Jump to content

The third side of the line


Recommended Posts

People have said several things about the nature of this world we all live in. I hate to say that they are almost exclusively otherworldly reflections of thoughts which can now be debunked. Such thoughts as "morality" and "justice" come from an ideal foreign to the creation of this world. It is for those reasons that I must demonstrate what true "morality" is. First, what is morality as a word? Morality, at least for the context of these ideas, is how the people ought to act.

The State of Nature

To examine the morality and goals of action, what the world is like without the society must first be established. Without the society, there is simply a large group of nations floating around occasionally attacking each other for fun. Because of the preordained intentions that we all share (that of a "will to entertainment"), the people will do whatever they can to have fun, at other people's expense, with other people. There is no structure however and therefore, the fun is brutish and short lived. The players then come together to work as a team, as teamwork adds a dimension of interactivity.

The Social Contract

Because of the universal intentions, the nations come together forming alliances. Due to natural schemas and the preconditions placed upon them due to internal societies, they make laws eventually, make governments, and act as if they were running a bigger kind of nation. As such, the natural misconception of the purpose of society as self preservation is prevalent. However, the true social contract was originally simply more of a plea for structure and fun. Because individuality was not doing what they wanted to, they came together to form alliances. As such, they forfeited they're ability to attack at will to gain structure.

An example of the intentions: You have a gun. You shoot. Well that was interesting. Lets try this again. You have a gun. You shoot. There was a zombie there. NOW we're getting somewhere.

The people eventually forget that their purpose is fun and instead think that self-preservation is something to be desired. But yet they get bored and occasionally recall their true goal. This causes a cycle of war and peace referred to roughly by Ivan Moldavi in his "Peace is a lie" essay. This truly is a cycle of boredom and action. The nations grow restless and strive for war. The leaders of alliances find ways to give war out. The masses are satisfied for a little while and forget their ongoing purpose. Eventually it leads to a repeat of the cycle. Few remember their true ideals.

The balance of actions

Simply being at constant war is not the answer to our collective goals. Constant war, as FAN, Vox, and CN:TE may attest to, is not really that great. War gets old after a while. There therefore must be a sort of balance of actions in order for a truly moral life of any nation. All actions must be done in moderation and with wisdom. War is to be sought, though not exclusively. Relationships are to be sought, but not exclusively. Spying is to occur, but only if there is legitimate goals to be achieved. As such, for the good of all, all such acts must be permitted, at least to a degree. Spying, in its very nature, is dangerous. This for many adds to its appeal. It is permissible, perhaps even encouraged to punish spies. But to say "spies are bad mmkay" is something that ought never be iterated.

As I have said previous, there are three types of pleasure within Digiterra that all can attribute to morality. Two that I mentioned previously, war and the building of relationships, are the lower classes of morality, unstable, ever present actions that may appeal to a mass of players.

Above this is the slightly higher classes of spying, trolling, debating theology (such as this), and in general, the IC plotting/seditions which can appeal to a select few. Those that do take part in this have a fairly stable, though sometimes disappointing form of morality.

The highest class is those of the leaders who simply take pride in their work. Unless you fail, this is a constant struggle and usually not as rewarding as could be hoped. Many leaders revert to the lower moralities as such.

The three classes in no way a judgement of who is "better" but simply three distinct means of achieving morality. The specific acts provided are not all inclusive either.

The only immorality is that of inactivity and boredom. By being bored, you are not fulfilling your purpose. At the same time, when this occurs, a new social contract ought to be formed. When the society fails you, a new one must take its place. This is the only logical course of action.

So: what is this "third side of the line?"

On one side, there is the hegemon, attempting to win through the most influence and pixels. On the other side, there is the moralists, or populists as they are sometimes called, striving against the powers, denouncing all of the actions that they disagree with.

I represent the third side of the court. We are the hedonists. We care not for "morality" or who wins the war. We simply want something to cheer for, something to die for, and something to lawl at. We take up action despite social norms. We ARE Chaotic Neutral. WE ARE THE THIRD LEG.

tl;dr. Fun is morality. All actions are justifiable. Alliances were created for your entertainment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...