Shard l Shard of Charity

[CB!]

Kael, I think you're focusing on the wrong part. A virtue does not make it virtuous. Virtue of Charity. and since the card name would be "Shard of Charity", there's no reference to the "Virtue of" part in the card itself.

^^^ THIS!

[Kael Hate]

Kael, I think you're focusing on the wrong part. A virtue does not make it virtuous. Virtue of Charity. and since the card name would be "Shard of Charity", there's no reference to the "Virtue of" part in the card itself.

vir·tue   /ˈvɜrtʃu/  Show Spelled[vur-choo]  Show IPA
–noun
- conformity of one's life and conduct to moral and ethical principles; uprightness; rectitude.

1. Pick a virtue from the list below.

Forcing someone to give is not charity in any sense of the word.

[CB!]

Kael, I think you're focusing on the wrong part. A virtue does not make it virtuous. Virtue of Charity. and since the card name would be "Shard of Charity", there's no reference to the "Virtue of" part in the card itself.

vir·tue   /ˈvɜrtʃu/  Show Spelled[vur-choo]  Show IPA
–noun
- conformity of one's life and conduct to moral and ethical principles; uprightness; rectitude.

1. Pick a virtue from the list below.

Forcing someone to give is not charity in any sense of the word.

Charity is a virtue.  The card paints the picture of charity.  Forcing charity on your opponent is a proper use of the card.  Nobody is going to play a Shard of Charity that makes you donate 2 quanta to heal your opponent.  That's absurd.  If you really want to be virtuous, you might as well not even start the battle.  As your goal is to defeat your opponent.

[Kael Hate]

Charity is a virtue.  The card paints the picture of charity.  Forcing charity on your opponent is a proper use of the card.  Nobody is going to play a Shard of Charity that makes you donate 2 quanta to heal your opponent.  That's absurd.  If you really want to be virtuous, you might as well not even start the battle.  As your goal is to defeat your opponent.

Defeating your opponent has nothing to do with holding virtue.
Being Charitable would be giving up your own quanta for benevolence.

With this card, I would have the effect either:
- Trade your Quanta for Healing, Representing you giving your power to the meek and in return gaining wellbeing
- Trade your life for Quanta or cards or creatures showing you giving your lifeblood and the poor in turn returning you with gratitude.

In either case you are not holding anything over your opponent but showing true to the virtue of charity and offering donation, an act or instance of presenting something as a gift. The reward for a gift is thanks, gratitude, or favour. This is Charity.

[padewan09]

Defeating your opponent has nothing to do with holding virtue.

It is not virtuous to restrain your opponent. To do so is not to live conforming to the moral and ethical principle of restraint but instead to apply law to someone else.

The second had to do with defeating the opponent... but you called it non-virtuous. If you have to restrain your opponent to win... why is it excepted from "defeating your opponent has nothing to do with holding virtue"?

[Astraic]

Charity is a virtue.  The card paints the picture of charity.  Forcing charity on your opponent is a proper use of the card.  Nobody is going to play a Shard of Charity that makes you donate 2 quanta to heal your opponent.  That's absurd.  If you really want to be virtuous, you might as well not even start the battle.  As your goal is to defeat your opponent.

Defeating your opponent has nothing to do with holding virtue.
Being Charitable would be giving up your own quanta for benevolence.

With this card, I would have the effect either:
- Trade your Quanta for Healing, Representing you giving your power to the meek and in return gaining wellbeing
- Trade your life for Quanta or cards or creatures showing you giving your lifeblood and the poor in turn returning you with gratitude.

In either case you are not holding anything over your opponent but showing true to the virtue of charity and offering donation, an act or instance of presenting something as a gift. The reward for a gift is thanks, gratitude, or favour. This is Charity.

hmmmm well charity can work all kinds off ways.... you towards your monsters or quanta
but my shard of charity holds the virtue of charity because....
1. the player's opponent is the holder or the virtue of charity and it does say generously donates
2. true charity asks for nothing in return
3. 3. a charitable act or work, in the opponent's eyes when donating quanta to heal you isn't that pretty charitable itself?
4. since the card isn't stackable you are not asking for too much and being too greedy
 
you can say that yourself is a *USERNAME HERE* charity and your opponent is being charitable towards you
OPPONENT- is charitable because he donates
PLAYER- #4- only one shard of charity can be in play so you are actually thinking of the well being of the opponent as well....if it was stackable then you are not having a (5. benevolent feeling ) towards the other player....

[Kael Hate]

Defeating your opponent has nothing to do with holding virtue.

It is not virtuous to restrain your opponent. To do so is not to live conforming to the moral and ethical principle of restraint but instead to apply law to someone else.

The second had to do with defeating the opponent... but you called it non-virtuous. If you have to restrain your opponent to win... why is it excepted from "defeating your opponent has nothing to do with holding virtue"?

What? it isn't excepted.

The first as I said states that defeat of ones oppponent has nothing to do with holding the virtue of charity.
The second as I said states that the restraint of ones opponent has nothing to do with you holding the virtue of restraint.

Even by Virtue of Dominion or Sovereignty you have no action against your opponent. Virtue is a ruling you take up upon yourself to hold to.

[Kael Hate]

hmmmm well charity can work all kinds off ways.... you towards your monsters or quanta
but my shard of charity holds the virtue of charity because....
1. the player's opponent is the holder or the virtue of charity and it does say generously donates
2. true charity asks for nothing in return
3. 3. a charitable act or work, in the opponent's eyes when donating quanta to heal you isn't that pretty charitable itself?
4. since the card isn't stackable you are not asking for too much and being too greedy
 
you can say that yourself is a *USERNAME HERE* charity and your opponent is being charitable towards you
OPPONENT- is charitable because he donates
PLAYER- #4- only one shard of charity can be in play so you are actually thinking of the well being of the opponent as well....if it was stackable then you are not having a (5. benevolent feeling ) towards the other player....

Are you suggesting that if you play this shard and I am forced to give up quanta, then you are upholding the virtue of Charity?

Should anyone else on the blunt end of your shards action see you as Charitable?

[Astraic]

hmmmm well charity can work all kinds off ways.... you towards your monsters or quanta
but my shard of charity holds the virtue of charity because....
1. the player's opponent is the holder or the virtue of charity and it does say generously donates
2. true charity asks for nothing in return
3. 3. a charitable act or work, in the opponent's eyes when donating quanta to heal you isn't that pretty charitable itself?
4. since the card isn't stackable you are not asking for too much and being too greedy
 
you can say that yourself is a *USERNAME HERE* charity and your opponent is being charitable towards you
OPPONENT- is charitable because he donates
PLAYER- #4- only one shard of charity can be in play so you are actually thinking of the well being of the opponent as well....if it was stackable then you are not having a (5. benevolent feeling ) towards the other player....

Are you suggesting that if you play this shard and I am forced to give up quanta, then you are upholding the virtue of Charity?

Should anyone else on the blunt end of your shards action see you as Charitable?

it is charitable in its own ways
since your not asking for too much because the card isn't stackable
charity can be described as a benevolent act
charity and charitable are 2 different things
the player of the card's charity is that he doesn;t ask for much at all
charitable can be describe as kind favor towards others
OWNER of card- it is charitable that the card can't stack so not much quanta is drained considering that since most decks have at least 10+ towers/pillars not that much is taken away
Opponent- it is charitable that the opponent generously donates it to you and doesn't ask for anything in return...
the wordling is important too...
if the card says STEAL instead of generously donates that wouldnt be charitable even though they have a similar result

[CB!]

hmmmm well charity can work all kinds off ways.... you towards your monsters or quanta
but my shard of charity holds the virtue of charity because....
1. the player's opponent is the holder or the virtue of charity and it does say generously donates
2. true charity asks for nothing in return
3. 3. a charitable act or work, in the opponent's eyes when donating quanta to heal you isn't that pretty charitable itself?
4. since the card isn't stackable you are not asking for too much and being too greedy
 
you can say that yourself is a *USERNAME HERE* charity and your opponent is being charitable towards you
OPPONENT- is charitable because he donates
PLAYER- #4- only one shard of charity can be in play so you are actually thinking of the well being of the opponent as well....if it was stackable then you are not having a (5. benevolent feeling ) towards the other player....

Are you suggesting that if you play this shard and I am forced to give up quanta, then you are upholding the virtue of Charity?

Should anyone else on the blunt end of your shards action see you as Charitable?

You see them as charitable... when a shard is played against someone, think of it as they are being forced to take up a virtue.  Charity is played and the opponent has to practice charity.  Restraint is played on an enemy, and that creature has to practice restraint.

Obviously if I force you to give me $5, it's not charity.  But it works for the purposes of the game.  If the cause and effect of a shard can only be yourself, or your creatures, that'll severely limit the creativity of the cards.

[Kael Hate]

Are you suggesting that if you play this shard and I am forced to give up quanta, then you are upholding the virtue of Charity?

Should anyone else on the blunt end of your shards action see you as Charitable?

it is charitable in its own ways
since your not asking for too much because the card isn't stackable
charity can be described as a benevolent act
charity and charitable are 2 different things
the player of the card's charity is that he doesn;t ask for much at all
charitable can be describe as kind favor towards others
OWNER of card- it is charitable that the card can't stack so not much quanta is drained considering that since most decks have at least 10+ towers/pillars not that much is taken away
Opponent- it is charitable that the opponent generously donates it to you and doesn't ask for anything in return...
the wordling is important too...
if the card says STEAL instead of generously donates that wouldnt be charitable even though they have a similar result

You are not getting the point. The shard is supposed to be Virtuous and/or of holding virtue. This is the reason for you having to choose a virtue.

vir·tue   /ˈvɜrtʃu/  Show Spelled[vur-choo]  Show IPA
–noun
1. conformity of one's  life and conduct to moral and ethical principles; uprightness; rectitude.

Note that holding virtue is conformity of one's life and not of the conduct or morality of someone elses life.
Making your opponent Generously donate isn't virtuous and I would find it tantamount to taxation as they are not sharing of their own accord, but instead having their resource forcibly taken by your action. If I forced you to generously offer up the contents of your wallet, would you consider your response to be upholding of Charity and not criminal action on my behallf?

[padewan09]

Honestly Kael, the fact you can spew dictionary info doesn't help your platform. And  since you are the ONLY person who seems to give any care that the cards be the most exact and precise flawless immaculate examples of a card ever seen. You may be card curator, but by saying that a shard has to fit YOUR idea of the card, you are taking out ANY reason for a public competition. If you want to limit the creativity of cards to YOUR vision of them, next time fight against public creation.

If it wasn't for Kuro, I'm betting cards wouldn't ever make it passed this stage of creation. There'd be no need for crucible, forge, etc.