[007]
Tyoria
Current Version
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
\'\'originally type IV was simply worded in terms of \
to:
\\\'\\\'originally type IV was simply worded in terms of \\\"character for which the mental flaws/problems start to take over\\\"\\\'\\\'
Okay, I wish I had been able to see that. Because yes, that\\\'s severely problematic. You \\\'\\\'cannot\\\'\\\' equate all flaws in this regard, a character succumbing to their own vices is not at all the same story as one succumbing to insanity or stress or what have you.
\\\'\\\'As for cclospina, from what I remember she outright listed category I as morally worse than type IV\\\'\\\'
Edit history does not bear this out. Cclsopina came down on the side of: Type I is good or neutral, II & III are good, IV is neutral and V is evil. When you two were arguing about it before, I do distinctly recall it was the conflict between Type I and Type III, and how I had the qualifier \\\"good or neutral\\\" where III was just \\\"good.\\\"
Okay, I wish I had been able to see that. Because yes, that\\\'s severely problematic. You \\\'\\\'cannot\\\'\\\' equate all flaws in this regard, a character succumbing to their own vices is not at all the same story as one succumbing to insanity or stress or what have you.
\\\'\\\'As for cclospina, from what I remember she outright listed category I as morally worse than type IV\\\'\\\'
Edit history does not bear this out. Cclsopina came down on the side of: Type I is good or neutral, II & III are good, IV is neutral and V is evil. When you two were arguing about it before, I do distinctly recall it was the conflict between Type I and Type III, and how I had the qualifier \\\"good or neutral\\\" where III was just \\\"good.\\\"
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
\'\'originally type IV was simply worded in terms of \
to:
\\\'\\\'originally type IV was simply worded in terms of \\\"character for which the mental flaws/problems start to take over\\\"\\\'\\\'
Okay, I wish I had been able to see that. Because yes, that\\\'s severely problematic. You \\\'\\\'cannot\\\'\\\' equate all flaws in this regard, a character succumbing to their own vices is not at all the same story as one succumbing to insanity or stress or what have you.
\\\'\\\'As for cclospina, from what I remember she outright listed category I as morally worse than type IV\\\'\\\'
Edit history does not bear this out. Cclsopina came down on the side of: Type I is good or neutral, II & III are good, IV is neutral and V is evil. When you two were bickering about it before, I do distinctly recall it was the conflict between Type I and Type III, and how I had the qualifier \\\"good or neutral\\\" where III was just \\\"good.\\\"
Okay, I wish I had been able to see that. Because yes, that\\\'s severely problematic. You \\\'\\\'cannot\\\'\\\' equate all flaws in this regard, a character succumbing to their own vices is not at all the same story as one succumbing to insanity or stress or what have you.
\\\'\\\'As for cclospina, from what I remember she outright listed category I as morally worse than type IV\\\'\\\'
Edit history does not bear this out. Cclsopina came down on the side of: Type I is good or neutral, II & III are good, IV is neutral and V is evil. When you two were bickering about it before, I do distinctly recall it was the conflict between Type I and Type III, and how I had the qualifier \\\"good or neutral\\\" where III was just \\\"good.\\\"
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
\'\'originally type IV was simply worded in terms of \
to:
\\\'\\\'originally type IV was simply worded in terms of \\\"character for which the mental flaws/problems start to take over\\\"\\\'\\\'
Okay, I wish I had been able to see that. Because yes, that\\\'s severely problematic. You \\\'\\\'cannot\\\'\\\' equate all flaws in this regard, a character succumbing to their own vices is not at all the same story as one succumbing to insanity or stress or what have you.
The edit history doesn\\\'t go back quite far enough for me to trace \\\'\\\'all\\\'\\\' of the \\\"Type X is good versus Type Y which is Neutral->Evil\\\" back-and-forthing that was going on, but from what I can see, there A) was a \\\'\\\'\\\'lot\\\'\\\'\\\' of it, from \\\'\\\'several\\\'\\\' quarters -- and B) Cclsopina came down on the side of: Type I is good or neutral, II & III are good, IV is neutral and V is evil. When you two were bickering about it before, I do distinctly recall it was the conflict between Type I and Type III, and how I had the qualifier \\\"good or neutral\\\" where III was just \\\"good.\\\"
Okay, I wish I had been able to see that. Because yes, that\\\'s severely problematic. You \\\'\\\'cannot\\\'\\\' equate all flaws in this regard, a character succumbing to their own vices is not at all the same story as one succumbing to insanity or stress or what have you.
The edit history doesn\\\'t go back quite far enough for me to trace \\\'\\\'all\\\'\\\' of the \\\"Type X is good versus Type Y which is Neutral->Evil\\\" back-and-forthing that was going on, but from what I can see, there A) was a \\\'\\\'\\\'lot\\\'\\\'\\\' of it, from \\\'\\\'several\\\'\\\' quarters -- and B) Cclsopina came down on the side of: Type I is good or neutral, II & III are good, IV is neutral and V is evil. When you two were bickering about it before, I do distinctly recall it was the conflict between Type I and Type III, and how I had the qualifier \\\"good or neutral\\\" where III was just \\\"good.\\\"
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
\'\'originally type IV was simply worded in terms of \
to:
\\\'\\\'originally type IV was simply worded in terms of \\\"character for which the mental flaws/problems start to take over\\\"\\\'\\\'
Okay, I wish I had been able to see that. Because yes, that\\\'s severely problematic. You \\\'\\\'cannot\\\'\\\' equate all flaws in this regard, a character succumbing to their own vices is not at all the same story as one succumbing to insanity or stress or what have you.
The edit history doesn\\\'t go back quite far enough for me to trace \\\'\\\'all\\\'\\\' of the \\\"Type X is good versus Type Y which is Neutral->Evil\\\" back-and-forthing that was going on, but from what I can see, there A) was a \\\'\\\'\\\'lot\\\'\\\'\\\' of it, from \\\'\\\'several\\\'\\\' quarters -- and Cclsopina came down on the side of: Type I is good or neutral, II & III are good, IV is neutral and V is evil. When you two were bickering about it before, I do distinctly recall it was the conflict between Type I and Type III, and how I had the qualifier \\\"good or neutral\\\" where III was just \\\"good.\\\"
Okay, I wish I had been able to see that. Because yes, that\\\'s severely problematic. You \\\'\\\'cannot\\\'\\\' equate all flaws in this regard, a character succumbing to their own vices is not at all the same story as one succumbing to insanity or stress or what have you.
The edit history doesn\\\'t go back quite far enough for me to trace \\\'\\\'all\\\'\\\' of the \\\"Type X is good versus Type Y which is Neutral->Evil\\\" back-and-forthing that was going on, but from what I can see, there A) was a \\\'\\\'\\\'lot\\\'\\\'\\\' of it, from \\\'\\\'several\\\'\\\' quarters -- and Cclsopina came down on the side of: Type I is good or neutral, II & III are good, IV is neutral and V is evil. When you two were bickering about it before, I do distinctly recall it was the conflict between Type I and Type III, and how I had the qualifier \\\"good or neutral\\\" where III was just \\\"good.\\\"
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
\'\'originally type IV was simply worded in terms of \
to:
\\\'\\\'originally type IV was simply worded in terms of \\\"character for which the mental flaws/problems start to take over\\\"\\\'\\\'
Okay, I wish I had been able to see that. Because yes, that\\\'s severely problematic. You \\\'\\\'cannot\\\'\\\' equate all flaws in this regard, a character succumbing to their own vices is not at all the same story as one succumbing to insanity or stress or what have you.
Okay, I wish I had been able to see that. Because yes, that\\\'s severely problematic. You \\\'\\\'cannot\\\'\\\' equate all flaws in this regard, a character succumbing to their own vices is not at all the same story as one succumbing to insanity or stress or what have you.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
\'\'originally type IV was simply worded in terms of \
to:
\\\'\\\'originally type IV was simply worded in terms of \\\"character for which the mental flaws/problems start to take over\\\"\\\'\\\'
Okay, I wish I had been able to see that. Because yes, that\\\'s severely problematic. You \\\'\\\'cannot\\\'\\\' equate all flaws in this regard, a character succumbing to their own vices is not at all the same story as one succumbing to insanity or stress or what have you. The one is a TragicHero, the other is just a victim, period.
Okay, I wish I had been able to see that. Because yes, that\\\'s severely problematic. You \\\'\\\'cannot\\\'\\\' equate all flaws in this regard, a character succumbing to their own vices is not at all the same story as one succumbing to insanity or stress or what have you. The one is a TragicHero, the other is just a victim, period.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
\'\'originally type IV was simply worded in terms of \
to:
\\\'\\\'originally type IV was simply worded in terms of \\\"character for which the mental flaws/problems start to take over\\\"\\\'\\\'
Okay, I wish I had been able to see that. Because yes, that\\\'s severely problematic. You \\\'\\\'cannot\\\'\\\' equate all flaws in this regard, a character succumbing to their own vices is not at all the same story as one succumbing to insanity or stress or what have you.
Okay, I wish I had been able to see that. Because yes, that\\\'s severely problematic. You \\\'\\\'cannot\\\'\\\' equate all flaws in this regard, a character succumbing to their own vices is not at all the same story as one succumbing to insanity or stress or what have you.
