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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Scion" data-source="post: 1762453" data-attributes="member: 5777">I am actually going off of the question posted rather than assuming it is true already.You are assuming that it is already correct and trying to draw parallels where they just do not exist. Trying to stretch out meanings and place them in other areas where they simply do not fit (especially the attempt to link speak with dead and animate dead, the parallels attempted there simply fall apart on too many levels to be helpful).Actually, I dont feel that I took it out of context at all.You stated that you had some reasoning, which I had just gone through disproving yet again, and then after that you stated that Rule 0 is there for a reason.But, if something is incorrect in the core then obviously it should be changed in the core. Hence, you telling me that it is ok I can just change it falls within the oberoni fallicy. It is not ok, it is simply an arbitrary decission. Nothing you have said disproves that. In fact, the majority of your arguements effectively say that it is true therefore it is true and then give some convoluted steps that dont match up or prove anything as a 'proof'. Not useful.I have specifically broken down your arguement and pointed out the flaws that kill it.Arbitrary decission to make it evil still stands.Once again, you do realize that neutral does exist? Lets go through a rundown of the alignments.Lawful GoodLawful NeutralLawful EvilNeutral GoodTrue NeutralNeutral EvilChaotic GoodChaotic NeutralChaotic EvilLooks like there is neutral all over the alignment system. In fact, 5 out of the 9 have neutral as part of them. Only 3 have good, only 3 have evil, only 3 have lawful, only 3 have chaotic. Looks like the neutrals have it.Also once again, just because something isnt good does not make it evil. Just because something isnt evil does not make it good.Where are the rolling eyes when they are most needed.It isnt about treating them poorly. Slaves can be treated very well indeed, but that does not change the fact that they are slaves.Since animals have an intelligence, and animated dead/objects do not, it sounds 'more' evil to subjugate the animals than it does the others. After all, the others simply dont care, they have zero feelings, whereas the animals might wish to simply roam free. Now who is evil?Meaningless. I could say the opposite and be just as 'correct' (as in, not at all). After all, negative energy can make it much easier to subdue rather than kill. That has to be a good thing.Sure, it does harm, but then so does everything else effectively.It simply does what you have it do. Most everything can be used for evil and most everything can be used for good.Animals are definately aware of what is happening around them.Having animals (beasts of burden/pets/whatever) is evil by this definition.</blockquote>

Verification