Posted by Vex on August 26, 1999 at 16:00:51:
In Reply to: Re: questions about this battle posted by sparky on August 26, 1999 at 14:57:46:
> > > Vex > Nahh...I have to disagree here also. While by definition it is an "unholy" attack, it is a commune, which draws its powers from the gods, which (whether good or evil) makes it a holy attack. So it's unholy, but that means it's holy. Make sense? Nah, not to me either. Look at it this way, though. An invoker casts earthquake and this is neither holy, nor 'unholy'. It is just plain and simply, 'not holy'. Now a druid goes and does the same thing, summoning the powers of nature to cause an uprising of stone and earth to destroy his opponent...this is a holy attack in nature (ah pun, what?) because it's a commune. > damn, I confused myself. Well fine no more alcohol for me tonight. I must disagree. Your attempinting to rationalize that holy would refer to anything divine in nature, while holy has the implications of being something good and righteous. An evil fire giant would not gain holy powers from his gods, he would gain divine powers, but nay holy, instead receiving unholy powers. Unholy having the association of being evil and satanic. To the point about a druid, a druid is neither good nor evil, and his magic would simply be that, divine, neither holy nor unholy. Make sense? I think the reason everyone assumes anything is holy stems from todays popular religion which contains only one god, and so therefore anything divine must in nature be holy, however, your failing to take into account this is a fantasy realm, and holyness is associated with goodness, and there are evil gods that want nothing to do with goodness...
> > No, they're unholy to an evil god, which is just the way an evil god likes it...
Vex