|
|
Post by Pillar of Creation on Aug 8, 2011 18:05:37 GMT -5
I got to thinking after I told Wizard to confess Knoxx, could he be confessed again? I am stumped so what do you all think.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Great Wizard on Aug 8, 2011 22:30:58 GMT -5
I'd say if the confessor's power was stronger yes.
|
|
|
|
Post by Anthony on Aug 9, 2011 8:27:26 GMT -5
I don't think so. How do you destroy something that has already been destroyed?
|
|
|
|
Post by Pillar of Creation on Aug 9, 2011 10:25:22 GMT -5
I don't think so. How do you destroy something that has already been destroyed? Except that is not the purpose of the confessors power. It takes any love it can find within the person and amplifies it until there is nothing left but love for the confessor so the person will obey any command she gives. |
|
|
|
Post by unpopularprophet on Aug 9, 2011 16:43:14 GMT -5
But that love leaves no room for anything else, does it? I think that the love for the first Confessor couldn't be swept away by another's power, which only amplifies, as has been said. So it would have to latch on to another piece of love... Which wouldn't be there, as it would all have gone to the first Confessor.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pillar of Creation on Aug 10, 2011 0:22:12 GMT -5
According to Zedd, the only way to be immune to a confessors power is to love without question. The confessed being would not love the other confessor, but would still have love that her power could latch onto. Before you say "But all there is is love for Confessor A" there is more. A confessed being can feel every emotion in the spectrum but they all hinge on the love for confessor A.
|
|
|
|
Post by Anthony on Aug 10, 2011 10:38:21 GMT -5
But wouldn't they love the first confessor without question?
|
|
|
|
Post by Pillar of Creation on Aug 10, 2011 20:43:33 GMT -5
Yes but they wouldn't love Confessor B without question, and it is her who will be confessing him again.
|
|
|
|
Post by Anthony on Aug 11, 2011 9:01:45 GMT -5
AHHHH. I see what you did there. Man this is like the chicken and the egg.
|
|
|
|
Post by unpopularprophet on Aug 13, 2011 20:05:09 GMT -5
The chicken came first. The chicken must have evolved form a chicken-like bird that wasn't a chicken, and the egg wouldn't have been a chicken egg, but would have hatched a chicken.
Off topic.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pillar of Creation on Aug 15, 2011 8:35:01 GMT -5
Other creatures were laying eggs long before the chicken came along, so the egg came first.
Off topic.
|
|
|
|
Post by unpopularprophet on Aug 15, 2011 16:40:41 GMT -5
The egg must have come from a non-chicken, so the question is, are we talking of an actual chicken egg, or any egg, an actual chicken, or any creature that lays eggs? If the very last, than eggs obviously came after.
Very off-topic, indeed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pillar of Creation on Aug 15, 2011 20:16:17 GMT -5
The egg came first regardless. The offspring of a creature will exhibit the changes gained through evolution as they occur, the parent doesn't morph to match what their young will look like.
More off topic than you know.
|
|
|
|
Post by unpopularprophet on Aug 15, 2011 21:29:37 GMT -5
The first animals couldn't have come from eggs, look at the methods worms use to produce, and they are just about as basic as a animal can get. Animal came before egg.
Can barely see real topic on the edge of the horizon...
|
|
|
|
Post by Pillar of Creation on Aug 16, 2011 13:19:17 GMT -5
Worms lay eggs... Er egg sacs, but same thing just greater numbers.
Lost sight of the topic.
|
|
