| This forum is used with the NationStates web-game designed and run by Max Barry. While not officially affiliated, this serves as the regional forum for the regions: Middle East, African Continent, American Continent, Asian Continent, and European Continent. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and can "read only". In order to get the most out of these forums, please become a member and read this guide - http://z3.invisionfree.com/nationstates/index.php?showtopic=3060 If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Brotherhood of Chivalry | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Sep 11 2009, 07:20 PM (714 Views) | |
| Sedulius | Sep 11 2009, 07:20 PM Post #1 |
|
Field Marshal
|
Quaon reminded me of this topic, so I thought I'd give an update on things. Everything gets reformed in time. I've done away with the old, and brought in a different old. The Brotherhood needed a good name, hence why not name it after its core part: the Code of Chivalry? The Brotherhood of Chivalry is on its way up. We're only taking in "our kind of people", which would be hard to explain. We simply know who is right for it. So far, we are but three. Only two of the original member remain: Fleischmann and myself. Vallinius turned his back on our ways, and us. He's now a fraternity "brother", and he might as well call himself a junior mason. Inanis has been gone too long, and was never one of us anyways. The new member is another old friend, and he is quality person, one of us. Our core, as I said, is the Code of Chivalry, which we strive to follow. Our goal? We have none yet. We are building, and in time we will find what the right thing to do is. God has a plan for everyone. The Brotherhood is not the Organization that I have mentioned before. The Organization remains dormant, and is made up of the people who agree with its cause. Either we will execute its mission or we won't. I may leave it to others in time. However, I will stay in the Brotherhood. As for the Code, I've posted it many times before. If I ever write one, it will be based off of this one: http://www.chronique.com/Library/Chivalry/code.htm |
![]() |
|
| lebowski2123 | Sep 11 2009, 08:04 PM Post #2 |
![]()
Resident?
|
Have you ever read Don Quixote? |
![]() |
|
| Abenakia | Sep 11 2009, 09:34 PM Post #3 |
|
Corporal
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
This machine kills fascists and neo-fuedalists. |
![]() |
|
| Sedulius | Sep 11 2009, 09:39 PM Post #4 |
|
Field Marshal
|
Have I even set an objective yet? No. Abenakia, we are neither fascists nor neo-feudalists. You're a machine? All we are is honorable people gathering together for good cause, no more, no less. Read the code. Perhaps it can help you. |
![]() |
|
| Abenakia | Sep 11 2009, 10:00 PM Post #5 |
|
Corporal
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I read your fantastic declaration, and anyone who is advocating blind allegiance to the State is advocating fascism, and by the looks of your ideology, something even closer to neo-fuedalism. THIS:
is unacceptable. I'm not obligated to some clown capitalist, some self-styled or popularly-appointed king, some elite. |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Sep 12 2009, 04:25 AM Post #6 |
|
Deleted User
|
i really don't see your point :dry: anarchy will never and has never worked. |
|
|
| Nag Ehgoeg | Sep 12 2009, 07:24 AM Post #7 |
|
The Devil's Advocate
![]()
|
I think it's amiable to wish to defend your nation, family and those you believe worthy of loyalty. You don't think it's a worthy goal to want the best for your nation, family and those worthy of your loyalty? |
![]() |
|
| Abenakia | Sep 12 2009, 08:09 AM Post #8 |
|
Corporal
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
My point is that presumed obligation to an ambiguous collective is no basis for establishing a code of morality and justice.
You might want to save that for another thread. |
![]() |
|
| Abenakia | Sep 12 2009, 08:11 AM Post #9 |
|
Corporal
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
What is a nation? And what if my family is abusive? Making a blanket statement of fealty to these two institutions without actually going through the rigors of figuring out if they're institutions worth defending is not a rational conclusion, in my opinion. |
![]() |
|
| Nag Ehgoeg | Sep 12 2009, 09:32 AM Post #10 |
|
The Devil's Advocate
![]()
|
What if your family is abusive? If they're abusive you don't want the best for them? They shouldn't be protected and live honourable lives because they were abusive? An honourable person would take responsibility for their family and better them for their own defence. Are you saying that it's right to abandon your own blood because they're inconvenient to you? That your family doesn't deserve your loyalty because they haven't earned it? What should they do to earn it? I don't presume to know what Sed meant by "nation". Modern conceptions of what a nation aren't the same as they were when that code was written. But taking the modern and running with it... You were born into (or have chosen to live in) a privileged nation. You have electricity. You have the internet. Clean water. Healthcare. Education. You might have had a tough life - I don't know you from Adam, maybe you live with a single parent pulling a $10k wage who likes to beat you. But you don't live in a nation where you have to walk twenty miles a day to draw water from a well. You don't live in a nation of constant food shortages. You don't live with the fear of violent revolution. You're not controlled in what you think. You're not beaten down and imprisoned for having different beliefs. If you don't think you owe your nation anything, that's a little ungrateful. It's kinda pig headed and pretty offensive to those people who'd give their right arm to live in the USA. But if you think that your nation needs scrutiny to determine whether or not it's worthy - go ahead and scrutinise. And what if it comes up short? No-one chooses their nation. Some people are born into terrible nations. Is it right to abandon that nation, or is it right to give your loyalty to your nation - to defend it and make it better? I'm not saying you should do what the government says without questioning though. The oath is about defending your nation. To me that means defending your way of life and your people from all threats - foreign and domestic. And that's going to mean disagreeing with the path your government is taking sometimes. And it's going to mean knuckling down, sucking it up and supporting your government when you really don't want to sometimes. But, you know, I don't know what Sed meant by "nation". Edited by Nag Ehgoeg, Sep 12 2009, 09:33 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Sedulius | Sep 12 2009, 04:19 PM Post #11 |
|
Field Marshal
|
I don't understand what fantastic declaration you're talking about. Please clarify. If you speak of the Organization, that is now something entirely different and seperate from the Brotherhood. I have even considered disbanding the Organization completely, but I'm going to wait to see how things unfold. I'll clarify what the Organization is in another thread. The Brotherhood of Chivalry is just that, a group of men devoted to the principles of chivalry. It has no political goals, so to attack it on political grounds is pointless.
If you aren't loyal to the country you live in, is it really your nation? You haven't had time to get to know me, so I don't blame you for your assumptions, but you do assume too quickly. I am a socialist, but I believe in imperialism. I believe the point of government is to serve the people, and making the nation more powerful indeed serves the people, so long as the nation does not become so corrupt within. Corruption is unavoidable in all societies; it's a matter of minimizing. A goal of the Brotherhood before reform was to root out corruption wherever it could find it. Right now, we are rethinking our position, but we still loathe corruption. Myself, when it comes to a nation, I have loyalty to Ireland. Should Ireland ever be under a major threat, I would quickly move to defend it, and I would gladly die for it. As for the US, I still have some shred of loyalty to it, but it is rather to its people, and not to the government. However, as a citizen, I still respect the laws of this government. But as one man, I can do nothing but follow those laws if I want to get ahead in this society. If you really want to change things, it'd be wise to go with the system and change it from within, as I might do with the Organization. Otherwise, you will be swept aside by it, for it too powerful for one man to stand against. This is simple logic. However, if the US government ever goes overboard in its actions, I will be at the forefront in bringing it down. ----- EDIT: By the way, for those of you who haven't clicked on the link, that particular code was written by Brian R. Price in 1997. It's based off of the old codes. I'll probably write my own code for the Brotherhood in time. Edited by Sedulius, Sep 12 2009, 06:43 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Abnar | Sep 12 2009, 05:23 PM Post #12 |
|
Mirror, mirror on the wall, who's the lurkiest of them all?
|
I have never been more turned on in my life, Nag. |
![]() |
|
| New Harumf | Sep 13 2009, 10:30 AM Post #13 |
![]()
Bloodthirsty Unicorn
|
Wait. What?? |
![]() |
|
| Sedulius | Sep 13 2009, 06:24 PM Post #14 |
|
Field Marshal
|
Exactly what I was wondering. |
![]() |
|
| Abnar | Sep 13 2009, 08:36 PM Post #15 |
|
Mirror, mirror on the wall, who's the lurkiest of them all?
|
Oratory-gasm. |
![]() |
|
| Abenakia | Sep 13 2009, 10:03 PM Post #16 |
|
Corporal
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Grand appeals to emotion and lofty ideas like "honor" are no basis to be establishing a legitimate positive obligation with. Simply because I'm similar in genetic code to one group of people does not necessitate that I support or even like them by default.
For starters, the only person I hold any real loyalty to is myself, and the same goes for all of you-- you're all self-interested and egoistic, whether you're consciously aware of it or not. Second, I'm saying that some irrational attachment to people who are genetically similar without regards to who they are, what they do, etc. is pretty fucking naive and short-sighted.
Oh boy, don't I know it. I see privilege everywhere-- when a corporation is able to use the State to reduce liberty at our expense, when a bureaucrat who gets caught with his hand in the cookie jar gets off easy if he pulls the right strings, and where people can be given the privilege of murdering people browner than they are in some far off land.
Suggesting that because I'm not facing these things (which aren't even entirely accurate) spring in my step is in no possible way an argument to validate what injustice there is, and it begs the entire question of whether or not these things are even possible without the notion of a "nation".
It's not MY nation. I don't own it, and I want nothing to do with it.
Saying one particular monopoly (government) treats people better than another monopoly doesn't really move your point forward.
You're presuming the entire notion of the nation in the first place as being legitimate. You're relying on a suppressed premise to validate what you're saying here, and eventually coming full circle into a tautological mess.
Again, see above. |
![]() |
|
| Aelius | Sep 13 2009, 10:41 PM Post #17 |
|
Norman Warlord
|
I don't think this is what Sed had in mind when he created this thread. :P |
![]() |
|
| Aelius | Sep 13 2009, 11:29 PM Post #18 |
|
Norman Warlord
|
Been talking to Sed about what's been going on in this thread, he wants the anarchist stuff out of the thread. He wants a mod to split this thread up so he can get back to his chivalry code. |
![]() |
|
| Sedulius | Sep 14 2009, 02:49 PM Post #19 |
|
Field Marshal
|
Confirmed. Please, someone split this. I do actually have arguments, but such arguments are not the topic of this thread. EDIT: Okay, saw the split. Moving right along... Edited by Sedulius, Sep 14 2009, 02:51 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Nag Ehgoeg | Sep 14 2009, 03:23 PM Post #20 |
|
The Devil's Advocate
![]()
|
I think that pretty much discounts you from membership in the Brotherhood of Chivalry. And I don't think that's any big loss to either you or Sed. :D I don't want to address any of the other points raised here as they're not relevant to the thread. But I think I split out everything that wasn't relevant so... |
![]() |
|
| Sedulius | Sep 14 2009, 03:25 PM Post #21 |
|
Field Marshal
|
Given all the BS being flung around lately, I think this is appropriate. In my opinion, this is the single most important part of the code. It is through pride that we wrong people, for if we dismiss others as inferior, who are we really? No man can be fully humble, but one can try. I know I throw around some not so humble statements, so please forgive me. I try hard to be a humble man, but being humble is harder than any other thing.
I didn't see this. That's insulting, but I don't take offense, for I understand you. It's very, very sad that you hold only loyalty to yourself. A man such as that cannot be trusted by anyone. People trust me because they know where my loyalties lie, which is for the most part not to myself. You can assume all humanity runs off the same base instincts, and we do, but the difference between us and animals is our ability to control our impulses. I would say more, but I have to get going. Not sure when I'll be on again. Edited by Sedulius, Sep 14 2009, 03:31 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Menhad | Sep 15 2009, 09:33 PM Post #22 |
|
ET2(IDW)
|
In this age of reason and logic, men like us aren't wanted. We stick to the old thoughts of honor and courage, and most people fear this. I would suggest you use the Maltese Cross as your symbol. The eight points are said to symbolize the eight points of courage: -Loyalty -Piety -Generosity -Bravery -Glory and honour -Contempt of death -Helpfulness towards the poor and the sick -Respect for the church |
![]() |
|
| lebowski2123 | Sep 15 2009, 10:23 PM Post #23 |
![]()
Resident?
|
Posted Image "the order of knight-errantry was instituted to defend maidens, to protect widows, and to rescue orphans and distressed persons" said Don Quixote, "God, Who provides for all, will not desert us; especially being engaged, as we are, in His service" |
![]() |
|
| Tristan da Cunha | Sep 15 2009, 10:34 PM Post #24 |
|
Science and Industry
|
Miguel Cervantes was actually a badass. |
![]() |
|
| Nag Ehgoeg | Sep 16 2009, 06:39 AM Post #25 |
|
The Devil's Advocate
![]()
|
Not as badass as Cervantes de Leon. |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Off-Topic · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2











11:37 AM Jul 13