RE: Re: Humakti mini-comment

From: Andrew Solovay <asolovay_at_...>
Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2002 21:43:14 -0700


simon_hibbs2 [mailto:simon.hibbs_at_...]
> "morganconrad" <morganconrad_at_y...> wrote:
>
> > And the bizarre idea that they are sleazy lawyer-types who weasel
> > their way out of oaths never gained any support. That's good!
>
> I don't think they weazel, but then I don't think their oaths mean
> to them precisely what some of us think they should mean. Heortling
> culture is very different from ours, and their concept of right
> and wrong is next to alien in many respects.

If you're referring to my post--yeah, that was all I meant by it. I meant to suggest, *not* that the Humakti would trick their way out of oaths, but rather, that their understanding of the oaths would be so extreme, so fanatical, that a typical Heortling-on-the-street couldn't really be sure how a Humakti would understand the oath when a crisis came. Sometimes the Humakti would be utterly inflexible, to the cost of everyone (inlcuding himself); sometimes the Humakti would judge the oath to be invalid or inapplcable for subtle truth-rune reasons. And these judgements would *not* be made out of self-interest, but just because he had a different understanding of the way the oath really works.

But it was just a suggestion...

--AMS

Powered by hypermail