Fate/Grand Order Story and Lore (CONTAINS SPOILERS)

[Deathhappens]

Do you want us to define what evil is now? Are you being serious?

No, I want you to read what I wrote RE: definition of good and evil. Which you apparently didn't.

[Zurvan]

So humiliating people for fun is evil, then? Why?

Well, how would you describe evil, and don't give me "there's no definition", if everyone's definition is different I'd like to hear yours.

[Deathhappens]

Well, how would you describe evil, and don't give me "there's no definition", if everyone's definition is different I'd like to hear yours.

There IS no definition. I could give you mine and you could type yours and Zork's and probably most of Beast's Lair and match on "yeah humiliating people for fun is bad", but that would still be nowhere near universally accepted. And by definition of the word "definition", there never will be.

[Iceblade44]

Everyone can have a different opinion over one thing or another. But you can also have people having a consensus where they agree on certain points. Evil and good are examples. Whether an action is considered good or evil depends on a case to case basis, but you will have people agreeing on certain behaviors and actions to be generally considered not good and evil. Purposeful beating just to get a get a kick out of it. Ask people and they will all say that is bad behavior.

[Rafflesiac]

There IS no definition. I could give you mine and you could type yours and Zork's and probably most of Beast's Lair and match on "yeah humiliating people for fun is bad", but that would still be nowhere near universally accepted. And by definition of the word "definition", there never will be.

So why are you whinging about TM's so-called lack of definition for its alignments when definitions don't exist?

[Balthizar]

There IS no definition. I could give you mine and you could type yours and Zork's and probably most of Beast's Lair and match on "yeah humiliating people for fun is bad", but that would still be nowhere near universally accepted. And by definition of the word "definition", there never will be.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/evil?s=t

[Deathhappens]

So why are you whinging about TM's so-called lack of definition for its alignments when definitions don't exist?

Without a definition, they're pointless. Useless. Arbitrary. They may as well not exist.

I'm just going to start requoting myself, at this point.

[Rafflesiac]

Without a definition, they're pointless. Useless. Arbitrary. They may as well not exist.

I'm just going to start requoting myself, at this point.

But definitions don't exist, you said so yourself. So it's impossible for things to have meaning, and thus everything is arbitrary. Just let go my man

[Deathhappens]

1) The Nasuverse explicitly does NOT use the D&D alignment system (and thus, the D&D alignment definitions). This is important.

But definitions don't exist, you said so yourself. So it's impossible for things to have meaning, and thus everything is arbitrary. Just let go my man

.

[Rafflesiac]

There IS no definition. I could give you mine and you could type yours and Zork's and probably most of Beast's Lair and match on "yeah humiliating people for fun is bad", but that would still be nowhere near universally accepted. And by definition of the word "definition", there never will be.

.

[Deathhappens]

.

Which is why if you're using the term and want others to understand what it means, you need to give your definition to go with it. It's really not that hard.

[Rafflesiac]

Well, how would you describe evil, and don't give me "there's no definition", if everyone's definition is different I'd like to hear yours.

There IS no definition. I could give you mine and you could type yours and Zork's and probably most of Beast's Lair and match on "yeah humiliating people for fun is bad", but that would still be nowhere near universally accepted. And by definition of the word "definition", there never will be.

.

[Zork Knight]

So humiliating people for fun is evil, then? Why?

Because it's selfish, harmful to others and futile?

[Deathhappens]

.

Difference is, I'm not Nasu or Higashide and my definition doesn't matter because I'm not the one giving characters alignments without explaining WTF these are based on beyond "that's just what they feel like".

Are you trying to act dumb or are you actually dumb?

[Wandering Swordwoman]

I love this thread

What is Neutral Evil again?

I mean, what do they mean by Neutral?

[Rafflesiac]

Difference is, I'm not Nasu or Higashide and my definition doesn't matter because I'm not the one giving characters alignments without explaining WTF these are based on beyond "that's just what they feel like".

Are you trying to act dumb or are you actually dumb?

I'm still wondering why A) you care so much and B) why you got so ticked off by someone reading material about a character and going "yes, this is consistent with what came before and is good".

[Zork Knight]

First part is the Law-Chaos axis
So it means that the character is neither too porderly/honored/authoritarian nor too wild/rebellious

[Deathhappens]

I love this thread

What is Neutral Evil again?

I mean, what do they mean by Neutral?

The only one who knows that, apparently, is Li.

- - - Updated - - -

First part is the Law-Chaos axis
So it means that the character is neither too porderly/honored/authoritarian nor too wild/rebellious

Alright, get some sleep while you can.


1) The Nasuverse explicitly does NOT use the D&D alignment system (and thus, the D&D alignment definitions). This is important.

It's not even a Law-Chaos axis, "Balanced" and "Mad" are in there too.

[Rafflesiac]

Balanced is NA for Neutral

[Zork Knight]

Balanced is a mistranslation, Mad is in the Ethical Axis (Good-Evil) and maybe means that the character is too irrational to be properly judged.

You don't call a natural phenomenon evil, after all.