Natural Law (Or Maybe Not )

[Asterdai]

these Laws, what do you think, any examples of people following them in MD, i should do my research... but here is one as an example

Mur giving out gifts.
Having obtained the Empty Pirate Chest, am i doing the "right thing" by putting it to a vote?

The thirteenth law is the entire right, or else...the first possession (in the case of alternating use), of a thing that can neither be divided nor enjoyed in common should be determined by lottery.
The fourteenth law is that those things which cannot be enjoyed in common, nor divided, ought to be adjudged to the first possessor; and in some cases to the first born, as acquired by lot.


. . . . . . . . . . . . .

The first Law of nature is that every man ought to endeavour peace, as far as he has hope of obtaining it; and when he cannot obtain it, that he may seek and use all helps and advantages of war.
The second Law of nature is that a man be willing, when others are so too, as far forth, as for peace, and defence of himself he shall think it necessary, to lay down this right to all things; and be contented with so much liberty against other men, as he would allow other men against himself.
The third Law is that men perform their covenants made. In this law of nature consisteth the fountain and original of justice... when a covenant is made, then to break it is unjust and the definition of injustice is no other than the not performance of covenant. And whatsoever is not unjust is just.
The fourth Law is that a man which receiveth benefit from another of mere grace, endeavour that he which giveth it, have no reasonable cause to repent him of his good will. Breach of this law is called ingratitude.
The fifth Law is complaisance: that every man strive to accommodate himself to the rest. The observers of this law may be called sociable; the contrary, stubborn, insociable, froward, intractable.
The sixth Law is that upon caution of the future time, a man ought to pardon the offences past of them that repenting, desire it.
The seventh Law is that in revenges, men look not at the greatness of the evil past, but the greatness of the good to follow.
The eighth Law is that no man by deed, word, countenance, or gesture, declare hatred or contempt of another. The breach of which law is commonly called contumely.
The ninth Law is that every man acknowledge another for his equal by nature. The breach of this precept is pride.
The tenth law is that at the entrance into the conditions of peace, no man require to reserve to himself any right, which he is not content should be reserved to every one of the rest. The breach of this precept is arrogance, and observers of the precept are called modest.
The eleventh law is that if a man be trusted to judge between man and man, that he deal equally between them.
The twelfth law is that such things as cannot be divided, be enjoyed in common, if it can be; and if the quantity of the thing permit, without stint; otherwise proportionably to the number of them that have right.
The thirteenth law is the entire right, or else...the first possession (in the case of alternating use), of a thing that can neither be divided nor enjoyed in common should be determined by lottery.
The fourteenth law is that those things which cannot be enjoyed in common, nor divided, ought to be adjudged to the first possessor; and in some cases to the first born, as acquired by lot.
The fifteenth law is that all men that mediate peace be allowed safe conduct.
The sixteenth law is that they that are at controversie, submit their Right to the judgement of an Arbitrator.
The seventeenth law is that no man is a fit Arbitrator in his own cause.
The eighteenth law is that no man should serve as a judge in a case if greater profit, or honour, or pleasure apparently ariseth [for him] out of the victory of one party, than of the other.
The nineteenth law is that in a disagreement of fact, the judge should not give more weight to the testimony of one party than another, and absent other evidence, should give credit to the testimony of other witnesses.

I know this topic may not be "useful" just thought it may be intersting

have you seen any examples of other people who could be seen to follow this "law"

[Shadowseeker]

Sounds like some philosoph's laws..but, why follow other people's laws, instead of your own?

In the end you follow your own..even if they are just a copy off someone elses, or those of society, etc...but ultimately yours.

[Asterdai]

[quote name='Shadowseeker' date='29 May 2010 - 11:42 AM' timestamp='1275129731' post='60575']
Sounds like some philosoph's laws..but, why follow other people's laws, instead of your own?

In the end you follow your own..even if they are just a copy off someone elses, or those of society, etc...but ultimately yours.
[/quote]

just wondering... do you believe you to be chaotically neutral?

Chaotic Neutral
Chaotic Neutral is called the "Anarchist" or "Free Spirit" alignment. A character of this alignment is an individualist who follows his or her own heart, and generally shirks rules and traditions. Although they promote the ideals of freedom, it is their own freedom that comes first. Good and Evil come second to their need to be free, and the only reliable thing about them is how totally unreliable they are. Chaotic Neutral characters are free-spirited and do not enjoy the unnecessary suffering of others, but if they join a team, it is because that team's goals coincide with their own. They invariably resent taking orders and can be very selfish in their pursuit of personal goals. A Chaotic Neutral character does not have to be an aimless wanderer; they may have a specific goal in mind, but their methods of achieving that goal are often disorganised, unorthodox, or entirely unpredictable.

what a silly question, of course a chaotically Neutral person wouldnt accept that they were part of anything

(this is not off topic for me, as without laws we have chaos, do we not?)

Edited May 29, 2010 by Asterdai

[Shadowseeker]

D&D huh?

That's a really good question..I'm probably somewhere between the neutral/good axis. And somewhere between neutral/chaotic.

But that's offtopic.

Hobbes (google, 2mins.) may have his own laws..but yeah, I reinforce: Your own moral compass is what guides you. Even if you blindly follow someone else, your compass just happens to be his. (Or have him as the one who gives the direction). It's still yours.

Isn't that also why people raised in society usually adhere to it, while outsiders may find things strange in it? Examples are things like religions. Just the praying mentality for example varies greatly.

[Asterdai]

Which brings me to a point about MD.

Rules are created to bring order to chaos of lawlessness. We ourselves act as a balance dont you think?
(murs "game" rules, GGG, alliance/community rules)

so this land, the land opened by the angien, Pandora's box. Could it really be balanced without us? the old saying about the tree falling in the wood, not making a sound, so does it really fall?
If we were not here MD could not exist, so we act as a balance to this "chaos" whether we like it or not.

then i havent really thought about this properly, the balance of entropy/syntropy, light and dark, angiens and shades and the rigid balance of the combinations of elements as well, is not really chaos, is it? or isnt it?

[Kafuuka]

The laws of nature are quite different from what you list! The first one is 'every object in motion tends to stay in motion.'

Seriously though, the laws you listed are anything but inherited by anyone. At the very base people are selfish, the existence of altruism is only justified, in evolution, in that helping people who will in turn help you when needed proved superior to living solitary. Obviously this isn't really altruistic since you aren't helping people for free, but for the promise of future aid. However the price isn't well specified and the balance, at the end of ones lifetime, may be a lot different from zero. Somehow from our genetic predisposition towards reciprocal altruism, cultural extensions evolved and some people give a lot more than they receive. Still, if we were to cooperate more irl, then we would be able to produce more efficient and all benefit from this. The best example for this is war: being united against one enemy, countries will suddenly increase in productivity.

If you want to study these kinds of laws of nature, you should look into game theory, Darwinism and philosophy.

On to MD, I think anyone playing a knight-like character, should have/simulate similar morals. Your putting to vote isn't the 'right' thing per se, but is the right thing by your own standards, as such it should please you. Unless I'm completely wrong about humanity, many people on many occasions will have asked Mur for favors, even if they (should) know that begging and whining will only result in Mur giving less things to everybody and them in particular. As for reciprocal altruism, GGG, worshipping, the dojo, 'giving away bursts' all are good examples. A while ago there was also a gift giving thread where anybody who gave a gift also got one back. On the other hand I did give away pass papers without a reward (except for being able to boast about it and having a good laugh seeing people confused when they get something for free and wonder what will balance this sudden karma influx).


D&D alignments are tricky. For instance I have certain values I'd like to uphold, among which freedom for everybody. That would make me lawful good. However I have a distaste for orthodox methods. That would make me chaotic good. Is consistently never using orthodox methods even chaotic? Let's say I want to be chaotic in my chaotic behavior, then half of the time i should behave lawful, but I should also only adhere to this thought half of the time etc etc.

[Yoshi]

Heh, I remember seeing this picture on a forum awhile back. I think personally, I associate most with neutral good.[attachment=1733:Alignment.jpg]

Edited May 29, 2010 by Yoshi