View Full Version : Was X's attack on Y after Z morally justified?

2009-07-14, 10:17 AM
YOU decide. Discuss.

2009-07-14, 10:24 AM
Xykon does not attack himself and there's no Zykon, thus... I do not get what this thread is about... *blink*

Jan Mattys
2009-07-14, 10:25 AM
Hell no.

That poor Y sure didn't deserve that treatment!!!

...it was all K's fault!

2009-07-14, 10:27 AM
No, but not for the reasons that most people think. It's not because X should never have attacked Z in the first place! /Rant

2009-07-14, 10:44 AM
What I really want to know is what W stood to gain from the whole thing...

2009-07-14, 11:11 AM
What I really want to know is what W stood to gain from the whole thing...

You're forgetting that 789.

2009-07-14, 11:20 AM
We get it, there are some ridiculous debates lately. Don't add to them by contributing to this nonsense debate spam.

2009-07-14, 11:20 AM
You're all wrong. It's a question of allignment. If you pause to consider that Y is lawful instead of neutral then the whole arguement shifts to Z's actions instead.

2009-07-14, 11:22 AM
You're forgetting that 789.

Of course, it all make sense now. Hopefully, C and H will be able to stop them before his plans come to fruition otherwise W will conquer the world!

But about to the original question, I agree with DBJack. Z was the real villain here. X was just doing his job.

Roland St. Jude
2009-07-14, 12:38 PM
Sheriff of Moddingham: Thread locked.