causing anything (including animals) harm was evil.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Saeviomagy, post: 2351487, member: 5890"] Here's the thing about assumptions - they're a valuable tool. If I explain my assumption to you, and you refute it in a polite and intelligent manner, then I gain some understanding of the situation. If you don't refute it, then again - I gain some understanding of the situation - namely that the situation is as I had assumed. It is only when I ACT on the assumption without confirming it that anyone is going to suffer. You brought up the possibility that a vampire could not gain sustainence from animals. Further you seem to classify feeding from animals as some sort of horrendous evil act. Eating meat = murder. Humans cannot gain sufficient sustainence from vegetables. Therefore paladins cannot adventure with anyone who is not a vegetarian. That's the sort of leap that you're making to say "paladins can never adventure with a vampire". Maybe you could actually put forward a convincing argument here, instead of ad-hominem stuff... Sure - but drinking someone's blood isn't necessarily torture. My dictionaries primary entry for "torture", and the only one which doesn't mean that paladins cannot attack another creature, is "The infliction of severe bodily pain, as punishment or a means of persuasion". Drinking someone's blood to live doesn't come under that heading. The only one which it MIGHT come under is "A cause of severe pain or anguish", which basically covers any violence caused to a person... And that means the paladin can't take part in adventuring AT ALL. Oh, you mean like saving the world? You just said that anything that follows an assault on someone is a crime. Prior to that you said that causing anything (including animals) harm was evil. [/QUOTE]

Verification