Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-32182236-20170602170443/@comment-27701762-20170603013341

TheHumanAmbassador wrote: Asriel Dreemur does. Asriel Dreemurr proves the statement is actually accurate. How could they have made it up if it turns out the thing is actually real later on? How were they this lucky, and why was this accepted in serious history, instead of disregarded as a myth? You keep bringing up the same non sequitur. Asriel Dreemur proves the concept true. But Asriel comes after the tablets are written and the illustration is created. Asriel does not prove that the illustration is of an actual creature that existed. As for being lucky, it has happened before, and given that this is a world created by an author, and not actual history, the chances that a prophecy or conjecture could prove to be true is going to be significantly higher than in real life. Meanwhile, plenty of concepts are taken to be true for many years, even when based on conjecture, before being relegated to "myth." Most myths themselves are originally told as historical tales rather than myths.

No, because that would mean a duo would easily be able to kill this monster, and the monster would just BARELY be able to overtake ONE human. But that would be enough of a basis for fear: if a monster defeats one human and takes their soul, then they are more powerful than another human, and can start adding to their power at an incredible rate.

That is, again, on the premise that they decide it has to be purely additive. Again, they could conjecture that it isn't purely additive. Conjecture is not always cleanly mathematical and scientific.

Who says the monsters are a peaceful race? THE MONSTERS. Why should we just blindly trust all the good things they say about themselves? Why should we doubt those things? This isn't some actual race we are dealing with that conforms to basic psychological biases that we are aware of. They are a fictional race created by an author who has established a particular narrative and carefully crafted their statements and behaviors. The author makes a point of calling them peaceful, why not take the author at his word about what he intended?

Which war didn't start due to a major event? The English Civil War is a pretty good example of a conflict that was bubbling for many years and eventually erupted simply by beginning.

They want to be seen as the good guys when they actually WEREN'T. If this event wasn't hidden, the population would know monsters were on the evil side during the war, which.. wouldn't be very good for the monsters.. More monsters would probably hate being a monster and try to side AGAINST the monster kingdom.. Sort of like how Chara hated humanity...

Except they also urge monsters to stay away from the thing that, in your theory, precipitated the war. Which would mean they are acknowledging that they are at fault.

If they wanted to paint themselves in a positive light, to say that they were unjustly treated by the humans, then why not just get rid of the whole "fearing us" thing altogether? "The humans were evil and so decided to kill us."

Moreover, why bother with such a negative description of the monster with a human soul, if A) they are trying to paint themselves in a positive light, and B) they are so certain that no human will enter the Underground, thus rendering the "let's make sure to avoid doing this again" angle moot?