Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="TheCosmicKid" data-source="post: 7746301" data-attributes="member: 6683613">Okay. Let's back up a minute. There's a recurring pattern in our conversation: I propose an interpretation of lawful goodness which allows paladins to function, and then you impose different definitions on the scenario (often, as here, by putting words in my mouth) which create contradiction and dysfunction. Why? What are you hoping to accomplish here? Are you trying to persuade me that I should abandon an interpretation that works for an one that doesn't? Why would I do that? And why would you want me to do that? If your readings of &quot;law&quot; and &quot;good&quot; break the system, should you really be so insistent that those readings are the correct ones? If you're really interested in this problem, wouldn't it make more sense to give a good-faith effort at understanding how I've resolved it?Concrete example: paladin opposes an evil law.You say that the paladin is drinking straight vodka.I say that the paladin is rejecting the orange juice they've been served, and insisting on a screwdriver.Your interpretation renders the lawful good alignment impossible: the paladin ends up either neutral good or lawful neutral (at best). My interpretation preserves lawful goodness as a coherent concept. So what is there to recommend your interpretation? Why are you trying to twist my words into something which, as you are not just conceding but loudly promoting, does not make sense?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="TheCosmicKid, post: 7746301, member: 6683613"] Okay. Let's back up a minute. There's a recurring pattern in our conversation: I propose an interpretation of lawful goodness which allows paladins to function, and then you impose different definitions on the scenario (often, as here, by putting words in my mouth) which create contradiction and dysfunction. Why? What are you hoping to accomplish here? Are you trying to persuade me that I should abandon an interpretation that works for an one that doesn't? Why would I do that? And why would you [I]want[/I] me to do that? If your readings of "law" and "good" break the system, should you really be so insistent that those readings are the correct ones? If you're really interested in this problem, wouldn't it make more sense to give a good-faith effort at understanding how I've resolved it? Concrete example: paladin opposes an evil law. [I]You[/I] say that the paladin is drinking straight vodka. [I]I[/I] say that the paladin is rejecting the orange juice they've been served, and insisting on a screwdriver. Your interpretation renders the lawful good alignment impossible: the paladin ends up either neutral good or lawful neutral (at best). My interpretation preserves lawful goodness as a coherent concept. So what is there to recommend your interpretation? Why are you trying to twist my words into something which, as you are not just [I]conceding[/I] but loudly [I]promoting[/I], does not make sense? [/QUOTE]

Verification