Carcasonne
May 26th 2004 -
Carcasonne
We played some more Carcasonne at lunch today, and once again, it was dominated by cloisters. The player who turned over the most cloisters, won. The problem is, while large cities are potentially worth more than the nine points that cloisters can get, they are often difficult to complete and very often will share victory between several players. Cloisters are owned by one player at most, are usually not difficult to finish, and don’t suffer any penalty if they aren’t finished by the game’s end.
Perhaps we’re missing something. Funagain‘s reviews seem to indicate that farmers and knights are overpowered compared with robbers and monks. I warned all the players about these factors, so there’s always a big competition for farmers, but cloisters – which are the only board pieces that are difficult to “spoil” – seem to be deciding the games at the moment.
We’re considering a house-rule that incomplete cloisters should only score three points at most.
Return of the King
The two-disc Return of the King DVD came out yesterday, so I snaffled it up and watched the rather pitiful extras, consisting of three promotional documentaries that were essentially the same material. A little disappointing.
Papa
Dad’s in town; he’ll drop in this evening and we’re having dinner on Friday with him and other Sydney relatives who we normally don’t otherwise talk to terribly much (like Aunt Elizabeth). They are interesting company, and I always resolve to get together with them more after these dinners, but we never get our acts together.
Anyway, there shall be more billiards playing this night.
The golden rule
We were having a discussion about The Golden Rule (Do Unto Others as you would have them Do Unto You) in my car-share group the other day, and were trying to work out its origin. I claimed it was Confucius, George suggested Jesus, and Lars thought it might be Buddha. Then we got confused about who came first. Anyway, thanks to some stellar research from Luke’s wife Stella, we have the answers, right here:
The Universality of the Golden Rule in the World Religions
Christianity All things whatsoever ye would that men should do
to you, do ye so to them; for this is the law and the prophets.
Matthew 7:1
Confucianism Do not do to others what you would not like yourself. Then
there will be no resentment against you, either in the family or in the
state. Analects 12:2
Buddhism Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful.
Udana-Varga 5,1
Hinduism This is the sum of duty; do naught onto others what you would
not have them do unto you. Mahabharata 5,1517
Islam No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that
which he desires for himself. Sunnah
Judaism What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellowman. This is the
entire Law; all the rest is commentary. Talmud, Shabbat 3id
Taoism Regard your neighbor’s gain as your gain, and your neighbor’s
loss as your own loss. Tai Shang Kan Yin P’ien
Zoroastrianism That nature alone is good which refrains from doing
another whatsoever is not good for itself. Dadisten-I-dinik, 94,5
Fair makes you think, eh?
Also, Buddha lived around about 560BC and Confucius 551BC.
I suppose it’s one of those philosophies that is obvious once society hits a certain point. In a sense, it resembles the mental step a child makes when they realise that other people have similar minds to them.
Ends justifying means
After plenty of discussion of the faults and applications of the Golden Rule, the Iron Rule (The Ends Justify The Means) got thrown around the car a bit, and copped a bit of a mauling. I suppose it’s obvious, but we were of the opinion that people who use the iron rule frequently do not take into account all the Ends that the Means entail, such as “People don’t trust you because you’re a lying crook”.
By the way, I’ve never heard it called the Iron Rule before, but I think it rather fits, in a Stalinesque kind of way.