OOTS #1267 - The Discussion Thread

[brian 333]

Holding a contractee to the letter of the contract is exactly lawful though - especially from a being that is a facet of pure Law with no Good or Evil.
In fact your argument defeats your point as accepting trying is LG as said by the deva

Your argument is not invalid. However, by the letter of the agreement, the agreement has already been breached, yet the modron remains.

In almost all cases of 'letter of the contract' disputes, one party is seeking to exploit the contract. (Not always the one who makes the claim.) Faustian bargains and the genie wishing game come to mind. Letter of the contract enforcement appears to have an Evil component, unless the other party is the one exploiting it and the injured party is seeking remediation.

A being of pure law would have no interest in exploiting the agreement. In this specific case, with the only available remediation being termination of the agreement, it would benefit less through termination based on a minor technicality.

The very instant it realizes the contract is no longer beneficial I fully expect it to terminate services. (At that point there will probably be a gross violation of terms anyway.)

It's almost as if "Lawful" is an incredibly vague concept that different people could interpret in wildly different ways.

Oh, I'm sure that a few decades of internet debates on the subject will result in a consensus opinion shared by all.