I don’t know if it makes sense to change it to whatever value e wishes, rather than to eir own value?

Well, this is unless Inclinations were placed in a continuum of sorts, and it brought the influenced closer to eir own. I’ll reserve voting on this, though.

Well, I figure you could argue whatever position you want regardless of what you actually believe.

The text reads “to whatever legal value e wishes,’ and we have thoughtfully specified a list of all legal values in one rule or another.

This gives us something to do with the Inclinations, and will add complications flesh them out a bit. I have some plans for that. ;)

Will add complications <u>as we</u> flesh them out a bit.

Me English, that’s unpossible. ;P

May I ask how the conflict between the proposed line “If the DICE5 outcome is a 5, the Vegetable must change eir own Inclination to match the Targeted Vegetable’s Inclination, and subtract 1 from eir own Tastiness.” and the already-existing line “Vegetables with a Exoticity below one may not change their Inclination.” is meant to be resolved?

If this were a conflict between a “may” and a “may not”, there wouldn’t really be a problem, since we’ve generally held that a “may not” takes precedence (unless otherwise specified).  But here, we have a conflict between a “must” and a “may not”.  I’d say that the “may not” takes precedence, as usual, but that leads to some strange behavior—a Veggie with less than 1 Exoticity can make the conversion attempt with no risk of eir own Inclination changing on em.

don’t we normally settle contradictions by giving the more specific rule privilege over the more general rule?

Neither is more or less specific than the other.  Once concerns Vegetables with less than 1 Exoticity (regardless of what action is being taken), and the other concerns whichever vegetable is doing the watering (regardless of Exoticity).

the one that refers to one particular vegetable is more specific than the one that refers to a set of vegetables.