![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
conuly
SO glad he finished the recent arc, so I'm not updating every 5 minutes anymore!
I read the fora when I'm super bored. Don't know why, it just irritates me. I can only hope most of those people are posting because they're bored and not because they mean the crap they're spouting.
(And for the record, I'm sick of the V gender debate. Seriously? Can we not have an opinion on this character until and unless we see them naked? Not that that would help, given that V's more or less said outright that V lacks any sort of firm gender identity other than "none of the above".)
So the big thing now seems to be "was it evil for V to cast familicide?"
Evidence for yes is: One shouldn't kill babies and children, including unhatched infants; the spell was *invented* by somebody whose soul had been consigned to blazes; V's thoughts ahead of time indicate that V only did this to hurt Mama Dragon - which, however much she had it coming was still a little classless; both the folks above and below think this was an evil act.
Evidence for no is: V is good or neutral so it can't have been evil; Roy once made a weak defense for killing a dragon as being "good" because "it's scales weren't shiny?" and Miko-the-Paladin agreed with him; black dragons are evil and anyway Mama Dragon started it.
Now, it's that middle argument for "V did something GOOD there" that concerns me. I always figured that line was a throwaway line to show how off-kilter Miko's view of morality was. I was not aware that we were supposed to take it seriously or consider her ethical views valid or reasonable.
But you know, I have a copy of Start of Darkness here with me. And guess who wrote the preface? That's right, Miko, the girl herself! Let's see what she has to say on the subject of evil....
This story, however, takes the simple and undeniably true premise that all evil creatures are uniformly and irredeemably evil and deliberately confuses the issue by showing us that some villains may perform evil actions for purportedly noble means. Do not be swayed by this rhetoric, however: we all know that every being of the same alignment is indistinguishable from one another....
She goes on for this for a while and then proceeds to slash us all to bits for continuing to read the book despite her warnings - reading the book (which she has not) that ascribes "motivations" to evil beings is clearly an evil act for which the only response is "immediate eradication".
Yeeeeeeeeeeeah. I think I'll continue to not take advice from her, thanks very much. I'll align my moral code somewhere back in the realm of the sane and pragmatic. And maybe I'll learn to not read the threads over at GitP as well!.
I read the fora when I'm super bored. Don't know why, it just irritates me. I can only hope most of those people are posting because they're bored and not because they mean the crap they're spouting.
(And for the record, I'm sick of the V gender debate. Seriously? Can we not have an opinion on this character until and unless we see them naked? Not that that would help, given that V's more or less said outright that V lacks any sort of firm gender identity other than "none of the above".)
So the big thing now seems to be "was it evil for V to cast familicide?"
Evidence for yes is: One shouldn't kill babies and children, including unhatched infants; the spell was *invented* by somebody whose soul had been consigned to blazes; V's thoughts ahead of time indicate that V only did this to hurt Mama Dragon - which, however much she had it coming was still a little classless; both the folks above and below think this was an evil act.
Evidence for no is: V is good or neutral so it can't have been evil; Roy once made a weak defense for killing a dragon as being "good" because "it's scales weren't shiny?" and Miko-the-Paladin agreed with him; black dragons are evil and anyway Mama Dragon started it.
Now, it's that middle argument for "V did something GOOD there" that concerns me. I always figured that line was a throwaway line to show how off-kilter Miko's view of morality was. I was not aware that we were supposed to take it seriously or consider her ethical views valid or reasonable.
But you know, I have a copy of Start of Darkness here with me. And guess who wrote the preface? That's right, Miko, the girl herself! Let's see what she has to say on the subject of evil....
This story, however, takes the simple and undeniably true premise that all evil creatures are uniformly and irredeemably evil and deliberately confuses the issue by showing us that some villains may perform evil actions for purportedly noble means. Do not be swayed by this rhetoric, however: we all know that every being of the same alignment is indistinguishable from one another....
She goes on for this for a while and then proceeds to slash us all to bits for continuing to read the book despite her warnings - reading the book (which she has not) that ascribes "motivations" to evil beings is clearly an evil act for which the only response is "immediate eradication".
Yeeeeeeeeeeeah. I think I'll continue to not take advice from her, thanks very much. I'll align my moral code somewhere back in the realm of the sane and pragmatic. And maybe I'll learn to not read the threads over at GitP as well!.
