Honestly, I have to say that I am very impressed. It's not every day that an adaption can go so far out of its way to insult the source material and anyone that liked it, but by Jove, Amazon has not only suceeded, but passed with flying colors. Dragonball: Evolution is literally a better adaptation than this.
How did you all react to the reveal that now (or rather, from August 1st) axiomites are going to be part of the Aeon family? I shall ignore it, like I do to everything Paizo related that isn't first edition Pathfinder.
I just find it irritating that the list of important redeemed characters in official pathfinder products is still skewed towards conventionally attractive female characters who are probably light skinned, dark haired, chaotic aligned, and probably associated with demons in some way (almost as if a certain memberof the staff has a type). I understand that there are plenty of non female non attractive characters who also get a shot at redemption, but the highest profile ones always seem to be. Of all the Runelords of Thassilon throughout the entire history of the Empire the only canonicaly redeemed one I am aware of is Sorshen, who is a famously beautiful slender dark haired woman with pale skin. She's also historically speaking CE with ties to the Abyss. Of all the Demon Lords of the Modern Era of Golarion the only canonicaly redeemed one I can think of is Noctulia, who is again, a famously beautiful slender dark haired woman with pale skin and is a succubus. You can't get more demonic than that. Of all the ascended fiends in general the one who gets the most story focus that I've ever encountered is the Succubus whose name I can't pronounce from WoTR. Say it with me, she's a extremely beautiful slender dark haired woman with pale skin and is a succubus. If it sounds like I am repeating myself that is because I am. I understand that Paizo may be trying to whitewash their early history so they don't come across as slut shaming for portraying certain evil woman as promiscuous, but if anything it comes across as patronizing. It makes it feel as though they don't believe beautiful women are capable of being heartless wretches, even though I am well aware there are plenty of examples of ones who are. It's just the way it makes me feel, and I can't help it. I just want to see more variety in big names getting redeemed. I want to see Krune decide that malevolence gets in the way of relaxing and chill out. I want to see Haagenti feel that other demons don't appreciate his talents and try to find people who do. I want a Nabasu to murder Tsukiyo's priests and be cursed with a sense of justice. I just want to be able to not know at a glance which character is most likely to have a heel-face turn in the not to distant future.
So Zaister, if you're here and answering questions, would you mind previewing the bestiary for us?
So does this do beg a question now that Planar Adventures is out: WILL the Watchers of jandelay get involved?We'll see! YES, WE WILL.
Huh, I've seen this particular tiefling before. Valeros, I'd suggest leaving right now, or a missing flagon will be the least of your problems.
Know that much in the way of knowledge can be found upthread, yea, even such things that ye seek.
Is Jandelay one of the demiplanes described in the book? Absolutely. Now, I would like to get more details about the Watcher, as it's one of the most notorious creatures in the book. From which plane does it come?They're headquartered in Jandelay. All signs point to yes.
I fear your personal distaste for WotR does not affect it's canonicity as an Adventure Path.
LN Planar Race + a few other tidbits: I honestly don't know. The section for Planar Adventures was rather brief. Mr. J said that there would be spells, feats, archetypes, and magic items (but did not give any examples), said the book would detail where deities live (with a grim hint that learning where ol' Z-K lives would shed light on what caused his transformation), would have three player races (the "aphorites" which the only things he said I transcribed in my previous post, and the ganzi and the unnamed race from the boneyard, both of which he remained silent on) and the name of the CR 30, and that was it in terms of Planar Adventures news
LN Planar Race: Is named "aphorite(s)" (not sure on the spelling, but that's what it sounded like) and was described as "downgraded axomites" IIRC
CR 30 monster discusion: I thought the Thallasic Behemoth was Leviathan?Nope. The thallasic behemoth is in fact a thalasic behemoth. It is NOT Leviathan. I believe Mr. Directosaur intentionally used ambiguous phrasing to throw us off the scent (i.e. he meant that the Thalassic behemoth wasn't Leviathan, not that the CR 30 wasn't)
And the last adventure path of first edition is...: The Tyrant's Grasp (Yes, as in Whispering)
And the CR 30 is...: Leviathan.
Can anyone tell us a little about the "Chart caster" Mesmerist? Ah, so he's an astrologer.
Folks, remember, book covers are not for us invested die-hard fans. You'd all buy this book even if the cover was jet black, for all that's worth. Covers are for distributors, retailers and casual bookstore browsing people who sometimes make their purchase decision based on the cover, not the content. That is true. However, there is a difference between complaining about what's on the cover because you don't like the art or the scene depicted, as opposed to believing it doesn't fit with what the books actually about. Let's take a look at Bestiary 6 for example, shall we. Personally, I think it's cover looks very nice, but there are some who don't share that opinion. Maybe the reason why they don't like the cover is because they don't like WAR, maybe it's because they wanted Krampus, or the Wild Hunt, or Lord Varklos, or a giant starfish for all I know, on the cover instead. All of these complaints may have their supporters and detractors, but the fact of the matter is that the cover gives you an excellent idea on what the contents are going to be like. Bestiary 6 is big beefy book, and one that is full of high CR monsters, from demigods to dead gods, and the cover shows this, with Mephistopheles, Charon, and one badly out-of-his-depth brimorak hanging out in some unidentified hellscape. Even without any Pathfinder knowledge whatsoever, you can tell by the giant six-winged demon, the hulking humanoid bearing a blazing blade, and by the red-eyed boatman whose craft is decorated by severed heads that this book has some rather dangerous denizens. Contrast the cover for Planar Adventures. While I also happen to like the cover as an art piece, it doesn't sum up it's purpose as well as it could. The astradaemon is a nice touch, but the background is comparatively drab. It doesn't exactly conjure of images of allying with archons, proselytizing with psychopomps, or haggling over trinkets in the Great Bazaar. To be sure, as many have pointed out, there are many points of the planes that do look like the background of this picture, but so do many points in the Prime Material Plane. It just doesn't have that distinct "Dorothy-you're-not-in-Kansas" factor that the planes can really exemplify. Even with the Astradaemon, it doesn't necessarily scream out "Planar!" to the uneducated masses of non-Pathfinder buying people. Even a few people earlier in this thread expressed confusion over what type of creature it was, and it stands to reason that by shear virtue of being both subscribers (seeing how they saw the picture in the newest AP before it was posted online) and frequenters on the boards they would have greater knowledge on Pathfinder than your average player. Now, all of this is really just a bit of minor grumbling, and it doesn't change the fact that I'm going to buy it as soon as I am able, no matter the cover, but I still feel that the complaints regarding the cover are not unjustified, however minor they be.
Honestly though, the paladin will probably stay Lawful Good in 2nd edition whatever the majority (or vocal minority, be as it may) says. This is not because I believe that Paizo doesn't listen to it's fanbase or anything like that, rather that it is a matter of realpolitik. You see, this is rather like that issue a few months back about Folca and The Book of The Damned. Most of the forum disagreed with the sentiments of the OP, and I presume most of the greater Pathfinder buying public wouldn't have been overly shocked that a book about the embodiments of pure evil would have some rather unpleasant things in it, but at the end of the day Paizo decided to remove Folca from subsequent printings of that book. As Paizo let the material get published in the first place and several of their employees had defended the inclusion of Folca in the book previously on the boards leads me to the conclusion that, at the very least, they did not feel quite as strongly about that particular issue as those raising it did. The fact of the matter was though, that Paizo could better afford to go against the wishes of the majority than to lose the patronage of a minority. While fellows such as Gorbacz and myself were certainly disagreed with and were unhappy about that decision, it wasn't like we were going to stop buying Pathfinder books over something like that. The ones who took issue with Folca? They were entirely ready split with Paizo over that issue. In the end Paizo made the correct business decision. The reason why I went on that long anecdote just now was to draw parallels in between that situation and this one. While folks like Wei Ji the Learner or Diminuendo would certainly dislike having Paladins only be LG, I doubt it would be anything they'd stop playing Pathfinder over, with my primary evidence being they're playing it right now. Even among people who strongly dislike alignment restrictions, the amount of them who would completely refuse to play a system they otherwise like just because paladins are LG only is infinitesimal. HWalsh and folk like him on the over hand? This is a hill they're are ready to die on. I expect they would refuse point-blank to play in game that had non-Lawful Good paladins in it, and not wish to use any system where such a thing is the default. Regardless of your feelings on the matter, this sentiment represents losing players (and by proxy, customers) for a change in one line in the write up of the paladin class. Paizo will, in all likelihood, keep Paladins LG. It is better to irritate part of your fanbase than to lose another part all together, and with the edition change and everything, they won't want to give anyone a reason to stay with this one when they don't have to. After all, it's just good business.
THIS THREAD IS BEING QUARANTINED DUE TO HERETICAL SENTIMENT! PLEASE REMAIN SEATED AND PREPARE TO BE PURGED. AVE INHERITOR!
All of this sounds good to me. I love evolution. Perhaps, but I fear we may be on the wrong side of it.
First off, monsters are a lot easier to design. We've moved away from strict monster construction formulas based off type and Hit Dice. Instead, we start by deciding on the creature's rough level and role in the game, then select statistics that make it a balanced and appropriate part of the game. Two 7th-level creatures might have different statistics, allowing them to play differently at the table, despite both being appropriate challenges for characters of that level. Well fellows, I'm afraid that's the dealbreaker for me. If monsters aren't made the using the same sort of rules as the adventurers, it's just not for me. It's what drove me away from Starfinder, and I doubt my reaction will be any different this time. I can only hope someone or other takes the mantle of Pathfinder First Edition in the same way Paizo took the mantle from 3.5, because as far as I can tell, this new edition won't be the next system for me.
"The Spammers are getting better at anticipating our moves.
"TO SPAM A WEBSITE YOU MUST KNOW IT. NOT SIMPLY ITS DISCUSSION FORUM, BUT ITS THREADS. GAMES. USERS."
...So, any chance of this book stating up more axomites? It would be nice to have more lawful neutral outsiders and axomites seem to be a natural candidate for such an expansion, even it it was just stats for when some of them combine to complete a task that is beyond them individually.
I occasionally resurrect threads with my primary motive being that I hope that some of my own posts from earlier in the thread will get more exposure and get the recognition they deserve. ...It is not often successful.
Great to see you back, Nethys! I was starting to get worried!
[rant]Nah mate, the WORST trade for any archetype ever is for the Paladin archetype Empyreal KnightAbilties aren’t always traded out equally for Archetypes, it’s just how they’re structured, you have to look at the Archetype as a whole rather than on an ability by ability basis.I mean, if we don't choose to look at these things holistically, the Water Dancer trades Evasion for Burn, which might be the worst archetype trade of all time. Voices of the Spheres: At 2nd level, an empyreal knight learns to speak and read Celestial, if she could not already. This ability replaces divine grace. The worst part of it is, if you already know celestial, either because you're aasimar or you just spent 1 skillpoint in linguistics, you are completely out of luck. You just lost Divine Grace, ability so nice 9th level casters have been known to give up 2 levels of spell casting for, in exchange for absolutely nothing. If somebody can show me a paladin build that is so skill starved that they would willingly exchange divine grace for one skill point, I'll take away everything I ever said about this trade, but as it stands, all other archetypes look better in comparison.[/rant]
What's a Gorgas?
WAR! Good God! What. Is. It. Good. For? It's good for you! It's good for me! Oh war, what is it good for? It strengthens the economy!
Well, I am sorry that this is the decision that Paizo has chosen to make, but I respect Paizo's right to make it. I guess I'll just have to move up The Book of the Damned in my queue of books to purchase so I can get the complete package before it's too late. For likely the last time in this thread, Malefactor out.
I think they might have been referring more to the save penalty vs Aboleths. Yes, but slimehunter trades in the +2 to non-aboleth mind affecting effects (and corresponding -2 against aboleth enchantments) for a +2 against against aboleth spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural abilities, so if anything it's even better for a campaign like this.
You peasants actually need a specialized thread to justify favoriting your own posts? Posers! I've doing that for years without any outside prompting.
Well, if we are going back to what "4th century monks" thought were sins, as you put it, then Nocticula does fit the classical definition. You see, traditionally speaking, it was not considered to be so much of a sin to merely feel lust, as that sort of thing is necessary for offspring and nobody wanted the church to die off because nobody had children, but it was to inspire it in others, as it could lead others away from the monogamous in wedlock relationships church officials required (hence the requirement of modest dress found in some denominations, and why sex is seen as fine in wedlock) and as such, by your own qualifications, Nocticula is prime example of such of thing, as she has absolutely no shame in flaunting what she has in order to tempt the righteous off the proverbial straight and narrow. As such, it is no more out of tune for an embodiment of lust to be extremely revealing and provocative than it is for wrath demons to be muscular and violent, pride demons to have an overly inflated sense of their own appearance, or sloth demons to appear indolent and overweight. Just because you don't like how a sin is personified doesn't mean it isn't a valid personification of the concept. Malefactor out.
Alright then, just wanted to make sure I wasn't inadvertently adding to the mods workload, thank you for the response.
I'm just glad no one gave King Mogaru levels in Cavalier so he can't do Green Knight... ;) BRB, know who the BBEG will be will be in next campaign.
I wonder, does Pathfinder need a daemon of pedophilia? Does Folca really add anything to a campaign? Has any GM ever said “You know what my campaign needs? A fiend that molests children!” At least two people seem too think it adds something to their games, and judging from the amount of favorites those post received, such opinions aren't what one what one would call uncommon or unpopular. Does your game need to have Folca in it? Probably not, if the thought of having it in their makes you uncomfortable, but the nice thing about Pathfinder is if something isn't to your taste, you don't have to have it in your game. If your DM is looking to add Folca to your game (or if one of your players/ another player is) you can simply talk to them, politely explain that it makes you uncomfortable, and request for it not be put into play.Most people would accept the request and take the game in a direction in which all the players can enjoy themselves. If they refuse, then you can either request the help of the other members of the group in convincing them, to the extent of booting the person who is making you uncomfortable out of the group if necessary, but if you are unable to sway the other members of the group, or if doing what I proposed would make you feel uncomfortable, you can just leave that group, which is really what you should do if nobody in the group cares enough about you the care if what they're doing upsets you. No Pathfinder is better than Bad Pathfinder, after all. Still, assuming everyone in the group is okay with it, and the DM wants to use him, why shouldn't people be able to use Folca in their home games, as long as nobody is being hurt by it?
I love the Batarang. Especially the ones Terry McGinnis got to use. Batman Beyond is criminally underrated show.
Why not? NPC's need stat blocks too you know, and you have to have an obedience feat to qualify for several prestige classes. I am well aware that a DM is perfectly free to give an NPC whatever abilities he wants, but some DMs (like myself) prefer to (templates excluded) build our NPCs with the same rules the PC's themselves have to follow. It's not entirely fair to my players if I ignore the prerequisites of prestige class in order to free up feats and skillpoints for things that will make killing the players easier, and it can feel more satisfying to play by the rules and live by the roll of the dice, than to go "This NPC has an undispellable freedom of movement effect on him with duration of constant. It's DM fiat, I don't gotta explain crap!" There is nothing strictly wrong with playing that way, and I would be lying if I said I never gave an antagonist an ability that wouldn't typically be available to them, but on the whole, I like it when we are all on the same playing field, and that is why I like Obediences for deities that I would NEVER let a player near with 39 and half foot pole.
Ah, yes whataboutism, the tactic commonly used by the USSR to deflect criticism towards them by pointing out failings of the western world. While that doesn't change the fact that USSR may have done those things, it also doesn't mean that the things they pointed out weren't true, at least, not by default. If the pot calls the kettle black, is being a hypocrite, it is true, but that doesn't change the fact that the kettle is still black. As for my comment about Fandarra, it was not meant to be linked with my previous post, it was just that I felt it was odd that people were complaining that evil (quasi)deity did evil things,so I went looking for the worst thing a non-evil god wants their followers to do, which could misconstrued as Paizo believing that the action wasn't an evil act (whereas with Folca, I can't see anyone looking at the portfolio a neutral evil daemon and going "Gee, What a swell guy!") and found Fandarra, who, being a true neutral goddess could theoretically lead someone to believe that human sacrifice isn't an evil act and posted my findings as what I thought an example of something that could legitimately lead to someone arguing that killing a sentient being for no other reason than "my god wanted blood" to be non-evil. I apologize if I seemed to be doing something else, and try to make my intentions clearer in future posts.
Yeah, I get that child horrible and all, but what I do get is why only child abuse? Why don't we see this same reaction for the obediences that require torture or murder or anything like that. Why is it only child abuse crosses that line, but none of the other awful things you can do to get power (such as graveknights sacrificing 13 good aligned creatures and then committing ritual suicide in order to become an undead monstrosity) do? Why is child abuse the pinnacle of evil in a way nothing else is?
Honestly, seeing how worked up people in this thread are getting about the possibility of player playing a neutral character who worships the daemonic harbinger of child abuse (if the DM isn't paying attention and the player's a dick) imagine their reaction when they find out you can be the Neutral Good worshipper of a goddess who requires (for lack of a better word) "Human" Sacrifice. I mean, at least Ragathiel requires them to be evildoers guilty of crime, what's her excuse for staying neutral?
Strictly speaking, I don't see anything here as a moral wrong on Paizo's part. Oh, you could say it is wrong in the sense that if they didn't print Folca they wouldn't have deal with threads like this, but that is a matter of practicality rather than morality. What happened was Paizo published a book called the The Book of the Damned said it would focus on the fiends (i.e. the races of outsiders that are literally made of pure evil), the leaders thereof (i.e. those ruthless and powerful enough to not only survive, but thrive in an environment made out of evil, with their peers constantly trying to make them fail and suffer for all eternity), and finally the worshipers the aforementioned monsters. They then specifically noted at the beginning of the book that you may find the contents of the volume disturbing and unpleasant, in order to warn people who may find the deeds of beings of pure evil distasteful, with specific notice that the "foul boons" gifted to their most devoted worshippers. After that, it should be of no great surprise after being told that you may not like what demon lords and archdevils do for kicks and giggles, you find that you don't like what one of the being of pure evil asks his followers what to do. At that point, it is kind of like reading The Bacon Lover's Cookbook and complaining that food inside isn't kosher, I mean, yes it's true, but on the other hand, what were you expecting from something like that? The second point is that no real person has been hurt by this. Okay fine, some people might of been reminded of traumatic experiences they or those close to them have suffered in the past, but 1)The book opens up with warning about the contents of the book (Nicely provided by Gorbacz earlier in the thread) letting them know that that was a possibility, and 2) The same thing could be said about other demon lords if someone had or had a loved one who committed suicide, was murdered, sexually assaulted, robbed, assaulted and so on and so forth, but if being pure evil can't actually do evil things, that calls their supposed misdeeds into question if they are limited to being the moral equivalence of saturday morning cartoon villains. Unlike what happened in the late unpleasantness mentioned in passing earlier in this thread, no actual people have been hurt by this psychotic or his depraved minions. No children have scarred for life, and no families have lost a son or a daughter at Folca's hands because none of the preceeding people exist. What horrors Folca has forced unto the world are entirely up to you. He could be the greatest threat to children everywhere, with everyone knowing at least one person suffered at his cultist's hands, or he could have been killed so long ago that even the empyreal lord who slew him no longer knows whose skull adorns her pike. It's all up to you and your group. Themes such as these are not unknown within the realms of entertainment, writers such as Stephen King and George R.R. Martin have had plots with child predators in them before, as have popular movies television shows and (probably) video games. why is Paizo uniquely at fault for having similar themes as possible addition to their game as opposed to all these others? If anything, Tabletop RPGs are perhaps better suited to such themes than other media. While I can only hope that the kids manage to escape from and defeat Pennyworth in IT, I can take personal initiative Folca and his cult never hurt anyone again, something I could never do as passive observer to a media. So I must ask again, what has Paizo done wrong? Just my 2 cp though.
If I decided to use Folca cultists in campaign, yes. Sure, Folca is not right choice for every or even most campaigns, and I'd make sure everyone at my table would be okay with exploring such themes, as this is a sensitive issue for many, but if I felt that it was something I wished to explore and everyone else was okay with it, then maybe I would. Let it be known, however, that this would not be a game of "watch the children be horribly abused while you can do nothing about it", it would be "hunt down the horrible piece of rectum that's hurting children and destroy him so utterly that he shall be deafened by the shrill sounds of his own screams". You talk a great amount about fallacies, but you are committing some of your own. Just because I am, if not comfortable but open to allowing Folca and his cult into my games does not mean I condone his actions, rather that I am more accepting of villains being truly vile monsters who my players must put down posthaste. Now I understand that this is heavy issue for many people, and do not expect you to have Folca in your home games, but why would it be so terrible for other people to have them in theirs?
Anything short of direct, explicit action on the part of the company means that Paizo continues to profit from a book that published rules with specific in-game advantages for child abuse.Sure, but the OP isn't just expressing displeasure they're demanding action and sooner rather than later not just personal contrition. So my question is more bluntly, what does a company owe a consumer after admitting a mistake. What is the proper way to handle an admitted mistake in a book that has already been published (knowing that recall is not happening.) So? This is for EVIL people, who do EVIL things. I mean, yeah someone is going to go "well, you can be a neutral worshipper of Folca" and yeah, RAW says you can, but that runs into the same problems as being a Chaotic Neutral worshipper of Socothbenoth, who's pretty much demon lord of rape, which is RAW says you can, but basic human decency says you can't. I mean, I would understand this uproar if this obedience was for a good or even neutral deity, but not only is Folca a neutral evil deity, but he is a Daemon, a fiend so evil that devils and demons team up with celestials to combat. No reasonable person is going to look at Folca and come to the conclusion that Paizo supports child abuse. And as for unreasonable people, do you really think someone who is legitimately okay with pedophilia is going to go "Gee wiz, I wish their was a mechanical benefit for abusing kids, because otherwise, I just won't bother." I still have not heard a compelling reason why we must remove all mentions of Folca, even though using the same logic we shouldn't let any villains kill people because someone who is okay with murder might think that the game encourages killing random innocents. Bad guys are supposed to BAD things so that the players realize they are BAD and as such have an incentive to brutally kill them in order to stop them from doing anymore BAD things.
No that is only one thing you can do. If you actually looked at the spell, you would know that it can
Really you're getting awfully offended over something that isn't even the worst thing Paizo has "encouraged" people to do by mechanical benefits being able to be drawn from it. Do you think Paizo promotes cannibalism because of the Cook People hex? That they encourage drug use because of the Psychedelic Psychic Discipline? That they promote self harm because of Abraxus's Obedience? That they support skinning humans to use their skin for drums like for Angazhan? That they support torture because Andirifkhu requires you to torture something smaller than you to death? Of using a child's bones to carve incantation's to your flesh? Burning things alive for Flauros? Drowning someone in swamp water and impaling it's corpse for Gogunta? Gyronna's is just making ANYONE's life worse, no age required? Do you really think Paizo wants you to do these things? If not, why do you think that Paizo specifically wants you to torment children?
Nocticula is demon lord of lust. She has a charisma of 40. One of her abilities is actually called "Seductive Presence" for Shelyn's sake! It is one thing for random women to be drawn in a sexual way, but this the queen of all succubi, if anything, it would be weird for her not to be drawn in that way. Dear lord, what's next? Being afraid people will be offended at religious themes in the game and getting rid of the celestials and fiends? I rather not go back to the 1980's level on censorship if it's all the same to you. Mature themes can happen is this game. If you don't like it, don't use it at your table, but don't try and force everyone else to play like you because something that offends you. Malefactor, out.
I never said just because killing someone is legal it is necessarily morally right to do it, only that it wasn't murder. Of course, just because something is illegal doesn't mean it is morally wrong, just as somethings legality doesn't make it right. All that being said Lady-J continues to be under the delusion that killing people is always EVIL!!!! , nevermind the fact that the literal Heavenly Host seems to have no problem using violence to defeat evil. Still, if nothing else this thread has shown the lengths people will go to to ignore evidence contrary to their own preconceptions.they are ok with it because they see it as a necessary evil that needs to be carried out but that doesn't change the fact that its still evil So let me get this straight. Archons, Azata, Agathions, Angels, & Manasputra, all of whom are literally made out of good, to the point they still radiant goodness even if they somehow become a different alignment, and whose likelihood of doing evil deeds is about the same as you finding an ice elemental on the sun, are willing to let go of their own principles the moment it is convenient? You live in a sad little world if you believe that to be an action a good person would take, let alone the actions of a paragon of righteousness. You have a grasp of morality fundamentally at odds with that of the Pathfinder Roleplaying System, which is fine, but it is of no great shock that when you try to apply them to a radically different moral system you will have issues. The problem you have with paladins isn't on the game's end. It's on yours. Malefactor out.
Then, Lady-J, that would be a breach of international law, and as such still illegal, and as such, would be murder. It's not as hard of concept as you're making it out to be.not all government sanctioned activities are legal just because the government does something doesn't make it ok, of government wrote legislation to starve half the country they rule it would still be illegal as it would be a violation of their human rightsthe only difference is the last two are government sanctioned murdersIf the government sanctions the "murders" within a legal framework, they are by definition NOT MURDERS. Murders are when you kill someone ILLEGALLY. If the law has circumstances where you can kill people then that homicide Is. Not. Murder. This is not me redefining words on you, this is the LITERAL DICTIONARY DEFINITION of this word. I never said just because killing someone is legal it is necessarily morally right to do it, only that it wasn't murder. Of course, just because something is illegal doesn't mean it is morally wrong, just as somethings legality doesn't make it right. All that being said Lady-J continues to be under the delusion that killing people is always , nevermind the fact that the literal Heavenly Host seems to have no problem using violence to defeat evil. Still, if nothing else this thread has shown the lengths people will go to to ignore evidence contrary to their own preconceptions.
not all government sanctioned activities are legal just because the government does something doesn't make it ok, of government wrote legislation to starve half the country they rule it would still be illegal as it would be a violation of their human rightsthe only difference is the last two are government sanctioned murdersIf the government sanctions the "murders" within a legal framework, they are by definition NOT MURDERS. Murders are when you kill someone ILLEGALLY. If the law has circumstances where you can kill people then that homicide Is. Not. Murder. This is not me redefining words on you, this is the LITERAL DICTIONARY DEFINITION of this word. Then, Lady-J, that would be a breach of international law, and as such still illegal, and as such, would be murder. It's not as hard of concept as you're making it out to be.
the only difference is the last two are government sanctioned murders If the government sanctions the "murders" within a legal framework, they are by definition NOT MURDERS. Murders are when you kill someone ILLEGALLY. If the law has circumstances where you can kill people then that homicide Is. Not. Murder. This is not me redefining words on you, this is the LITERAL DICTIONARY DEFINITION of this word. In the Immortal words of one Inigo Montoya "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means" |
