OotS 452

[el-remmen]

That's what I'm trying to find out. And in particular, I'm curious where the author's sympathy lies? Where does he intend us to place our sympathy? In the past two strips, he's presented the hobgoblins more heroicly than the Paladins.

Ultimately, author intention means nothing.

There is ambiguity in all texts that have to explored to discover the multiplicity of meanings simultaneously possible in all stories.

-- Working towards his PHD in Lit Spikey

 

[Shroomy]

I don't think that the soldiers on the battlements are actually paladins of the Saphire Order, they seem to me to just be grunts, who aren't necessarily lawful good.

 

[Gez]

Ultimately, author intention means nothing.

Wonder what this means for parodic works, such as Spinrad's Iron Dreams. Or satirical pieces like Swift's ultra-classic Modest Proposal.

 

[Celebrim]

I've always thought of Lawful Stupid being the expression used to describe when someone Lawful Good to extremes rather than how most people play a lawful good character. For instance, won't lie no matter the circumstance, won't wear a disguise, etc.

But, again, if you are lawful and believe that lying is always wrong, then you do believe that you should not lie no matter the circumstance. Actual real people believe things like this, it's hardly a 'fanatical' or 'extreme' position. Actual real people believe things like 'Don't dance no matter the circumstance'. Now, a player could play a character who was lawful and believed lying was wrong correctly, and that character might still occasionally lie, but the character would not believe that he had been right to do so. Follow that?

I don't even consider myself 'lawful', but it's not a trivial argument to suggest that there is wisdom in crowds, or that tradition represents time tested wisdom and its highly unlikely (and involves a degree of hubris) to suggest that your decisions are likely to be more wise than the tested wisdom of many people over a long time. So, it would be interesting to see a lawful played like that, with the sincere belief that something other than his own judgment was a better guide to living well than his own judgment.

 

[Celebrim]

Ultimately, author intention means nothing.

There is ambiguity in all texts that have to explored to discover the multiplicity of meanings simultaneously possible in all stories.

This is the current fashion. I'm not sure that you can claim its a statement of fact, and as a practical matter I've never met anyone that sincerely believed it.

 

[el-remmen]

I've never met anyone that sincerely believed it.

Hi, my name is Osvaldo. Pleased to meet you.

 

[Celebrim]

Hi, my name is Osvaldo. Pleased to meet you.

Like I said.

 

[el-remmen]

Wonder what this means for parodic works, such as Spinrad's Iron Dreams. Or satirical pieces like Swift's ultra-classic Modest Proposal.

You know, that is something I am going to have to give some serious thought to.

But basically, one a text is "out there" - there are multiple approaches to uncovering the meanings within, and the author's intention is no more valid and ultimately unknowable, because even if they claim what it was - that too is a text.

Oh, and for those of you who are curious, history works the same way in my view.

 

[WizarDru]

I'm confused...is the idea that some of the Azurite soldiers have decided to hold the breach, despite the fact that they are essentially doomed supposed to have something to do with their alignment? Those aren't paladins, they're common soldiers (note the grey tabards, not white). Even if they were paladins, what does that have to do with them being 'lawful stupid'?

A good soldier follows orders. They've broken morale and some have fled, after taking serious damage over a long battle and now facing a vastly superior enemy. They are defending their city against invaders. A great number of military actions, as far as I know, depend or depended on soldiers following orders. That's why there are commanding officers. Those soldiers manning the breech don't know that they're defending the gate. They wouldn't know if they were merely there as a decoy, either. Their task is to fight. That they face their death head-on doesn't strike me as dumb, but tastes vary. [shrug]

 

[Gez]

You know, that is something I am going to have to give some serious thought to.

Let me know the result of your cogitations. Not in this thread, but in the ICC for example.