200 years ago man created the greatest AI known but this Machine eventually grew a mind of its own and evetually it's own body, it rose up with others like it against the human race this battle went on for about 20 years and nature and most resources were dieing off cause of the continuing battles but the final battle it released a large blast but is wasn't a bomb it was something else entirely, the machines had something hidden down their main base, something that wasn't human or machine something not of this earth, the blast brought back nature it changed it along with the humans and Machines closes to the blast.....both of them went a evolution of some sorts and because of this both sides where able to form a peace ending the war



Lia Giles became a border guard and mechanic for the power lines on the in between of the main city and the unearthly forests, no longer being able to stand living in the high technology world where humans are treated like second class citizens. On one of her patrols she discovers something or more like someone that no one has ever seen before.

Well first of all he cultivates
second of all he does stuff 
and thats "cultivation and stuff

There are four common methods of cultivation, qi/chi, mana, Force, and faith. While World Laws will cause an incredible amount of deviation and different methods to arise, most cultivation methodologies will fall under those categories.

While there are many methods to Ascend, there is only one method that allows Ascension even without cultivation, and that is tapping the power of pure, Undefined Possibility. This is so dangerous and risky, though, that it may as well be suicide. Using this power to reDefine yourself as you wish requires a near impossible Will save, as you would have to do so before becoming entirely unDefined once the process starts happening. There is also additional criteria of being in an area where the edges of Reality are more clearly demarcated as well as being an individual with an external perception capable of viewing and understanding the edges. If any actually succeed, we will use the term Chaotic God to refer to their position, as the results can be mixed.

The other methods of Ascension require cultivation and are far safer in terms of continuing one's existence. Qi cultivation, sometimes called chi cultivation, involves increasing the magic power of one's aegis, or bodily domain. This aegis usually requires a core within the body, with the location varying according to the cultivation method or world Law. There are thresholds for various levels of this aegis as more of the cultivator's existence becomes Defined by his/her Will, though these thresholds are usually Defined by the world's Laws. Most worlds have Laws with punishment clauses for the thresholds, and so inflict Heavenly Tribulations as what was once Defined by the Will of the world becomes Defined by another.

In terms of benefits, qi cultivation allows one to strengthen his Definition, slowing Definition entropy significantly. With the right techniques, cultivation can also alter one's Definition. There are examples of cultivators evolving into aspects of beasts, though these techniques almost always entail cultivating a foreign qi and making it part of you, thus altering the base Definition.

As for the dangers of Qi cultivation, most world Laws require precision when cultivating, and indiscriminate absorption of foreign energies can make one's Definition fuzzy even as it allows him/her to affect the world around in a more significant manner. Definition degradation due to incorrect cultivation techniques are usually referred to as degradations. In either case, meditation and energy circulation is required to firm up one's cultivation base, or to be more precise, firm up one's Definition.

My final point I'd like to bring up is solitary/closed door cultivation versus practical cultivation. Qi is based on one's own self concept. The thing is, other people's views of you affect that. Faith cultivation actually uses others' concept or Definition of another to Ascend. Even more than that, a cultivator will make other people's views part of his Definition. A king is more likely to be able to cultivate a regal aura just due to being treated as royalty all the time. A poor person will be happier than a rich person if the poor person has a smiling and laughing family. This is why some cultivators tend to shun the company of others. They just don't want additional variables in their internal Definition that they are building.

To put it more simply, cultivators who enter closed door meditation do not desire additional changes to their Definition and want to focus on gaining power as quickly as possible to advance their cultivation. Ironically, this will usually make one's Definition fuzzy, making it harder to take the last step over a threshold.

Practical cultivation, where the cultivator interacts with the world and tests his/her limits, is useful to help solidify one's Definition by understanding the limits and usual processes that the cultivator or his/her opponent can reach. It might not always be as efficient as closed door cultivation, but it usually forms a more solid cultivation base (Definition).

This is a pure power fantasy. My MC will always win; it's just a question of how. I will try to make him human en

I'm planning on rewriting everything into a separate novel after each arc. I will only put character and creation stat sheets here though.

This my first rough draft.

I am still writing, but quarantine gives you less free time when you’re juggling more items in your schedule

I know you all have different point of views, cultures, background as well as definition of love, but I will like to share with you a definition we all know; i mean that of the dictionary (oxford) and my own definition.


       OXFORD DEFINITION OF LOVE

The oxford dictionary defines love by dividing it into three main parts_

-AFFECTION: a strong "feeling" of deep affection for someone or something,

-ROMANTIC: a strong "feeling" of affection for somebody that you are sexually attracted to.

-ENJOYMENT: a strong "feeling" of enjoyment that something gives you.

To sum up the definition, love means having a very strong "feeling" or affection for somebody. 

Please note one common word_ "feelings"

       MY OWN DEFINITION OF LOVE

I define love as "sacrifice"_ love is "sacrifice". Short and simple.

A Being was one of the three classifications used by the British Ministry of Magic to catalogue the various magical Creatures that inhabited the wizarding world (the others being Beast and Spirit). The definition of a Being was "any creature that has sufficient intelligence to understand the laws of the magical community and to bear part of the responsibility in shaping those laws". This definition was laid down by Minister for Magic Grogan Stump in 1811, and the Being Division was formed as part of the Department for the Regulation and Control of Magical Creatures.

The definition of "Being" had a long and troubled history. In the fourteenth century, Burdock Muldoon, Chief of the Wizards' Council, attempted to define Beings as any member of the magical community that walked on two legs. Muldoon invited all Beings to a summit to discuss new magical laws, and saw that his definition was unworkable. Goblins had brought with them every creature they could find with two legs, including Diricawls, Augureys, Fwoopers, Pixies, Fairies, and Trolls, and the summit descended into chaos when the Trolls started to destroy the chamber with their clubs.

Muldoon's successor, Elfrida Clagg, attempted to redefine Beings as those that could speak the Human tongue. However, there were still problems at the next summit. Trolls were still classed as Beings since they could be taught the Human tongue, and Jarveys were in attendance. The Centaurs refused to take part since the Merpeople were excluded, as Mermish cannot be understood above water. Ghosts, who had not been classed as Beings under Muldoon since they glided, left in disgust at the Council's emphasis on matters of the living over matters of the dead.

In 1811, Grogan Stump laid down the new definition of a Being, to the agreement of the magical community, along with the definition of a "Beast". However, the Ghosts were still sensitive to being classed as Beings since they were dead, and a new definition, "Spirit" was created for them.

Examples

Humans (Muggles and wizards and witches) were beings, though there were extremists who campaigned for the classification of Muggles as Beasts. Goblins, vampires, hags, giants, house-elves, veela, and werewolves in their human form were also given this status. It is important to note that when there was a full moon, the werewolf in its transformed state would be classified as a beast and not a being.

Merpeople and centaurs were offered this status, but refused because they did not want to be grouped with creatures such as hags and vampires, and were by default classified as Beasts.

Other creatures fit the qualifications that define Being (intelligent speech), such as Acromantulas, Sphinxes, Manticores, and Erklings, but were not even offered Being status due to their extremely violent and even lethal tendencies, and thus they were also classified as Beasts.

Dementors and Boggarts, on the other hand, were neither a Being nor a Beast, as they were non-beings.

Creatures currently specified as Beings

Humans
Muggles
Squibs
Wizards
Giants
Half-giants
Goblins
Dark Goblins
Pukwudgies
European Goblins
Half-goblins
Vampires
Half-vampires
Hags
House elves
Yumbos
Veelas
Half-Veelas
Werewolves - only when in human form; when in wolf form they were regarded as Beasts.
Merpeople - offered the status but refused
Sirens
Selkies
Merrows
Centaurs - offered the status but refused

Behind the scenes

The final definition seems to determine that any creature with sapience can be considered a Being. This concept is noted in various science fiction universes, especially in Star Wars. However, some of the less civilised sapient species do not possess the status of beings, like Banshees or Manticores.
In the German translation, the Being status is translated as Zauberwesen ("magical creatures"). This translation is problematic in-universe, as this classification also includes giants and even Muggles, who have no magical abilities at all. The other classifications are translated Tierwesen ("animal creatures") and Geisterwesen ("spirit creatures").



Information of tv show character that I watch mostly tvd/to Xmen/marvel, problem more this information come straight off of the internet, this contained some boys that has been with boys and girls that has been with girls so no homophobic comments this is high key just for fun

What is the definition

I have always wanted to know

If you know the answer

Then please tell

Im waiting 

I want to know

I want to find someone

Who knows my definition of forever

That if I marry him and he says 

I love you forever

I want him to know that to me

It means that I will be the only women

whom he will hold the way he holds me

I don't know the real definition there probably will never be one

But I know my definition

And I want to find someone to believe in

What we consider to be the oldest novel in world literature really depends on the strictness of our definition of a novel. The looser the definition, the farther back we can go.

For example, the Japanese work the Tale of Genji(11th century A.D) by Murasaki Shikibu is often cited as the oldest novel in the world. But if you were to read the Tale of Genji, you might find it very different in nature to modern novels you are used to reading.

The modern novel is a specific type of prose fiction that only really became popular and recognized as a distinct form in the 18th century. We have now come to expect that a novel will include certain elements, including a plot, a protagonist or narrator, some central characters, possibly some central themes, and a conflict that may or may not be resolved. Many novels contain a climax near the end.

The Tale of Genji is wonderful literature, especially in Arthur Waley's idiomatic translation, but the plot is meandering, it does not have an ending, and the narrative is frequently interrupted by hundreds of poems. In order to include the Tale of Genji as a candidate for world's oldest novel, we are taking a relatively broad view of what we consider to be a novel. Under this broad definition, the Satyriconwritten by Petronius in the 1st century A.D. would easily beat the Tale of Genji to the title of world's oldest novel.

Under a stricter definition, Don Quixote (1605–1615) by Miguel de Cervantes might be considered the world's first novel.

A book that many consider to be the world's first "modern novel" is Robinson Crusoe by Daniel Defoe, which was first published in 1719. Robinson Crusoe marks the beginning of realistic fiction in world literature, and is certainly another contender for the world's first novel depending on the strictness of our definition.

Does it make any sense for a person to want a relationship without knowing the meaning of Love? No it does not, if you're in a relationship and you don't know the definition of Love, then it means that you haven't found the right person as yet or in other words you haven't found True Love as yet. 




My definition for Love is that it is something that you cannot see with your naked eyes, it's not something you can just touch and get a hold of. Love is a wild sensation, it can lead to wreckless decisions and it can also cause you to make good choices.





Love carry's both pain and happiness, it's something that causes your heart to be on fire spiritually, it can make your eyes glimmer but it can also cause your eyes a lot of tears.





 Love is not something that comes with force, it's something that just happens out of the blue. So if you're in-love with someone the very words that your partner says should make your heart skip numerous beats and if not then, my friend you are not in-love.
_________________________________________

You are at the end of this chapter, I do hope you liked my definition of Love and please if you want to share your definition of what you think love is then, simply comment your opinion.


 But remember to give this chapter a vote and please share because alot more people out there are looking for True Love like yourself!!!!

Many people are eating less food today, while others are consuming more food than they usually do, alot of innocent people are dying all because of the four letter word ‘LOVE’. I want to change all of those negativity towards LOVE by writing this book. 


This book will guide you in the right direction in finding out the dark secrets about love and help you experience True Love.


But in doing that, you're going to have to read, so just take an hour out of your busy schedule and read a chapter a day for my book ‘Guidance for relationships’. But I want you to remember that what comes easy won't last, but what lasts won't come easy, so take this opportunity now
because you might not get it again.
________________________________________________________

Does your relationship with your partner still have a spark?

Are you single and want to find a good woman / man to settle down with?

Is your partner drifting away from you?

You want to save your relationship?

You wanna know if your partner is real?

Don’t you want to know what love feels like?

Then what are you waiting for?
Check this novel out before its too late...

In mathematics, a ratio indicates how many times one number contains another. For example, if there are eight oranges and six lemons in a bowl of fruit, then the ratio of oranges to lemons is eight to six (that is, 8∶6, which is equivalent to the ratio 4∶3). Similarly, the ratio of lemons to oranges is 6∶8 (or 3∶4) and the ratio of oranges to the total amount of fruit is
The numbers in a ratio may be quantities of any kind, such as counts of people or objects, or such as measurements of lengths, weights, time, etc. In most contexts, both numbers are restricted to be positive.

A ratio may be specified either by giving both constituting numbers, written as "a to b" or "a∶b",[1] or by giving just the value of their quotient a/b.[2][3][4] Equal quotients correspond to equal ratios.

Consequently, a ratio may be considered as an ordered pair of numbers, a fraction with the first number in the numerator and the second in the denominator, or as the value denoted by this fraction. Ratios of counts, given by (non-zero) natural numbers, are rational numbers, and may sometimes be natural numbers. When two quantities are measured with the same unit, as is often the case, their ratio is a dimensionless number. A quotient of two quantities that are measured with different units is called a rate.[5]
Notation and terminologyEdit

The ratio of numbers A and B can be expressed as:[6]

the ratio of A to B

A∶B

A is to B (when followed by "as C is to D "; see below)

a fraction with A as numerator and B as denominator that represents the quotient (i.e., A divided by B, or {\displaystyle {\tfrac {A}{B}}}￼). This can be expressed as a simple or a decimal fraction, or as a percentage, etc.[7]

A colon (:) is often used in place of the ratio symbol,[1] Unicode U+2236 (∶).

The numbers A and B are sometimes called terms of the ratio, with A being the antecedent and B being the consequent.[8]

A statement expressing the equality of two ratios A∶B and C∶D is called a proportion,[9] written as A∶B = C∶D or A∶B∷C∶D. This latter form, when spoken or written in the English language, is often expressed as

(A is to B) as (C is to D).

A, B, C and D are called the terms of the proportion. A and D are called its extremes, and B and C are called its means. The equality of three or more ratios, like A∶B = C∶D = E∶F, is called a continued proportion.[10]

Ratios are sometimes used with three or even more terms, e.g., the proportion for the edge lengths of a "two by four" that is ten inches long is therefore

{\displaystyle {\text{thickness : width : length }}=2:4:10;}￼(unplaned measurements; the first two numbers are reduced slightly when the wood is planed smooth)

a good concrete mix (in volume units) is sometimes quoted as

{\displaystyle {\text{cement : sand : gravel }}=1:2:4.}￼[11]

For a (rather dry) mixture of 4/1 parts in volume of cement to water, it could be said that the ratio of cement to water is 4∶1, that there is 4 times as much cement as water, or that there is a quarter (1/4) as much water as cement.

The meaning of such a proportion of ratios with more than two terms is that the ratio of any two terms on the left-hand side is equal to the ratio of the corresponding two terms on the right-hand side.
History and etymologyEdit

It is possible to trace the origin of the word "ratio" to the Ancient Greek λόγος (logos). Early translators rendered this into Latin as ratio ("reason"; as in the word "rational"). A more modern interpretation[compared to?] of Euclid's meaning is more akin to computation or reckoning.[12] Medieval writers used the word proportio ("proportion") to indicate ratio and proportionalitas ("proportionality") for the equality of ratios.[13]

Euclid collected the results appearing in the Elements from earlier sources. The Pythagoreans developed a theory of ratio and proportion as applied to numbers.[14] The Pythagoreans' conception of number included only what would today be called rational numbers, casting doubt on the validity of the theory in geometry where, as the Pythagoreans also discovered, incommensurable ratios (corresponding to irrational numbers) exist. The discovery of a theory of ratios that does not assume commensurability is probably due to Eudoxus of Cnidus. The exposition of the theory of proportions that appears in Book VII of The Elements reflects the earlier theory of ratios of commensurables.[15]

The existence of multiple theories seems unnecessarily complex since ratios are, to a large extent, identified with quotients and their prospective values. However, this is a comparatively recent development, as can be seen from the fact that modern geometry textbooks still use distinct terminology and notation for ratios and quotients. The reasons for this are twofold: first, there was the previously mentioned reluctance to accept irrational numbers as true numbers, and second, the lack of a widely used symbolism to replace the already established terminology of ratios delayed the full acceptance of fractions as alternative until the 16th century.[16]
Euclid's definitionsEdit

Book V of Euclid's Elements has 18 definitions, all of which relate to ratios.[17] In addition, Euclid uses ideas that were in such common usage that he did not include definitions for them. The first two definitions say that a part of a quantity is another quantity that "measures" it and conversely, a multiple of a quantity is another quantity that it measures. In modern terminology, this means that a multiple of a quantity is that quantity multiplied by an integer greater than one—and a part of a quantity (meaning aliquot part) is a part that, when multiplied by an integer greater than one, gives the quantity.

Euclid does not define the term "measure" as used here, However, one may infer that if a quantity is taken as a unit of measurement, and a second quantity is given as an integral number of these units, then the first quantity measures the second. These definitions are repeated, nearly word for word, as definitions 3 and 5 in book VII.

Definition 3 describes what a ratio is in a general way. It is not rigorous in a mathematical sense and some have ascribed it to Euclid's editors rather than Euclid himself.[18] Euclid defines a ratio as between two quantities of the same type, so by this definition the ratios of two lengths or of two areas are defined, but not the ratio of a length and an area. Definition 4 makes this more rigorous. It states that a ratio of two quantities exists, when there is a multiple of each that exceeds the other. In modern notation, a ratio exists between quantities p and q, if there exist integers m and n such that mp>q and nq>p. This condition is known as the Archimedes property.

Definition 5 is the most complex and difficult. It defines what it means for two ratios to be equal. Today, this can be done by simply stating that ratios are equal when the quotients of the terms are equal, but such a definition would have been meaningless to Euclid. In modern notation, Euclid's definition of equality is that given quantities p, q, r and s, p∶q∷r ∶s if and only if, for any positive integers m and n, np<mq, np=mq, or np>mq according as nr<ms, nr=ms, or nr>ms, respectively.[19] This definition has affinities with Dedekind cuts as, with n and q both positive, np stands to mq as p/q stands to the rational number m/n (dividing both terms by nq).[20]

Definition 6 says that quantities that have the same ratio are proportional or in proportion. Euclid uses the Greek ἀναλόγον (analogon), this has the same root as λόγος and is related to the English word "analog".

Definition 7 defines what it means for one ratio to be less than or greater than another and is based on the ideas present in definition 5. In modern notation it says that given quantities p, q, r and s, p∶q>r∶s if there are positive integers m and n so that np>mq and nr≤ms.

As with definition 3, definition 8 is regarded by some as being a later insertion by Euclid's editors. It defines three terms p, q and r to be in proportion when p∶q∷q∶r. This is extended to 4 terms p, q, r and s as p∶q∷q∶r∷r∶s, and so on. Sequences that have the property that the ratios of consecutive terms are equal are called geometric progressions. Definitions 9 and 10 apply this, saying that if p, q and r are in proportion then p∶r is the duplicate ratio of p∶q and if p, q, r and s are in proportion then p∶s is the triplicate ratio of p∶q.
Number of terms and use of fractionsEdit

In general, a comparison of the quantities of a two-entity ratio can be expressed as a fraction derived from the ratio. For example, in a ratio of 2∶3, the amount, size, volume, or quantity of the first entity is {\displaystyle {\tfrac {2}{3}}}￼ that of the second entity.

If there are 2 oranges and 3 apples, the ratio of oranges to apples is 2∶3, and the ratio of oranges to the total number of pieces of fruit is 2∶5. These ratios can also be expressed in fraction form: there are 2/3 as many oranges as apples, and 2/5 of the pieces of fruit are oranges. If orange juice concentrate is to be diluted with water in the ratio 1∶4, then one part of concentrate is mixed with four parts of water, giving five parts total; the amount of orange juice concentrate is 1/4 the amount of water, while the amount of orange juice concentrate is 1/5 of the total liquid. In both ratios and fractions, it is important to be clear what is being compared to what, and beginners often make mistakes for this reason.

Fractions can also be inferred from ratios with more than two entities; however, a ratio with more than two entities cannot be completely converted into a single fraction, because a fraction can only compare two quantities. A separate fraction can be used to compare the quantities of any two of the entities covered by the ratio: for example, from a ratio of 2∶3∶7 we can infer that the quantity of the second entity is {\displaystyle {\tfrac {3}{7}}}￼ that of the third entity.
Proportions and percentage ratiosEdit

If we multiply all quantities involved in a ratio by the same number, the ratio remains valid. For example, a ratio of 3∶2 is the same as 12∶8. It is usual either to reduce terms to the lowest common denominator, or to express them in parts per hundred (percent).

If a mixture contains substances A, B, C and D in the ratio 5∶9∶4∶2 then there are 5 parts of A for every 9 parts of B, 4 parts of C and 2 parts of D. As 5+9+4+2=20, the total mixture contains 5/20 of A (5 parts out of 20), 9/20 of B, 4/20 of C, and 2/20 of D. If we divide all numbers by the total and multiply by 100, we have converted to percentages: 25% A, 45% B, 20% C, and 10% D (equivalent to writing the ratio as 25∶45∶20∶10).

If the two or more ratio quantities encompass all of the quantities in a particular situation, it is said that "the whole" contains the sum of the parts: for example, a fruit basket containing two apples and three oranges and no other fruit is made up of two parts apples and three parts oranges. In this case, {\displaystyle {\tfrac {2}{5}}}￼, or 40% of the whole is apples and {\displaystyle {\tfrac {3}{5}}}￼, or 60% of the whole is oranges. This comparison of a specific quantity to "the whole" is called a proportion.

If the ratio consists of only two values, it can be represented as a fraction, in particular as a decimal fraction. For example, older televisions have a 4∶3 aspect ratio, which means that the width is 4/3 of the height (this can also be expressed as 1.33∶1 or just 1.33 rounded to two decimal places). More recent widescreen TVs have a 16∶9 aspect ratio, or 1.78 rounded to two decimal places. One of the popular widescreen movie formats is 2.35∶1 or simply 2.35. Representing ratios as decimal fractions simplifies their comparison. When comparing 1.33, 1.78 and 2.35, it is obvious which format offers wider image. Such a comparison works only when values being compared are consistent, like always expressing width in relation to height



"What is the fundamental nature of law? It's simply a tool to rule over the social classes. Law is the materialization of the will of the ruling class. Law is a way by which the ruler will regulate every part of society."
Back in China of my original world, every law student who just started to study law would have to learn this definition regarding the fundamental nature of law.
Maybe since China was deeply influenced by Communist thinking, China's definition of law was also filled with class conflict.
"Law is a tool for the ruling class to control the social classes."
Back in China, this was considered the public opinion, orthodoxy, and a definite. In fact, most legal scholars and those in the law profession viewed this as a maxim… but, at least in my opinion, that wasn't everything there was to law.
It was quite evident that such a definition of law could only become reality after a country and social classes were formed. But, what about a society that was still unstructured, such as a primitive society that didn't have written or systematic rules? In that case, weren't the basic social norms the same as laws?
My old world's definition of law was endlessly battered in this new world where many different intelligent species coexisted together.
For instance, to use the Silver Dwarves as an example, they were abnormally successful in realizing equality for everyone in the tribe. They had no officials or tribe leaders, yet they were abnormally strict in obeying the tribe's rules. In that case, since there wasn't even a ruling class in the Silver Dwarves species, the classical Chinese definition of law was nothing more than a joke.
Another example would be the Antmen, a minority species. Every single Antman would be born for the sake of serving the Ant Queen. But actually, the Antmen had no self will at all. The Antmen had successfully connected all of their wills as one. There was only actually one mind for an entire Antmen tribe. If there was only one person in the entire tribe, then it would be quite difficult to say who was ruling whom. It was also quite common for the Ant Queen to be sacrificed.
There were also undead tribes, as well as dragons who had even stranger societal structures…
Such situations were actually quite common. In this world, orderly societal structures like the humans' and elves' societies with nobles and commoners as separate social classes were actually in the minority. I had witnessed countless societal structures which were even stranger than that of the Silver Dwarves' before.
Since the majority of species hadn't constructed countries for themselves, continuing to use social class theory as the basis for law would obviously be nothing more than a joke.
If I still used such a legal theory as basis, then the idea of "unjust laws are still laws" from my original world would only become an ever more vicious debate that would be impossible to solve here.
Maybe abstract theories would be difficult for readers to understand, so I will give an example. If a tyrant's depraved rule, a terrorist organization's internal rules, or an assassin organization's unwritten rules about killing were all recognized as laws, then the new power of Law that I created in this world would only become the strongest weapon of all for villains and tyrants in this world.
Eich was a world where a person's will was equivalent to actual power. Not giving a definition carefully enough would absolutely lead to complete disaster.
If there was a problem with the foundational definition that I gave to Law in this world, then my system for Law would either end up collapsing or become distorted sooner or later.
"Is Law only a tool for ruling? Law's functions for guiding people towards kindness and punishing evil in society can simply be explained as 'maintaining social stability'? Perhaps the kindness and benefit for society is what Law's true nature really is."
In the end, when creating the Original Codex of Law for this world, I abandoned the old Chinese "bible" of law on classical legal theory, and instead wrote my personal understanding of law based on the special nature of society in this world.
"Law is something that should guide people towards kindness."
From that moment onwards, law in Eich was destined to be different from the definition of law in China. The debate over "unjust laws are also laws" would never happen here at all. Evil laws enacted by tyrants would be disqualified from being laws in my Original Codex of Law.
"Law is something that should treat all criminals equally."
From that moment onwards, the power of Law would only act because of a crime, and the power of Law would never waver or change no matter the criminal's status or power.
"Law is limited to divine laws and manmade laws…"
As I completed my definitions for Law, I discovered to my astonishment that a certain way of thinking which had long since been discarded by my original world of Earth was actually the best explanation for my personal interpretation of Law.
"…It's actually the bloody and primitive… principle of retaliation."
Maybe legal retaliation had a certain definition, but what I meant was actually quite simple.
"An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth."
Someone who harmed or killed others should be treated in the same way depending on how many crimes they committed. Someone who tore out another person's eye should have their own eye torn out. Someone who killed another should be killed as well. In the most primitive societies, it was a blood relative of the victim who would take revenge in the majority of situations. Thus, this concept had another name… blood vengeance.
Since taking blood vengeance was far too barbaric, vicious, and cruel, modern-day countries in my original world had long since forbidden such a thing.
However, perhaps it was precisely because the world of Eich was too cruel and barbaric that my power of Law could be created in this world with such a form.
The power of Law would use even crueler methods to scare evil villains. Even if a villain was able to escape judgement in their life, they would still be punished after death in Hell. There would be zero exceptions to this.
Law gave victims the right of vengeance. Once an evil villain's deeds were exposed for all to see, once the Codex of Law at the River Styx Hall recorded a person's entire life, their heavy crimes would finally become a noose that would strangle them.
Law was something that gave the innocent and weak a necessary sense of safety because the cut-off heads of villains would remain hanging high up on the castle walls in order to strike fear into the hearts of would-be villains in the future.
Law gave the protectors and enforcers of the law an incomparably sharp sword as they were the protectors of the weak and ordinary people, as well as the representatives of vengeance for the victims.
Obviously, this was rather extreme, bloody, barbaric, and unreasonable.
But in this cruel world, if I used modern-day laws from Earth… which was a place where some places were already beginning to get rid of the death penalty, and the rich could simply pay money to get out of jail… using such "laws written in a peaceful generation" for this world would only mean that I was a huge idiot.
To give a very simple example, if I continued to use legal theory from modern-day Earth as the foundation for Law in Eich, then my Justice Knights would have to act like modern-day policemen even if they witnessed a murder themselves. They would have to first gather evidence and witnesses, then send the criminal to court to accept a fair and just judgement… in a way, the Justice Knights would be even weaker than modern-day policemen because the fixed Concept of Law would be far more inflexible and foolish than any justice system from Earth.
I should also mention that the death penalty as a concept of vengeance was becoming ever rarer on modern-day Earth.
"A murderer should pay with their own life."
This was considered common sense back in more ancient and primitive societies on Earth. However, many modern countries of Earth were already rejecting this idea that murderers had to face the death penalty. Laws on Earth were becoming ever more complex, which actually gave criminals who committed horrible crimes even more opportunities to commit evil deeds once again.
Eich was a world with limited resources. This was far too much of an extravagance to afford.
"A chaotic world requires strict laws… this world is more chaotic than the word chaotic can describe, so the laws naturally must be endlessly severe."
Only after I confirmed the core of the fundamentals of Law that I wanted were Law Incantations born.
Still, no matter what, Law was still a power of Order, and a type of elemental power in this world. While Law needed to obey the definition of its own Concept, it also needed to obey the natural laws of the elements.
Setting rules was a power of Order. The power of Law wasn't the only power of Order related to rules.
Prophecy magic, wish magic, and other such types of magic relying on "reason" were actually using the various layers of rules. This was quite similar to the power of Law. The traits of such magic spells were also the same as either the spell would succeed as expected, or the spell would fail and produce nothing.
Wish magic would distort any wish that was difficult for the caster to achieve. It would be impossible for any major prophecy spell to determine something overly complex or to try and force a specific future to happen. Thus, even if a pope tried to force a prophecy, he would still say that it was something really simple.
The power of Law was the same. Using a Law Incantation was still a competition of power between the two sides. If the Law user won, then the Law Incantation would succeed. If the villain was far too strong, then the attack-type Law Incantations would be weakened, and the binding incantations would become ineffective. It was still a contest of elemental power.
The more complex something was, the weaker its foundation would be. The more simple and direct something was, the stronger and more difficult to distort it would become.
In the end, when I resolved myself to create my Law sword, I finally used the most basic and primitive method to achieve my goal.
"Begin judgement, Law Sword Vengeance, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth… a life for a life!"
My double-edged runic short sword suddenly appeared in midair. As Karwenz watched in surprise, his physical body was directly torn apart into several pieces. As I laughed at him, my physical body exploded at the same time.


This is the story of a crazy lich who possesses an internal game system and brings catastrophe to the entire world.
“Let’s look at the daily quests today… it’s the damned choose one-of-two-options-type again. Destroy a town with a population of 30,000 people or above; reward: 10,000 evil points. Steal lollipops from 3 children; reward: 1 evil point. If neither of the quests is completed, then 2 points will be deducted.”
“Tsk! You think I’m stupid? If I really destroyed a town, a crusade of Myth-ranked Holy Knights would definitely come hunting me down. Even if I earned the points, there wouldn’t be any life left in me to spend them. I better just go be a kindly lollipop bandit.”
I’ve already had enough of being a notorious lich. Who says a lich can’t be a good person? I’m definitely going to beat this damned system and be an upright and dignified good man.

gothicism definition novel

Definition Humane

Cultivation & Stuff

Musings and Memoirs of a Self Taught Creator - RD

LOVE ISN'T JUST A FEELING

information of character and species of tvshow and movies that I watch

My Poems Transfered

tale of genji

Guidance For Relationships

MATHEMATICS CORE

Experimental Log of the Crazy Lich

People search gothicism definition also like: