I supose Im getting more and more gulity to that one. I still very much standing behind the statements to Indrik and Octavius.
As for yourself, I understand your personal experience tend to extend towards Enweil, but it has nothing to do with the current subject.
My example of Enweil was not to criticize the actions taken towards it. If any of it surprised me, it was how long it took.
It was claimed that realm destructions are always bad, by people who took no issue to it in the past and who express intent to repeat it in the future. It's easy to go about and say "they deserved it", "they forced me to do so", or "there was no reason not to do so", but that's just casting off one's own responsibilities. We always have choices, and if we have convictions, then we are able to make harder choices in order to pursue them. If one only applies a principle when it suits them, and doesn't bother when it doesn't, that's not a true conviction. If one really thought that destroying realms were bad, one would not let one's peers and allies to go about and do it, he'd try to find ways to avoid it. That's what the example of Enweil was for. No effort was done. Did he have to try? Absolutely not. Is he a bad player for not having tried. Not really, no. But if he really thought that realm destructions were universally bad, Enweil would have been a good way to show it. It's not the easy choices that define us, it's the hard ones.
