"Far better to have a savage universe with a happy end than a happy universe with no hope." Oryx said this in the last verse of his Books of Sorrow. The desired "final shape" of the universe is sought after because he wants the universe to not end, and any weakness will lead to fragility, and fragility will lead to an end. They just want the long term survival for not just themselves, but the universe. On the subject of narcissism, I would argue that they are not because they completely recognize and accept that they themselves may not be the ones worthy to join the "final shape," and that may just be another weak species that gets rightfully eradicated by something stronger. There's an interesting thing Oryx said about evil as a social concept and label. When people do things that go against the rules of their society (like murder for example), they don't fit in with society, and they are labeled as evil, and this brings me to what Oryx said on the subject of evil, "And they call us evil. Evil! Evil means ‘socially maladaptive.’ We are adaptiveness itself."

"Kill everything to preserve life" is one of the most ass-backward things I think I've ever heard. But whatever. If you actually agreed with Oryx, you would be shooting up a school right now, not entertaining edgy hypotheticals.

Well it's not to preserve life per se, but to help the universe take some kind of new form that will not die (and they believe the universe will die without this). The mission is not to kill all life, but to kill all life weak enough that they are able to be killed. To them, if they can't kill you, then you are worthy of existence.

But killing can't build strength and it can't reverse entropy. And why kill "weaker" species? The "stronger" species would still exist regardless. It's not a net gain, it's a net loss.

You get to take what the weaker people have as your own. So its not a net loss....unless you try to actually implement the RATIONALIZATION for the evil of the Hive, as if it were a principled point of view. The Darkness that Oryx serves, however, I do believe has the simple goal of destroying life....and simply see the Hive as a necessary and useful tool to that end.

Transferring resources is not a net gain... at the very best you keep things neutral, but because conflict is involved, that's basically impossible...

It was never said whether or not they are trying to save it from entropy, in fact their end goal for the universe, and what they're trying to save it from is only described in metaphor, so it's kind of impossible to know what will or won't help in achieving it. Whatever the final shape is, I'm guessing it involves some kind of worm god space magic to meld "worthy" life into the fabric of the universe itself--this is just speculation on my part though.

Tyring to make rational sense of rationalizations will only give you a headache. At the end of the day, all Hitler wanted to do was re-ceate the Roman Empire under a German bootheel, and create a world **free** from all the peoples he hated. Everything else was self-justfiying bullshit.

I get that apparently some people can't separate real life from fiction when discussing fiction lore, so they always jump to things like an immediate Hitler comparisons in things like this, but even if we are making the Hitler comparison, it's a flawed one at best since the only real parallel you'll find is that "thy have some kind of goal, and they kill a lot of people".

A flawed philosophy is flawed philosophy whether it is real or fictional. A character defense---rationalization and intellectualization----is a character defense regardless of whether the person engaging in it is a real one or a fictional one. ...and the analogy to the [url=http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law]-godwinslaw!-[/url]...and the Sith...is an appropriate one. [i] Peace is a lie, there is only passion. Through passion, I gain strength. Through strength, I gain power. Through power, I gain victory. Through victory, my chains are broken. The Force shall free me.[/i] ----Code of the Sith. Nowhere in that doctrine do you see them saying that they'll do all sorts of horrible things. What you see is evil distilled down to its most BASIC form. Someone who sees a univese of conflict, not cooperation. Someone who only thinks of himself and his own desires...and sees conflict and the domination of others as a legitimate means of satisfying those desires. Except the Dark Side doesn't "free" a Sith. At first the Sith uses the Dark Side....but over time, like an addiction....the Dark Side eventually consumes the Sith and uses him or her to its own ends. Much like what has happened to the Hive. Which is why Yoda answered Lukes question about the schism between Light and Dark as he did in "The Empire Strikes Back": "Is the Dark Side more powerful than the Light? "No. Quicker. Easier. [i]More seductive.[/i]"

I don't agree with your claim on a supposed flaw in the philosophy. In the context of the Destiny universe with it's gods and space magic, and where killing things are actually metaphysically warps the universe to make you stronger, it is correct. On the subject of the final shape, we don't know if it's real or not, or if/how purging the universe of weak beings will help achieve this, so we can't say if it's just a rationalization, or whether it is an actual truth. If there is any flaw, than it has to be this lack of specifics regarding the final shape, and the mechanism to get to it (but it's a religion, so I'm sure they can hide behind "faith." Oryx and Savathun had an interesting talk about it in XLIV, Verse 5:2 — strict proof eternal). I don't think we're ever going to agree, so I think this comment chain will go on forever unless one of us gets bored :p

Like Yoda said. Quicker. Easier. More SEDUCTIVE. If your perspective on the Universe is one of seperation, Ego, conflict and the desire for POWER....then that philosophy has is appeal. If your perspective on the Universe is one of connection, Unity, coooperation and CREATION...then that philosophy is HOPELESSLY lost. Both are powerful. Just powerful in different ways to different ends. Any quest for power over others ultimately sows the seeds of its own destruction. Oryx has been successful because he has largely been able to pick off other species one at a time...and before they realize the threat that he and his allies represent. He did not have that advantage this time...and his intended victims (more or less) cooperated in assuring his downfall. Though the Cabal were not really a WILLING participant. Their actions (in securing a beachead and keeping the Hive aboard the Dreadnaugh occupied and divided, was just as key to our victory as the sacrifice the Awoken made in stopping his fleet at Saturn.

So your argument for the philosophy being flawed is just Oryx biting off more than he can chew (regardless of philosophy, he will always lose anyway because he is the antagonist and we are the protagonist in a conventional hero story)? Either was fine with dying (he says so in the end of the Books of Sorrow), and to him it just means he wasn't worthy of joining the final shape. Oh, I just remembered that a card suggested that Oryx' intention was to lose, and that the construction of the Touch of Malice is his true claim to immortality.

Stop moving the goal posts. Either you're going to break the Fourth Wall or not. You can't break it when its convenient to your point (He's the villian so he's destined to lose)....and then retreat behind an intact one when its covenient (its a fictional philosophy so not subject to real world constraints). That's circular reasoning...and logically flawed. Those who seek power through destruction and subjugation eventually destroy themselves. Either because their enemies unite to subdue them (which is what happened to Oryx)....or they succumb to internal division and decay when there are no external enenies to fear (The Romans). That is why (its been said) that the moral arc of the Universe bends towards Justice. Because---although there is the capacity within us to do evil---there is also somethign within us that will not suffer its presence nor its control over our lives forever. But at the end of the day, all that is beside the point. In listening to Oryx you are not hearing any sort of principled philosophy. You are hearing the self-justifying rationalizations of a sociopath. Things you can hear every day in the rantings of a serial killer, or a hardened career criminal.

Like I said, simply because he lost doesn't make his philosophy flawed. Anyone can lose regardless of philosophy, and the issue of making too many enemies can be evaded if you are sneaky enough and know how to manipulate enemies against each other or shift blame. Even a champion of justice can fall as a result of making too many enemies, so it's not even relevant. The idea that the universe has a moral arc is frankly just silly. Morality is the invention of social animals to facilitate order within their societies. Different societies have had all sorts of different rules about what is considered moral; even the Greeks who are known as the champions of freedom have completely condoned atrocities like slavery, yet the nations surrounding them didn't rise up in a moral outrage to stop it. Europeans came to the Americas and wiped out millions of the indigenous peoples, but no outraged international community rose up. You can cherry-pick examples from history all you like to fit that supposed moral-arc theory, but atrocities have happened all the time without any sort of "moral-arc" kicking in to correct it. The philosophy was not a justification for Oryx to act on some inherent violent desire. The philosophy predates Oryx, and in fact he did not want to do the things that it required of him (hence the first time Xivu Arath killed him for being soft). To claim it's some justification after the fact is clearly false. You didn't seem to acknowledge this part of my last comment (as well as some other parts that I can only assume that you just have no rebuttal for) so I'll reiterate: if the Sword Logic and the quest to save the universe was merely an excuse, he would not have risked himself losing power and his own life by allowing his court to openly challenge him to combat at any time. The evidence is not on your side. (this is probably my last comment on this, anyway, are you arguing in character? because I'm not sure, but I assume you are given how you have a problem with me breaking the 4th wall)

[i]Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? 17 Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Therefore by their fruits you will know them.[/i] -----Mathew 7:15-20 New King James Bible. [i] Rationalizations are the ad hoc smoke that billows up from emotional fires. You do not treat rationalizations as if they were reasoned, principled arguments. Anymore than you try to put out a fire by standing around waving at the smoke. If you wish to put out a fire, you PU T OUT the fire. If that is not enough, and the fire keeps coming back. Then you put out the arsonist."[/i] ----Drew Westent "The Political Brain". [i] "Sir. Some men just want to watch the world burn."[/i] ----Alfred Pennyworth. "The Dark Knight" (2008). You are making the mistake of trying to evaluate a philosophy in a vacuum. Without standing back and LOOKING at the consequences that stem from ACTING upon those ideas (Jesus' quote from the New Testament.....you shall know those who serve evil by looking at the consequences of acting upon their teachings.) Oryx's philosophy is flawed because he sold his soul to a force of Darkness and Destruction, in return for the promise of power and immortality. In short, it was the classic "Crossroads" Deal with the Devil. It is flawed because.....for the (questionable) benefit of a few, it brings unnecessary and untold suffering and death to billions. ...and if one followes the philosophy to its conclusion----and the Hive succeed in destroying ALL life forms other than themselves. WHAT----OF ANY ENDURING VALUE----HAVE THEY ACHIEVED?? Nothing. The story of Oryx---and the Hive----is a sad story. But then most stories of people who succumb to evil are sad. The fall of Anakin Skywalker to becoming Darth Vader was the sad story of a kid who was too fearful and too clinging to risk losing those he loved. So he become a monster that destroyed the loved ones of otehrs by the millions. Who only saw himself as "Restoring Order" to the Galaxy. Not slaughtering and enslaving it. Monsters never see a monster in the mirror.

I don't think you understand what a philosophical flaw is. Seems like a philosophical flaw to you is just you personally not liking it, and the supposed "flaw" is not based on any logical error. Last I checked something being a "deal with the devil" is not a logical fallacy. It's ok to not like it, but don't conflate your preference to some knowledge of a flaw. Secondly, you're misrepresenting the goal. As the Hive see it, the universe will end, [b]that will truly be nothing[/b]. If they succeed, and they wipe out all weakness, then the universe will take a final self-sufficient perfect form; [b]that is not nothing[/b]. Secondly, the goal is not to wipe out all other life, it's to wipe out all other life that happens to be weak enough that they can be wiped out. If there is life out there so strong that they cannot be wiped out, the Hive would agree that this life is meat to join the final shape. On the subject of consequences of philosophies, the Hive moved from a lowly short-lived species that were about to be wiped out by cataclysm, and now they have risen to a vast interstellar civilization of immortals that have dominated for over 20,000 years, and continue to remain a colossal power. Even Oryx who has seemingly failed still lives on as the immortal ravenous heart within the Touch of Malice. On top of that, there are still two more Hive queens of similar power as Oryx out there. In terms of consequences, the Hive are still doing great, and it's all thanks to their philosophy. Funny that you should bring up the consequences of philosophy when you bring up Jesus, especially considering how many wars and atrocities have been committed in his name -- sure they would not be what he intended, but that is the consequence. The irony. Seems like you're ignoring a bunch of important points that I made (even after I pointed out that you ignored it, and reiterated it for you), and instead of arguing against my points, you're just throwing a bunch of quotes and Star Wars references at me as if the words of those people have some merit that surpasses actual logic. The fact that someone said something that you can quote is not a substitute for arguing a point. At this point I'm actually wondering if you're trolling or not because of the persistent ignoring of key points. For example, I referenced the actual stuff from Books of Sorrow to support that it is not just some rationalization (the philosophy predating him, the unnecessary risk of allowing court challenges, him initially disobeying it), and yet you don't actually address these points to try to refute them, but instead just throw more quotes. Furthermore, the burden of proof is on you to present evidence (from the lore, not random Jesus and Star Wars quotes) that the philosophy is just a rationalization because you're the one making the claim, and I already presented my evidence for why it isn't (though I'm sure you'll ignore it again). I don't see any point in arguing about this if you're just going to ignore my points. I'm not replying again after this for reasons I just explained, but in the future, please learn to actually argue a point instead of just throwing quotes as if it's some substitute. Have a good day. I'm done, so The Last Word is "Yours…not mine." - Renegade Hunter Shin Malphur to Dredgen Yor (see what I did there? :p)