Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 6735535" data-attributes="member: 4937">[MENTION=6801286]Imaculata[/MENTION].&nbsp; The biggest problem with your quibbles is that they depend on subtly misusing words.Valuing his own independence is not the same as valuing freedom generally.&nbsp; A mercenary that valued freedom generally would refuse to fight for tyrants.&nbsp; He'd refuse to assist in subjugating peoples.&nbsp;&nbsp; Yet you insist that he's clearly lawful and evil.&nbsp; If he is clearly lawful and evil, why would he refuse to fight for tyrants?&nbsp; Why would he care whether the jobs he took were just or kind, especially since by your own explanation he's personally ruthless and cruel.&nbsp; Of course you might value your own freedom, but the chaotic tends to value freedom generally.&nbsp; He doesn't work with the system, but against it.&nbsp; Claiming that his valuing his own independence indicates he values freedom is like claiming that a person that a sadist that values his own pleasure is compassionate.&nbsp;Could every value become corrupted?&nbsp; What would that mean?&nbsp; Certainly people can do bad things with the best of intentions, but does that mean the value itself was corrupted?&nbsp; What values do you have in mind?That's not mercy.&nbsp; That's not even an act of mercy.&nbsp; Mercy implies that you give a person better than they deserve.&nbsp; The knight in question isn't showing mercy to unarmed opponents.&nbsp; He simply has a code that says peasants are unworthy foes for him.&nbsp; By not slaying them, he's giving them what he believes that they deserve owing to their station as peasants.&nbsp; Mercy has no part of that.This I agree with.&nbsp; A lawful character does not necessarily want to rule, but may be happy with their station.This is utterly illogical and I'm struggling to even understand what this could mean.&nbsp; If a character has no relationship to something external to himself, how in the world could you consider them lawful?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 6735535, member: 4937"] [MENTION=6801286]Imaculata[/MENTION]. The biggest problem with your quibbles is that they depend on subtly misusing words. Valuing his own independence is not the same as valuing freedom generally. A mercenary that valued freedom generally would refuse to fight for tyrants. He'd refuse to assist in subjugating peoples. Yet you insist that he's clearly lawful and evil. If he is clearly lawful and evil, why would he refuse to fight for tyrants? Why would he care whether the jobs he took were just or kind, especially since by your own explanation he's personally ruthless and cruel. Of course you might value your own freedom, but the chaotic tends to value freedom generally. He doesn't work with the system, but against it. Claiming that his valuing his own independence indicates he values freedom is like claiming that a person that a sadist that values his own pleasure is compassionate. Could every value become corrupted? What would that mean? Certainly people can do bad things with the best of intentions, but does that mean the value itself was corrupted? What values do you have in mind? That's not mercy. That's not even an act of mercy. Mercy implies that you give a person better than they deserve. The knight in question isn't showing mercy to unarmed opponents. He simply has a code that says peasants are unworthy foes for him. By not slaying them, he's giving them what he believes that they deserve owing to their station as peasants. Mercy has no part of that. This I agree with. A lawful character does not necessarily want to rule, but may be happy with their station. This is utterly illogical and I'm struggling to even understand what this could mean. If a character has no relationship to something external to himself, how in the world could you consider them lawful? [/QUOTE]

Verification