This is totally irrelevent, as Magic Items, which are explicitly shut down by AMFs.
I do agree, since those abilities have no noted change as a result of the magic item becoming intelligent, but you seem to consider the difference to be important, so I addressed it from the standpoint of natural abilities as you seemed to prefer
Burden is on you.
In this case, the burden of proof is on the claim of an exception to antimagic field based on a quality that the construct in question may or may not have. As a more specific state that produces a specific result, rather than the broad operation of the spell (which affects all magic, unless otherwise noted), you need to demonstrate that the intelligent magic item meets the criteria, or it gets affected just like any other magic item.
And there is no evidence that they need any sort of support to function.
Dispel magic shuts down magic items, which is evidence that they rely on the support of magic in order to function, and that's exactly the kind of support against which antimagic field is effective.
See animals without any real brains.
Animals in D&D are always neutral in alignment. They lack the ability to conceptualize personal gain against the potential suffering of others (amongst many other alignment issues), supporting the idea that you need to understand the concepts involved in order to take alignment actions.
BoED clearly states ability damage poisons are Evil. Period. No context, Evil is Evil.
It gives the explanation that this is because ability damage poisons cause undue suffering; an ability damage poison specified as being painless, for example, would not be evil, nor would it be evil if used on a creature incapable of feeling pain or suffering (though that would be a rare state for most living creatures).
Wrong, as both are one in the same. Defending ones life is personal gain. Therefore, it is Evil.
An increased feeling of safety is separate from the protection of your physical life functions; for example, someone who was traumatized by an attack could feel less safe, even if they were now in a more secure position of physical safety.
Defending your own life is simply a way to maintain what you already have; you don't gain anything so it's not personal gain.
No, that's to distinguish rules from flavor text.
That definition is incapable of distinguishing rules from flavour text since it relies on already knowing which things are and are not rules. If you don't already know what a rule is, you can't identify any parts of the text as being rules-relevant, and therefore cannot determine that they are rules.
I can explain it. The fact that you are making me is the frustrating part, simply because one should know that before entering a discussion. It's a distraction.
You have yet to explain it in a way that demonstrates what you're trying to claim, and far from being a mere distraction, it goes to the very root of our discussion of alignment. If we disagree on some of the fundaments, it's natural that we should then give closer examination of the details.
Nope.
As I said before, simple denial is not a valid argument. Substituting the term "game information" just means we'll end up having the same discussion over how you identify game information compared to non-game information.
Because it helps highlight the absurdity of the rules.
How is it absurd for the game to maintain a consistent internal view of alignment? I don't agree with your interpretation of it, but even the viewpoint you're trying to claim for it still makes sense as a system.
And the Chromatic Dragons part is a more specific section of it, and trumps the rest. Therefore, killing every chromatic dragon is A-OK, by the same rules.
The definition describing irredeemable evil as the reason and the example of chromatic dragons are part of the same sentence. To achieve the interpretation that you're suggesting, you'd need to exclude only the middle section of the sentence due to the ends somehow being more specific. You seem to be stating that you can simply ignore the middle of the sentence and read only the ends (bolded below).
"Such a justification, however, works only for the slaying of consummate, irredeemable evil, such as chromatic dragons."
If you want to treat individual segments of a single sentence as more specific than the whole sentence, then we can cut the sentence up in any other way we like. Let's try that with a different sentence from the same section on murder (BoVD, page 7):
In a fantasy world based on an objective definition of evil, killing an evil creature to stop it from doing further harm is not an evil act.
By the standard you're suggesting, this statement that killing is not an evil act is more specific and more correct than the sentence as a whole. If you like, we can cut all the inconvenient parts out of any sentence we've used as the basis of an argument.
But, hey, I can quote dictionaries as an Appeal to Authority, see? Allow
1a : to assign as a share or suitable amount (as of time or money) <allow an hour for lunch>
b : to reckon as a deduction or an addition <allow a gallon for leakage> a chiefly Southern & Midland : to be of the opinion : think b dialect : say, state
c : to express an opinion —usually used with as how or that
3
chiefly Southern & Midland : intend, plan
4
: admit, concede <
allow that money causes problems in marriage>
5
a : permit <
allow people to smoke in his home>
b : to forbear or neglect to restrain or prevent
<allow the dog to roam>
Now, which one fits better? Looks like Mr. Webster backs me up here.
That's an important point you're highlighting; how do you tell which meaning of "allow" to use? I would suggest to you that you choose the meaning that makes the most sense in context, and indeed you've just asked which meaning has the best fit.
So, for the answer to your question, using your own preferred source, I would say that "5a" is the one that fits best. To permit (to give permission) is the most fitting meaning of the term "allow" in this case; a character who gives their permission for a fiend to exist could quite reasonably be committing an evil act, since they're endorsing the continued presence of evil.
Now seeing as how we have both been modded, I would take that as a que for us to stop posting on this topic in a help request thread. If you still feel you are right, start a thread of your own, post your stance, your evidence, the source of your evidence, all so other people can consider your view point, and If anyone cares to way in they can. Otherwise I wont be posting in this thread anymore since I don't feel like getting banned or muted of a silly disagreement.
All that's really necessary is to remain calm and polite about their viewpoint. Discussions on the boards often run off on a tangent after covering the initial inquiry, just like discussions in real life.
Though taking it to another thread is definitely appropriate if the OP is unhappy with people discussing tangents in their thread.
