Previous
Dragonrealms is not set in the 20th century. People in DR do not think the same way as people of the 20th century. No one beleived morality was situational until the last half of the 20th century, so there is absolutely no reason why people in Dragonrealms should think this way.
For thousands of years, everyone would tell you that there is an absolute right and an absolute wrong. They wouldn't all agree to which was absolutely right or absolutely wrong, but they all beleived that such things existed. Many of them couldn't even tell you what was absolutely right or absolutely wrong, but they'd still claim such things existed.
Try to set yourself in the timeframe of the game. Think like they do.
LYNEMN
ROTHJ
Re: You people think too 20th century
02/10/2003 12:12 PM CST
<<Try to set yourself in the timeframe of the game. Think like they do.>>
Two things:
1. The message boards are inherently OOC, and therefore we can fully utilize our own understanding of "the ways things are."
2. Dragonrealms, for better or for worse, is not a reflection of medieval times. Rather, it is a conglomeration of various cultures at varying time frames (for example, the Elothean "sushi" offered at the Ratha festival a while back is in no way corresponding to the medieval ages, even in Japan). Furthermore, the players themselves bring their own experiences into the situation. This is why players speak in Modern English rather than Middle English, and also why everyone who uses "thee" and "thou" not only gets the usage wrong, but cannot pronounce them correctly, either.
Drongol's Player
Two things:
1. The message boards are inherently OOC, and therefore we can fully utilize our own understanding of "the ways things are."
2. Dragonrealms, for better or for worse, is not a reflection of medieval times. Rather, it is a conglomeration of various cultures at varying time frames (for example, the Elothean "sushi" offered at the Ratha festival a while back is in no way corresponding to the medieval ages, even in Japan). Furthermore, the players themselves bring their own experiences into the situation. This is why players speak in Modern English rather than Middle English, and also why everyone who uses "thee" and "thou" not only gets the usage wrong, but cannot pronounce them correctly, either.
Drongol's Player
LENNONJON
Re: You people think too 20th century
02/10/2003 12:17 PM CST
<<For thousands of years, everyone would tell you that there is an absolute right and an absolute wrong. They wouldn't all agree to which was absolutely right or absolutely wrong, but they all beleived that such things existed. Many of them couldn't even tell you what was absolutely right or absolutely wrong, but they'd still claim such things existed.>>
Why is that any different than today? People still believe in an absolute right or wrong, yet still cannot come up with an example. Historically people knew about other cultures, other laws, other perspectives on morality. Yet each one believed that their own was correct. Yesterday is today.
Dragonrealms has the concept pretty much correct from a historical perspective. What is "right" is so because the gods deem it to be. That person over there is smited by the big bolt of lightening, even though my perception of him was that he was a nice guy. Yet he must have done something "wrong" because the gods justice is "right". Thats how morality has been defined in the past, by what your god (or your interpretation of your god) finds acceptable. 1) Thou shalt not steal - Why? Because my god says so. I don't care if you are starving and taking that loaf of bread from the rich merchant. Blah blah blah. Absolutes are set up and defined, yet these absolutes are not all encompassing, and don't go cross-culturally. Morality is contextual, both within and across cultures. Its a simple statement, a simple concept, yet holds so much.
--Just a "Clueless" Squire
Why is that any different than today? People still believe in an absolute right or wrong, yet still cannot come up with an example. Historically people knew about other cultures, other laws, other perspectives on morality. Yet each one believed that their own was correct. Yesterday is today.
Dragonrealms has the concept pretty much correct from a historical perspective. What is "right" is so because the gods deem it to be. That person over there is smited by the big bolt of lightening, even though my perception of him was that he was a nice guy. Yet he must have done something "wrong" because the gods justice is "right". Thats how morality has been defined in the past, by what your god (or your interpretation of your god) finds acceptable. 1) Thou shalt not steal - Why? Because my god says so. I don't care if you are starving and taking that loaf of bread from the rich merchant. Blah blah blah. Absolutes are set up and defined, yet these absolutes are not all encompassing, and don't go cross-culturally. Morality is contextual, both within and across cultures. Its a simple statement, a simple concept, yet holds so much.
--Just a "Clueless" Squire
F4S4VR
Re: You people think too 20th century
02/10/2003 01:06 PM CST
>Morality is contextual, both within and across cultures. Its a simple statement, a simple concept, yet holds so much.
I am not sure if I am reading this right or if you are advocating that all morality is situational (as would be suggested by your theft example) or if you mean contextual differently, as in viewed through the context of each individual's beliefs, culture, experiences, etc?
Gloryarm
I am not sure if I am reading this right or if you are advocating that all morality is situational (as would be suggested by your theft example) or if you mean contextual differently, as in viewed through the context of each individual's beliefs, culture, experiences, etc?
Gloryarm
HANESB
Re: You people think too 20th century
02/10/2003 01:28 PM CST
I think what he meant is that the concept of right and wrong is based on the norms of a given society, and, thus, societies with different norms will have a different idea of what is right or wrong.
Player of Linras Cauldrath - using his psychic powers to their fullest
Player of Linras Cauldrath - using his psychic powers to their fullest
LENNONJON
Re: You people think too 20th century
02/10/2003 02:05 PM CST
<<I am not sure if I am reading this right or if you are advocating that all morality is situational (as would be suggested by your theft example) or if you mean contextual differently, as in viewed through the context of each individual's beliefs, culture, experiences, etc?>>
Therein lies the problem. Morality as the Psychic Paladin has stated is going to be based upon what a given society deems the "norm". Yet I will go a step further and state that even that normed morality itself changes given the contextual situation that arises, within said society. That is one reason we have a judiciary system in the U.S. to interpret the black-letter laws (the ethical guidelines of what is/ isn't right, just, moral). Each judge upon interpreting these laws understands the same basic concepts, but given the situation the law may be interpreted such and such a way as opposed to another way. Because of this allowance for interpretation, what is considered moral in a society changes over time, if there was no interpretation then it would remain static.
So to sum up: All morality and ethical considerations changes with the culture, timeframe, and context the moral consideration finds itself. No concept of morality is universal in nature, nor histrically static, neither across societies, nor within them.
--Just a "clueless" Squire
Therein lies the problem. Morality as the Psychic Paladin has stated is going to be based upon what a given society deems the "norm". Yet I will go a step further and state that even that normed morality itself changes given the contextual situation that arises, within said society. That is one reason we have a judiciary system in the U.S. to interpret the black-letter laws (the ethical guidelines of what is/ isn't right, just, moral). Each judge upon interpreting these laws understands the same basic concepts, but given the situation the law may be interpreted such and such a way as opposed to another way. Because of this allowance for interpretation, what is considered moral in a society changes over time, if there was no interpretation then it would remain static.
So to sum up: All morality and ethical considerations changes with the culture, timeframe, and context the moral consideration finds itself. No concept of morality is universal in nature, nor histrically static, neither across societies, nor within them.
--Just a "clueless" Squire
C-TOM
F4S4VR
Re: You people think too 20th century
02/10/2003 02:50 PM CST
>So to sum up: All morality and ethical considerations changes with the culture, timeframe, and context the moral consideration finds itself. No concept of morality is universal in nature, nor histrically static, neither across societies, nor within them.
OK, I get what you are saying, but is this really the case when it is a morality, ethics, or whatever you want to call it, this is based upon "religious" laws? Although some may be open to "interpretation" and thus become contextual/situational, surely some are not open to interpretation and thus are not contextual/situational?
I mean, something like "You will dip your hands in water three times before eating anything" seems like it isn't really open to interpretation, and thus doesn't change based on context/situation.
And, secondly, what of absolutes viewed through "faith" - which requires disregarding any input from society, culture, timeframe, etc??
If my Paladin operates on a fixed externally based code of morality and does so based on his faith that following that particular code is always moral, doesn't that alleviate any problems based on "context" or "situation"?
Gloryarm
OK, I get what you are saying, but is this really the case when it is a morality, ethics, or whatever you want to call it, this is based upon "religious" laws? Although some may be open to "interpretation" and thus become contextual/situational, surely some are not open to interpretation and thus are not contextual/situational?
I mean, something like "You will dip your hands in water three times before eating anything" seems like it isn't really open to interpretation, and thus doesn't change based on context/situation.
And, secondly, what of absolutes viewed through "faith" - which requires disregarding any input from society, culture, timeframe, etc??
If my Paladin operates on a fixed externally based code of morality and does so based on his faith that following that particular code is always moral, doesn't that alleviate any problems based on "context" or "situation"?
Gloryarm
DUETZ
Re: You people think too 20th century
02/10/2003 02:54 PM CST
Who's this Norm guy? ;P
Chestham
Havent you ever seen Cheers?
Chestham
Havent you ever seen Cheers?
LENNONJON
Re: You people think too 20th century
02/10/2003 04:27 PM CST
<<OK, I get what you are saying, but is this really the case when it is a morality, ethics, or whatever you want to call it, this is based upon "religious" laws? Although some may be open to "interpretation" and thus become contextual/situational, surely some are not open to interpretation and thus are not contextual/situational?>>
Yet again I'll ask for an example of a universal moral. If it isn't universal, then surely you can see it is the context (be it environment or situation) that keeps it from being so.
<<I mean, something like "You will dip your hands in water three times before eating anything" seems like it isn't really open to interpretation, and thus doesn't change based on context/situation.>>
Explain to me how this is considered to be moral? Yet, let me take this example as a law. What if I don't have any water around, and my children are starving? Should I let them starve to protect their "morality" or should I let them eat to protect their lives? Which takes precidence over the other? If I let them eat in order to save their lives rather than starve to protect any possible law it may be the case that if charges are brought against them (or me for allowing it) the judge will throw the book. Yet it may also be that the judge will see the situation and weigh out the rightness of one action vs. the other. This is the way the legal system (at least in Western countries) works. It is not strict to the letter of the law, it interprets the law based on the situation (if you don't believe me take some basic law, and law ethics courses).
<<And, secondly, what of absolutes viewed through "faith" - which requires disregarding any input from society, culture, timeframe, etc??>>
This depends on your view of "faith" and "religion". Laws tend to be based upon religious ideals. Religious ideals change with the time based on societies inputs. Look at the evolution of the "Christian" doctrines since their first inception, as an example. People change what they get from the doctrines, based on what they believe. Currently there are dozens of "Christian" religions all of which stemmed from the originating one, and each of which are unique in their perspectives, morals, and ethical considerations. It is very obvious that even "faith" isn't static.
<<If my Paladin operates on a fixed externally based code of morality and does so based on his faith that following that particular code is always moral, doesn't that alleviate any problems based on "context" or "situation"?>>
If he does the same thing every time regardless of the context it sure does (but I don't think he can even if he tries his hardest). However, as he acts in such a way, others may act in a different way so whos sense of morality is correct? Ultimately each believes him/herself correct based on their beliefs, faith, value system. But who is truly correct?
Now this isn't to say there aren't a few basic ideas that the majority of societies hold to be "moral" or "ethical", all I am saying is that they are NOT universal, and even within these societies that hold them to be true, they change over time and situation.
For example, one of the basic ethical beliefs in "science' is that the subject/ participant has the right to not be "harmed". Up until the mid-1900's the belief was that this meant "physically" harmed (prior to this it was only what the researcher percieved as harmful, even if the subject stated it was harmful, the research may not have). Currently, it means anything that causes the individual to feel uncomfortable be it "physical", "psychological", or "emotional". It has changed over time. Will it be the same in 50 years? Who knows...
--Just a "clueless" Squire
Yet again I'll ask for an example of a universal moral. If it isn't universal, then surely you can see it is the context (be it environment or situation) that keeps it from being so.
<<I mean, something like "You will dip your hands in water three times before eating anything" seems like it isn't really open to interpretation, and thus doesn't change based on context/situation.>>
Explain to me how this is considered to be moral? Yet, let me take this example as a law. What if I don't have any water around, and my children are starving? Should I let them starve to protect their "morality" or should I let them eat to protect their lives? Which takes precidence over the other? If I let them eat in order to save their lives rather than starve to protect any possible law it may be the case that if charges are brought against them (or me for allowing it) the judge will throw the book. Yet it may also be that the judge will see the situation and weigh out the rightness of one action vs. the other. This is the way the legal system (at least in Western countries) works. It is not strict to the letter of the law, it interprets the law based on the situation (if you don't believe me take some basic law, and law ethics courses).
<<And, secondly, what of absolutes viewed through "faith" - which requires disregarding any input from society, culture, timeframe, etc??>>
This depends on your view of "faith" and "religion". Laws tend to be based upon religious ideals. Religious ideals change with the time based on societies inputs. Look at the evolution of the "Christian" doctrines since their first inception, as an example. People change what they get from the doctrines, based on what they believe. Currently there are dozens of "Christian" religions all of which stemmed from the originating one, and each of which are unique in their perspectives, morals, and ethical considerations. It is very obvious that even "faith" isn't static.
<<If my Paladin operates on a fixed externally based code of morality and does so based on his faith that following that particular code is always moral, doesn't that alleviate any problems based on "context" or "situation"?>>
If he does the same thing every time regardless of the context it sure does (but I don't think he can even if he tries his hardest). However, as he acts in such a way, others may act in a different way so whos sense of morality is correct? Ultimately each believes him/herself correct based on their beliefs, faith, value system. But who is truly correct?
Now this isn't to say there aren't a few basic ideas that the majority of societies hold to be "moral" or "ethical", all I am saying is that they are NOT universal, and even within these societies that hold them to be true, they change over time and situation.
For example, one of the basic ethical beliefs in "science' is that the subject/ participant has the right to not be "harmed". Up until the mid-1900's the belief was that this meant "physically" harmed (prior to this it was only what the researcher percieved as harmful, even if the subject stated it was harmful, the research may not have). Currently, it means anything that causes the individual to feel uncomfortable be it "physical", "psychological", or "emotional". It has changed over time. Will it be the same in 50 years? Who knows...
--Just a "clueless" Squire
MATTDOBILAS
Re: You people think too 20th century
02/10/2003 05:55 PM CST
Why exactly does everyone assume DR is taking place a long long time ago in a galaxy far away?
Can't DR be existing in modern times but in a place/area that is untouched with modern/earthly ideas...
what i mean by this: the progression of human thought and understanding might not be applicable to DR since man evolved in a certain way but that does not mean that every "world" will evolve in the same way
The course of man's developement is well documented, but does that necessarily mean that DR would follow lock-step on that same path?
Laythor
:::who knew i had a brain:::
PS. yes it's small, but it's still there
PPS This is Laythor's brain, please stop making him use me
____________________________________________
It wont heal if you dont stop picking at it.
Can't DR be existing in modern times but in a place/area that is untouched with modern/earthly ideas...
what i mean by this: the progression of human thought and understanding might not be applicable to DR since man evolved in a certain way but that does not mean that every "world" will evolve in the same way
The course of man's developement is well documented, but does that necessarily mean that DR would follow lock-step on that same path?
Laythor
:::who knew i had a brain:::
PS. yes it's small, but it's still there
PPS This is Laythor's brain, please stop making him use me
____________________________________________
It wont heal if you dont stop picking at it.
OLDTIMER
Re: You people think too 20th century
02/10/2003 07:33 PM CST
<< Yet again I'll ask for an example of a universal moral. If it isn't universal, then surely you can see it is the context (be it environment or situation) that keeps it from being so. >>
Survival of the species.
Daython
As to the thee and thou stuff.. chuckles..... DR is a conglomeration of wildly, yes wildly used syntax. Daython uses a mix of King James English with modern English. Mostly because it is fun, and it projects the slightly conflicted nature of the character. Somewhat stoic and refined to the court yet strangely down to earth in practice. Yeah we could all get highbrowed about the "proper" use of language, I personally find it more interesting to observe how it is used and why. Language is such a complex and telling feature in life that it does constantly fascinate me.
Survival of the species.
Daython
As to the thee and thou stuff.. chuckles..... DR is a conglomeration of wildly, yes wildly used syntax. Daython uses a mix of King James English with modern English. Mostly because it is fun, and it projects the slightly conflicted nature of the character. Somewhat stoic and refined to the court yet strangely down to earth in practice. Yeah we could all get highbrowed about the "proper" use of language, I personally find it more interesting to observe how it is used and why. Language is such a complex and telling feature in life that it does constantly fascinate me.
LENNONJON
Re: You people think too 20th century
02/10/2003 08:05 PM CST
<<Survival of the species.>>
This is a moral?
If that indeed was a universal moral, it would stand to reason that ANYTHING I do to ensure such (at least in my mind) would be moral. Say going out and killing everyone in a 10-mile radius because I have the (mis) conception that somehow they are trying to end the survival of my species.
Besides animals don't act in "group" ways in order to ensure the survival of the species, they act in "group" ways in order to ensure the survival of the self (or from a Neo-Darwinian perspective those that share their genetic heritage). That is why I am more likely to aid my brother than my neighbor, my neighbor than a guy who lives 2-states away, and my countrymen than those who live in Iraq. The more like me something is, the more likely I will aid them. If this wasn't the case there would be no "war".
Yeah this is a greatly abbreviated summation of a vast amount of information from fields as disparate as ethology, biology, psychology, anthropology, economics, behavior genetics, sociology, theology, and history.
--Just a "clueless" Squire
This is a moral?
If that indeed was a universal moral, it would stand to reason that ANYTHING I do to ensure such (at least in my mind) would be moral. Say going out and killing everyone in a 10-mile radius because I have the (mis) conception that somehow they are trying to end the survival of my species.
Besides animals don't act in "group" ways in order to ensure the survival of the species, they act in "group" ways in order to ensure the survival of the self (or from a Neo-Darwinian perspective those that share their genetic heritage). That is why I am more likely to aid my brother than my neighbor, my neighbor than a guy who lives 2-states away, and my countrymen than those who live in Iraq. The more like me something is, the more likely I will aid them. If this wasn't the case there would be no "war".
Yeah this is a greatly abbreviated summation of a vast amount of information from fields as disparate as ethology, biology, psychology, anthropology, economics, behavior genetics, sociology, theology, and history.
--Just a "clueless" Squire
OLDTIMER
Re: You people think too 20th century
02/10/2003 11:16 PM CST
This is where it becomes to interesting.. because as humans we have the ability to transcend that which can not be made sense of by Darwinistic design.
so yes I buy into Jung for the most part, I can identify and understand what Kant was talking about. Trying to disprove a universal basis for morality by pointing out the outliers is scientifically unsound. Studied and understood, by all means, but not to toss out the whole concept.
Daython
so yes I buy into Jung for the most part, I can identify and understand what Kant was talking about. Trying to disprove a universal basis for morality by pointing out the outliers is scientifically unsound. Studied and understood, by all means, but not to toss out the whole concept.
Daython
ANDRE-BELTRAME
Re: You people think too 20th century
02/11/2003 10:35 AM CST
How about attacking anyone in any way is immoral?
I would just like to point that in the staving children and stealing water example that you're leaving the background of the history behind to make your example dubious. How did your children reach a point where they had no water? Who's water is it that you could steal...who's the person that owns the water? Why does the person owns the water? Why does anyone owns anything?
I would say that morality and ethics were created to form groups, from the to create or escape identity, and no other good reason than that. I would also add that from the word itself you could not expect a static thing. Something is moral. Moral isn't something. This is an apple. Can you say this is 'the moral' ? Does it really make sense?
Phanton
ps: On a last comment, trying not to offend anyone, naming writters and books will not only mean nothing for those folks who never heard of what you're talking about but can also cause mis-understandments..for I have not the same vision of even this post I wrote as you will get. Now let's try to imagine how three different folks would read something as profound as Jung.
I would just like to point that in the staving children and stealing water example that you're leaving the background of the history behind to make your example dubious. How did your children reach a point where they had no water? Who's water is it that you could steal...who's the person that owns the water? Why does the person owns the water? Why does anyone owns anything?
I would say that morality and ethics were created to form groups, from the to create or escape identity, and no other good reason than that. I would also add that from the word itself you could not expect a static thing. Something is moral. Moral isn't something. This is an apple. Can you say this is 'the moral' ? Does it really make sense?
Phanton
ps: On a last comment, trying not to offend anyone, naming writters and books will not only mean nothing for those folks who never heard of what you're talking about but can also cause mis-understandments..for I have not the same vision of even this post I wrote as you will get. Now let's try to imagine how three different folks would read something as profound as Jung.
F4S4VR
Re: You people think too 20th century
02/11/2003 11:10 AM CST
>Yet, let me take this example as a law. What if I don't have any water around, and my children are starving? Should I let them starve to protect their "morality" or should I let them eat to protect their lives? Which takes precidence over the other?
OK, this is where the whole "faith" thing comes in. IF I believe that what we do here and now is inconsequential and "survival" of the person is NOT important, then the moral "dilemma" disappears.
The law is, don't eat without the dipping thing. I follow the exact letter of the law. My children "starve" but, by faith, I believe they have moved on to a better place because I have followed the exact letter of the law.
>Yet again I'll ask for an example of a universal moral.
No, I think what you are asking is for an example of a universally "accepted" moral, which I don't believe exists. Howevere, a person can certainly believe that there are universal "morals" regardless of what anyone else believes or perceives. And, isn't it possible that such universal "morality" exists, we just don't definitely know it yet (until the GM's via the gods, declare it for us?)
>Ultimately each believes him/herself correct based on their beliefs, faith, value system. But who is truly correct?
Yep, my point exactly, except I don't think it matters, or is even possible to determine who is "truly" correct (yet <grins>).
So, my Paladin believes he acts morally, as long as he is always reacts the same, regardless of context or situation because he holds to the rough idea of "kill them all and let the gods sort them out" <g>
Gloryarm
OK, this is where the whole "faith" thing comes in. IF I believe that what we do here and now is inconsequential and "survival" of the person is NOT important, then the moral "dilemma" disappears.
The law is, don't eat without the dipping thing. I follow the exact letter of the law. My children "starve" but, by faith, I believe they have moved on to a better place because I have followed the exact letter of the law.
>Yet again I'll ask for an example of a universal moral.
No, I think what you are asking is for an example of a universally "accepted" moral, which I don't believe exists. Howevere, a person can certainly believe that there are universal "morals" regardless of what anyone else believes or perceives. And, isn't it possible that such universal "morality" exists, we just don't definitely know it yet (until the GM's via the gods, declare it for us?)
>Ultimately each believes him/herself correct based on their beliefs, faith, value system. But who is truly correct?
Yep, my point exactly, except I don't think it matters, or is even possible to determine who is "truly" correct (yet <grins>).
So, my Paladin believes he acts morally, as long as he is always reacts the same, regardless of context or situation because he holds to the rough idea of "kill them all and let the gods sort them out" <g>
Gloryarm
WARLOCKCO
Re: You people think too 20th century
02/11/2003 09:48 PM CST
If anyone takes offense, I apologize in advance.
Okay lets get a bit into things. Such as equal rights and such.
Yet Lilith was the 1st wife of Adam, who as created equal and at the same time. Adam didn't like her freewill and equalness, so Lilith was banished from the Garden, and Eve was created from Adam to be subservient to him.
Is this right or wrong? Are those religious fanatics that say women have no rights are correct or wrong?
As to the acquiring of new knowledge. Alot of those that were stoned, burned at the stake as heretics were scientists that came up with theories that went against the grain, that the Church insisted was wrong. Things like the Earth is not the center of the universe, but instead the Earth orbits the sun. Alot of things that are taken for granted by "modern medicine" were once Heresy by the Church.
The Partheon (sp?) in Greece was intact up to about 4-6 hundred years ago before the Roman Catholic Church visited, then alot things were looted or desecrated to fill the coffers of the church. All those greek statues with the empty eyes, those eyes used to be gems.
Was this wrong or right?
Whenever you get into Religion things go very mushy and gray.
Just my 2 cents worth
Okay lets get a bit into things. Such as equal rights and such.
Yet Lilith was the 1st wife of Adam, who as created equal and at the same time. Adam didn't like her freewill and equalness, so Lilith was banished from the Garden, and Eve was created from Adam to be subservient to him.
Is this right or wrong? Are those religious fanatics that say women have no rights are correct or wrong?
As to the acquiring of new knowledge. Alot of those that were stoned, burned at the stake as heretics were scientists that came up with theories that went against the grain, that the Church insisted was wrong. Things like the Earth is not the center of the universe, but instead the Earth orbits the sun. Alot of things that are taken for granted by "modern medicine" were once Heresy by the Church.
The Partheon (sp?) in Greece was intact up to about 4-6 hundred years ago before the Roman Catholic Church visited, then alot things were looted or desecrated to fill the coffers of the church. All those greek statues with the empty eyes, those eyes used to be gems.
Was this wrong or right?
Whenever you get into Religion things go very mushy and gray.
Just my 2 cents worth
C0UGAR
Re: You people think too 20th century
02/12/2003 03:38 AM CST
please dont bring religion into this.
Michael.
Michael.
OLDTIMER
Re: You people think too 20th century
02/12/2003 05:50 AM CST
Yup, hardly the latitude allowed here to fully discuss religious issues. Even used as examples to emphasize a point.
As to books... well the three books listed are books that are pretty much a must read for anyone interested in social order. As to Jung and Kant, very directed to someone I know knows the writings... smiles at Lennon. Him and I just have to come to terms with agreeing to disagree.
Daython
As to books... well the three books listed are books that are pretty much a must read for anyone interested in social order. As to Jung and Kant, very directed to someone I know knows the writings... smiles at Lennon. Him and I just have to come to terms with agreeing to disagree.
Daython
ANDRE-BELTRAME
Re: You people think too 20th century
02/12/2003 08:19 AM CST
My point was: Bring the facts and what you want to say. Don't bring book names and book writters for names and books say nothing to those who never read them. If those books are a must read or not, that's a personal view.
ANDRE-BELTRAME
Re: You people think too 20th century
02/12/2003 08:29 AM CST
<<The Partheon (sp?) in Greece was intact up to about 4-6 hundred years ago before the Roman Catholic Church visited, then alot things were looted or desecrated to fill the coffers of the church. All those greek statues with the empty eyes, those eyes used to be gems>>
Parthenon. The problem there was about the same problem that happens to most ancient time buldings. The 'times' that allowed them to be built change. Without having so much meaning they're just about as good as anything else on the place.
In the late sixth century the Parthenon was converted into a Christian church, and from about 1204, under the Frankish Dukes of Athens, it served as a Latin church, until in 1458 it was converted by the Turkish conquerors into a mosque. So you really can't blame church on destroying things. Not to mention the mediterran weather helps to ruin part of it. Believe it or not...a large part of the destruction made to those types of buildings happened in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
Half there or not, it was a nice place to visit.
Phanton
Parthenon. The problem there was about the same problem that happens to most ancient time buldings. The 'times' that allowed them to be built change. Without having so much meaning they're just about as good as anything else on the place.
In the late sixth century the Parthenon was converted into a Christian church, and from about 1204, under the Frankish Dukes of Athens, it served as a Latin church, until in 1458 it was converted by the Turkish conquerors into a mosque. So you really can't blame church on destroying things. Not to mention the mediterran weather helps to ruin part of it. Believe it or not...a large part of the destruction made to those types of buildings happened in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
Half there or not, it was a nice place to visit.
Phanton
WHITEC12
Re: You people think too 20th century
02/13/2003 11:53 AM CST
We all create God in our own image.
Morality is, by nature if not definition, subjective. I've even heard it taken so far as to say that morality IS the ideology screen through which we view the world not just a component of (can't think of the source off hand.)
Kant isn't required reading for most social or behavioural examination inclinded courses anymore?
"Someone" decided it was "moral" to use artificial vanilla in that previously mentioned ice cream, which of course constitutes "sacrilege" <grin>
Cheers
Morality is, by nature if not definition, subjective. I've even heard it taken so far as to say that morality IS the ideology screen through which we view the world not just a component of (can't think of the source off hand.)
Kant isn't required reading for most social or behavioural examination inclinded courses anymore?
"Someone" decided it was "moral" to use artificial vanilla in that previously mentioned ice cream, which of course constitutes "sacrilege" <grin>
Cheers
BYRONN
OLDTIMER
Re: You people think too 20th century
02/13/2003 07:26 PM CST
<< The Partheon (sp?) in Greece was intact up to about 4-6 hundred years ago before the Roman Catholic Church visited, then alot things were looted or desecrated to fill the coffers of the church. >>
By who? What papal order? Which bishop? Cardinal? Under whose control was Greece? The Byzantine church or the roman church? When was the schism? What can you tell us of iconoclast understandings and how that effected the church art and perceptions?
This whole line of casting out statements as blanket responses of what the church did or did not do is just absurd. I resent it. I dislike it, it does not belong here. Sure there are plenty of things the church did that I don't agree with... but this is not the place. Statements will be made that are so inaccurate to the truth of what really happened that it becomes down right irritating. It is always easy to blame the institution and not the people that chose to do what they did.
On this whole book thing....... you all want to engage in a serious debate on morality in the realms, then constantly refer to outside sources for validation or denial of what it should mean or not mean. If you are gonna walk that path then you dang well best start cracking some books that havent seen the light of day for you since high school. This I heard, or I believe, or it was this way.. without solid references to materials is just plain heresay and at the crux of it inaccurate. The whole of truth does not begin and end at your personal perceptions of the world around you. So if you are serious about the subject the least thing you can do is read. My sole objective for posting the references is to encourage people to read for themselves.
Personally, I would rather approach the whole subject of DR morality, good and evil etc within the context of DR alone. The arguement has been gone through before in great detail based on that premise.
No I am not the end all, nor the focal point of this discussion. Argue it how you will, but by all that is right and proper keep the RL references out of it if you can not reference your source and explain the text you got it from.
Daython
By who? What papal order? Which bishop? Cardinal? Under whose control was Greece? The Byzantine church or the roman church? When was the schism? What can you tell us of iconoclast understandings and how that effected the church art and perceptions?
This whole line of casting out statements as blanket responses of what the church did or did not do is just absurd. I resent it. I dislike it, it does not belong here. Sure there are plenty of things the church did that I don't agree with... but this is not the place. Statements will be made that are so inaccurate to the truth of what really happened that it becomes down right irritating. It is always easy to blame the institution and not the people that chose to do what they did.
On this whole book thing....... you all want to engage in a serious debate on morality in the realms, then constantly refer to outside sources for validation or denial of what it should mean or not mean. If you are gonna walk that path then you dang well best start cracking some books that havent seen the light of day for you since high school. This I heard, or I believe, or it was this way.. without solid references to materials is just plain heresay and at the crux of it inaccurate. The whole of truth does not begin and end at your personal perceptions of the world around you. So if you are serious about the subject the least thing you can do is read. My sole objective for posting the references is to encourage people to read for themselves.
Personally, I would rather approach the whole subject of DR morality, good and evil etc within the context of DR alone. The arguement has been gone through before in great detail based on that premise.
No I am not the end all, nor the focal point of this discussion. Argue it how you will, but by all that is right and proper keep the RL references out of it if you can not reference your source and explain the text you got it from.
Daython
HANESB
Re: You people think too 20th century
02/13/2003 07:31 PM CST
Just to be difficult, if all things are viewed through morality, then explain apathy.
Player of Linras Cauldrath - who does a bit more thinking than reading, so he has no clue who you are talking about
Player of Linras Cauldrath - who does a bit more thinking than reading, so he has no clue who you are talking about
MARTINEZN1
Re: You people think too 20th century
02/13/2003 08:52 PM CST
"Parthenon. The problem there was about the same problem that happens to most ancient time buldings. The 'times' that allowed them to be built change."
In terms of historical buildings granted the social needs and construction methods do change hence the different styles attributed to architecture over the course of time. Post and beam construction methods as were used in the parthenon are obviously not used today due to the advances in technology.
"Without having so much meaning they're just about as good as anything else on the place."
This is the reason primarily why when I saw the post I had to reply and I apologize for going of an a tangent from the original post.
Any building of great achievement cannot be compared to any other on site. A box (as we refer to bad architecture) can in no way be compared to a building who's architectural vocabulary is fluid, who's core can be felt when one studies the plans prior to construction or after it's errection. A building that can speak to you about the history, social beliefs and ultimately an elegance in the transition of thought to actual edification. To think of such details even back then such as the optical illusions on the stylobate is mind boggling. The parthenon is this and much more. It is the perfection of those times and the reason why such time and devotion is given to the study of it in Architectural history classes.
The parthenon as a historical building falls under the charter of venice, should anyone who is interested in Architecural interventions want further information it can be found on the UNESCO world heritage site.
"..until in 1458 it was converted by the Turkish conquerors into a mosque. So you really can't blame church on destroying things. Not to mention the mediterran weather helps to ruin part of it. Believe it or not...a large part of the destruction made to those types of buildings happened in the late 19th and early 20th centuries."
In 1687 the naos was was being used as an ammunition dump by the turks during the their war with the venetians. A venetian rocket scored a direct hit which resulted in an explosion that blew out the center of the building. Which explains why the core is still a ruin to this day.
"The Partheon (sp?) in Greece was intact up to about 4-6 hundred years ago before the Roman Catholic Church visited, then alot things were looted or desecrated to fill the coffers of the church. All those greek statues with the empty eyes, those eyes used to be gems"
As a sidenote to the first poster: Durham cathedral, Chartres Cathedral, Hagia Sophia and many other culminating achievements would not have been possible were it not for religion. Architecture being an evolution of ideas within the social fabric I shudder to think where we would be now.
Last but not least I agree with Daython's comment on providing references to such statements since I never heard of this and would love to learn something new.
Basic references for the above:
Gardner's art through the ages, seventh edition
A History of Architecture, second edition
If you have heard of the marbles and are interesting in knowing more there is currently a campaign underway for their restitution. Further information can be found at:
http://www.uk.digiserve.com/mentor/marbles/
Naomi, player of Divy
In terms of historical buildings granted the social needs and construction methods do change hence the different styles attributed to architecture over the course of time. Post and beam construction methods as were used in the parthenon are obviously not used today due to the advances in technology.
"Without having so much meaning they're just about as good as anything else on the place."
This is the reason primarily why when I saw the post I had to reply and I apologize for going of an a tangent from the original post.
Any building of great achievement cannot be compared to any other on site. A box (as we refer to bad architecture) can in no way be compared to a building who's architectural vocabulary is fluid, who's core can be felt when one studies the plans prior to construction or after it's errection. A building that can speak to you about the history, social beliefs and ultimately an elegance in the transition of thought to actual edification. To think of such details even back then such as the optical illusions on the stylobate is mind boggling. The parthenon is this and much more. It is the perfection of those times and the reason why such time and devotion is given to the study of it in Architectural history classes.
The parthenon as a historical building falls under the charter of venice, should anyone who is interested in Architecural interventions want further information it can be found on the UNESCO world heritage site.
"..until in 1458 it was converted by the Turkish conquerors into a mosque. So you really can't blame church on destroying things. Not to mention the mediterran weather helps to ruin part of it. Believe it or not...a large part of the destruction made to those types of buildings happened in the late 19th and early 20th centuries."
In 1687 the naos was was being used as an ammunition dump by the turks during the their war with the venetians. A venetian rocket scored a direct hit which resulted in an explosion that blew out the center of the building. Which explains why the core is still a ruin to this day.
"The Partheon (sp?) in Greece was intact up to about 4-6 hundred years ago before the Roman Catholic Church visited, then alot things were looted or desecrated to fill the coffers of the church. All those greek statues with the empty eyes, those eyes used to be gems"
As a sidenote to the first poster: Durham cathedral, Chartres Cathedral, Hagia Sophia and many other culminating achievements would not have been possible were it not for religion. Architecture being an evolution of ideas within the social fabric I shudder to think where we would be now.
Last but not least I agree with Daython's comment on providing references to such statements since I never heard of this and would love to learn something new.
Basic references for the above:
Gardner's art through the ages, seventh edition
A History of Architecture, second edition
If you have heard of the marbles and are interesting in knowing more there is currently a campaign underway for their restitution. Further information can be found at:
http://www.uk.digiserve.com/mentor/marbles/
Naomi, player of Divy
WARLOCKCO
Re: You people think too 20th century
02/13/2003 10:04 PM CST
Main reason I was bringing up Religion is too many are trying to see things in Black and White. And used the various examples that I did to illistrate that things are no so cut and dry and never will be. Again I apologize to any that found my posts offensive.
Not unless we are all to be programmed as robots. The entire world is nothing but shades of Gray. What is deemed proper and correct now, will be out-moded as time pasts by. And things that were deemed proper before but is improper now, will become proper in the future again.
Proper behavior is almost like fashion, trends come and go.
Lets for example take a Moderate Conservative from the 1950's and brought said Conservative to the here and now. With the current scheme of things, said Conservative would be considered a Right-wing Extremist.
All things are relative, and as long as one follows the Morals and Ethics of the Guild, they can be Dark or Light if they wish, as long as they don't step over the line into Evil. One can be Dark yet be Good. Contradictory, but true.
Not unless we are all to be programmed as robots. The entire world is nothing but shades of Gray. What is deemed proper and correct now, will be out-moded as time pasts by. And things that were deemed proper before but is improper now, will become proper in the future again.
Proper behavior is almost like fashion, trends come and go.
Lets for example take a Moderate Conservative from the 1950's and brought said Conservative to the here and now. With the current scheme of things, said Conservative would be considered a Right-wing Extremist.
All things are relative, and as long as one follows the Morals and Ethics of the Guild, they can be Dark or Light if they wish, as long as they don't step over the line into Evil. One can be Dark yet be Good. Contradictory, but true.
ANDRE-BELTRAME
Re: You people think too 20th century
02/14/2003 06:52 AM CST
Naomi,
<<This is the reason primarily why when I saw the post I had to reply and I apologize for going of an a tangent from the original post.
Any building of great achievement cannot be compared to any other on site. A box (as we refer to bad architecture) can in no way be compared to a building who's architectural vocabulary is fluid, who's core can be felt when one studies the plans prior to construction or after it's errection. A building that can speak to you about the history, social beliefs and ultimately an elegance in the transition of thought to actual edification. To think of such details even back then such as the optical illusions on the stylobate is mind boggling. The parthenon is this and much more. It is the perfection of those times and the reason why such time and devotion is given to the study of it in Architectural history classes.>>
That is why currently and only a couple decades ago humanity started preserving the buildings. Before that though there was no notion of historical value to buildings. Simply put that if you conquered another country you wouldn't want their Gods or their different taste on your Empire. Now a good example of this are the pyramids. This English treasure searcher went to egypt and guess what? He found a big treasure on a pyramid. Then to deceive folks he ruined the top of the pyramid and told them he found it there. What happened? Other folks started raiding through other pyramid's tops to find treasures as well. Now when you go to Egypt you see a bunch of pyramids with no top for no other good reason than treasure seeking.
That was in the late 19th century and early 20th century. Even though the concept of preserving buildings and historic places was there.
On our days, buildings , writtings, even bones are protected for the meaning and non comercial value. But you can't always apply that line of thought for it has not existed forever.
My references are the guides, papers sold on the sites and personal experience. Having seen the Parthenon and a large part of the Greek constructions through my own eyes. Same for the Pyramids. That story about the English man is what Egyptians tell you when you ask them about the English folks that started collecting stuff that are on the British Museum and later to the own Egyptian Museum which I also visited.
Phanton
<<This is the reason primarily why when I saw the post I had to reply and I apologize for going of an a tangent from the original post.
Any building of great achievement cannot be compared to any other on site. A box (as we refer to bad architecture) can in no way be compared to a building who's architectural vocabulary is fluid, who's core can be felt when one studies the plans prior to construction or after it's errection. A building that can speak to you about the history, social beliefs and ultimately an elegance in the transition of thought to actual edification. To think of such details even back then such as the optical illusions on the stylobate is mind boggling. The parthenon is this and much more. It is the perfection of those times and the reason why such time and devotion is given to the study of it in Architectural history classes.>>
That is why currently and only a couple decades ago humanity started preserving the buildings. Before that though there was no notion of historical value to buildings. Simply put that if you conquered another country you wouldn't want their Gods or their different taste on your Empire. Now a good example of this are the pyramids. This English treasure searcher went to egypt and guess what? He found a big treasure on a pyramid. Then to deceive folks he ruined the top of the pyramid and told them he found it there. What happened? Other folks started raiding through other pyramid's tops to find treasures as well. Now when you go to Egypt you see a bunch of pyramids with no top for no other good reason than treasure seeking.
That was in the late 19th century and early 20th century. Even though the concept of preserving buildings and historic places was there.
On our days, buildings , writtings, even bones are protected for the meaning and non comercial value. But you can't always apply that line of thought for it has not existed forever.
My references are the guides, papers sold on the sites and personal experience. Having seen the Parthenon and a large part of the Greek constructions through my own eyes. Same for the Pyramids. That story about the English man is what Egyptians tell you when you ask them about the English folks that started collecting stuff that are on the British Museum and later to the own Egyptian Museum which I also visited.
Phanton
F4S4VR
Re: You people think too 20th century
02/14/2003 09:44 AM CST
>Not unless we are all to be programmed as robots. The entire world is nothing but shades of Gray. What is deemed proper and correct now, will be out-moded as time pasts by. And things that were deemed proper before but is improper now, will become proper in the future again.
This is only the case when man replaces god (or the gods) with himself. If the gods of Elanthia are real, then it doesn't matter what our characters "deem" to be proper or not. It doesn't matter if "people" think things change or think things become "out-moded". All that matters is what the gods say. If the gods remain constant, then people who argue that "things change", or "go in or out of vogue" are simply people who are apostate to the gods.
Bottom line, "shades of gray" is a human invention used to rationalize behaviour that does not comport with the "black and white" handed down by the gods - it is not reality (if the gods are real).
Gloryarm
This is only the case when man replaces god (or the gods) with himself. If the gods of Elanthia are real, then it doesn't matter what our characters "deem" to be proper or not. It doesn't matter if "people" think things change or think things become "out-moded". All that matters is what the gods say. If the gods remain constant, then people who argue that "things change", or "go in or out of vogue" are simply people who are apostate to the gods.
Bottom line, "shades of gray" is a human invention used to rationalize behaviour that does not comport with the "black and white" handed down by the gods - it is not reality (if the gods are real).
Gloryarm
MARTINEZN1
Re: You people think too 20th century
02/14/2003 11:58 AM CST
"Now when you go to Egypt you see a bunch of pyramids with no top for no other good reason than treasure seeking"
Granted, but I hope you understand why I had to post. I have seen it from those eyes of a traveller, but as well from that of the trained eye perspective.
I just wanted to clear up a misconception that it would be the same as all other buildings on site. From an architectural viewpoint I hope you understand that that statement threw me back for even nowadays a design that is properly executed is not the same as a building that was just built for function. Yes many will say what about Bahaus, form follows function, but in essence I think you get my jist.
It was just to clear up something that perhaps others will believe and in hopes that a new understanding can be brought to light.
I also wanted to clear up the silent inferrence relative to the Parthenon and the statement a large part of the destruction of these "types" of buildings.
"That was in the late 19th century and early 20th century. Even though the concept of preserving buildings and historic places was there."
There are many historical buildings throughout the world and each has its own story to say relative to its state.
In terms of historical value there was none by the masses, but the tendancy in terms of design appreciation did start way before. Example: Michealangelo travelled to to the "ancient ruins" to sketch various details. However I do understand where you are coming from in terms of the collective preservation.
If your quite interested in buildings of historical value there is one key site that I have learned alot from. Just find a book on Villa Hadriana. After doing a research paper on Richard Meier and his execution of the Getty Center I found myself on a plane to Italy during my stay in Paris in order to be able to experience it hands on.
Naomi, player of Divy
Granted, but I hope you understand why I had to post. I have seen it from those eyes of a traveller, but as well from that of the trained eye perspective.
I just wanted to clear up a misconception that it would be the same as all other buildings on site. From an architectural viewpoint I hope you understand that that statement threw me back for even nowadays a design that is properly executed is not the same as a building that was just built for function. Yes many will say what about Bahaus, form follows function, but in essence I think you get my jist.
It was just to clear up something that perhaps others will believe and in hopes that a new understanding can be brought to light.
I also wanted to clear up the silent inferrence relative to the Parthenon and the statement a large part of the destruction of these "types" of buildings.
"That was in the late 19th century and early 20th century. Even though the concept of preserving buildings and historic places was there."
There are many historical buildings throughout the world and each has its own story to say relative to its state.
In terms of historical value there was none by the masses, but the tendancy in terms of design appreciation did start way before. Example: Michealangelo travelled to to the "ancient ruins" to sketch various details. However I do understand where you are coming from in terms of the collective preservation.
If your quite interested in buildings of historical value there is one key site that I have learned alot from. Just find a book on Villa Hadriana. After doing a research paper on Richard Meier and his execution of the Getty Center I found myself on a plane to Italy during my stay in Paris in order to be able to experience it hands on.
Naomi, player of Divy
BYRONN
Re: You people think too 20th century
02/15/2003 11:04 PM CST
Gloryarm's got a point. Now the question is, what does it mean to follow the Gods?
WHITEC12
Re: You people think too 20th century
02/17/2003 11:34 AM CST
<<Yes many will say what about Bahaus...>>
What about Bahaus? Bela Legosi really is dead isn't he?
Sorry Divy, I thought I'd try to steer it further off topic grin
Cheers - Cyllwdd
PS: (Bahaus = band, qv: Peter Murphy)
What about Bahaus? Bela Legosi really is dead isn't he?
Sorry Divy, I thought I'd try to steer it further off topic grin
Cheers - Cyllwdd
PS: (Bahaus = band, qv: Peter Murphy)
CLENCHG
Re: You people think too 20th century
02/21/2003 07:16 PM CST
>Gloryarm's got a point. Now the question is, what does it mean to follow the Gods?
Was thinking this very point as I was reading through the thread.
If you look at the predominate (sorry Lennon =P) theory of 39 independent entities known as gods, then you can assume each has different thoughts and values. This has been shown indirectly and directly the by their actions, teachings, visions, orders, and gifts to their followers.
So that being the case you can take anything in DR, and assign a god that would be a "for" and "against" it. Trothfang is for war, Berengeria is for peace. Some for justice, some for theft. Some for being careful, some for carelessness.
You have to figure a theological debate would break up into camps. I see it as you learn your own values and morals as you are raised, based on what god your parents primarily worshipped. Then you go through a face in your teens (or other racial equivalent) where you question those values, and gain and lose or change perspective, perhaps "switching your religion" to primarily worship another god.
How can you have 20th century values, when all the possible combinations of values and morals can be gleened from the teachings of the 39. You can say a person is immoral because they are needlessly violent, but not if they follow Trothfang. For being a Murderer but they may follow Urrem'tier. For practicing forbidden magic, but they may follow er.. keppanwhatever. You get the point.
So that being the case, society as a whole in Elanthia would dictate not morals, but social mores onto itself. Things that have to be the case in order for society to be anything near fair in its resemblance. People don't murder, not solely because it is immoral, but because society has set up penalties to dissuade the behavior. You can see it roleplayed, some people don't murder in society (i.e. in town) because of the consequences, but will in the wilderness where there are none, because they don't attribute a moral value to a persons life. And for them that isn't a question of morality, for them and their choice of worship it could be natural and expected.
Society would dictate behavior, as you can't have a cohesive fair society without an expectation of behavior (of what is right and wrong) from those you join with to form said society.
Anyways, adding to the conversation as I skim. =)
Geof/Hege
Was thinking this very point as I was reading through the thread.
If you look at the predominate (sorry Lennon =P) theory of 39 independent entities known as gods, then you can assume each has different thoughts and values. This has been shown indirectly and directly the by their actions, teachings, visions, orders, and gifts to their followers.
So that being the case you can take anything in DR, and assign a god that would be a "for" and "against" it. Trothfang is for war, Berengeria is for peace. Some for justice, some for theft. Some for being careful, some for carelessness.
You have to figure a theological debate would break up into camps. I see it as you learn your own values and morals as you are raised, based on what god your parents primarily worshipped. Then you go through a face in your teens (or other racial equivalent) where you question those values, and gain and lose or change perspective, perhaps "switching your religion" to primarily worship another god.
How can you have 20th century values, when all the possible combinations of values and morals can be gleened from the teachings of the 39. You can say a person is immoral because they are needlessly violent, but not if they follow Trothfang. For being a Murderer but they may follow Urrem'tier. For practicing forbidden magic, but they may follow er.. keppanwhatever. You get the point.
So that being the case, society as a whole in Elanthia would dictate not morals, but social mores onto itself. Things that have to be the case in order for society to be anything near fair in its resemblance. People don't murder, not solely because it is immoral, but because society has set up penalties to dissuade the behavior. You can see it roleplayed, some people don't murder in society (i.e. in town) because of the consequences, but will in the wilderness where there are none, because they don't attribute a moral value to a persons life. And for them that isn't a question of morality, for them and their choice of worship it could be natural and expected.
Society would dictate behavior, as you can't have a cohesive fair society without an expectation of behavior (of what is right and wrong) from those you join with to form said society.
Anyways, adding to the conversation as I skim. =)
Geof/Hege
BYRONN
PTAH
Re: You people think too 20th century
02/26/2003 01:25 AM CST
<<So that being the case, society as a whole in Elanthia would dictate not morals, but social mores onto itself.>>
Very interesting post. However a obvious question here is how do you define the difference between morals and social mores?
<<People don't murder, not solely because it is immoral, but because society has set up penalties to dissuade the behavior.>>
This particular discussion is very interesting to me because it touches of my particular field of study. Sociology. What you wrote was a very cogent and well reasoned set of points that you can find in any good Sociology text book. No one would argue the basic premises of your points, however there is alot more to the discussion than just the basic premises.
The questions I would ask to follow up the point you make above are this. Where has societys' understanding about the destructive nature of certain behaviors and actions come from? Why has society set up these penalites to dissuade the behavior? Why has it decided that anything is wrong or worthy of penalty? On what basis does it decide when something quallify's as a grey area?
What I'm trying to get at is this. Morals, aka morallity, are the basis of law, our sense of justice and "Social mores". The basic construct of our concepts of "Social mores" as you put it, comes from a sense of universal morallity. For instance all people in all cultures share a universal understanding of justice and injustice. Specifics may vary and differ in some areas, but all nations, tribes and peoples have a distinct sense of right and wrong. These senses are what drives our morals, our morals are what drives our actions and beleifs our beleifs and actions drive our laws and goverment.
<<You can see it roleplayed, some people don't murder in society (i.e. in town) because of the consequences, but will in the wilderness where there are none, because they don't attribute a moral value to a persons life. And for them that isn't a question of morality, for them and their choice of worship it could be natural and expected>>
Yes, I agree. But our characters certainly have the freedom to choose some morals over others. The gods themselves advocate their own sense of morallity, why not assume that some gods have a better set of morals than others?
Brittany (...the player of Aspasia Darkbrook)
Very interesting post. However a obvious question here is how do you define the difference between morals and social mores?
<<People don't murder, not solely because it is immoral, but because society has set up penalties to dissuade the behavior.>>
This particular discussion is very interesting to me because it touches of my particular field of study. Sociology. What you wrote was a very cogent and well reasoned set of points that you can find in any good Sociology text book. No one would argue the basic premises of your points, however there is alot more to the discussion than just the basic premises.
The questions I would ask to follow up the point you make above are this. Where has societys' understanding about the destructive nature of certain behaviors and actions come from? Why has society set up these penalites to dissuade the behavior? Why has it decided that anything is wrong or worthy of penalty? On what basis does it decide when something quallify's as a grey area?
What I'm trying to get at is this. Morals, aka morallity, are the basis of law, our sense of justice and "Social mores". The basic construct of our concepts of "Social mores" as you put it, comes from a sense of universal morallity. For instance all people in all cultures share a universal understanding of justice and injustice. Specifics may vary and differ in some areas, but all nations, tribes and peoples have a distinct sense of right and wrong. These senses are what drives our morals, our morals are what drives our actions and beleifs our beleifs and actions drive our laws and goverment.
<<You can see it roleplayed, some people don't murder in society (i.e. in town) because of the consequences, but will in the wilderness where there are none, because they don't attribute a moral value to a persons life. And for them that isn't a question of morality, for them and their choice of worship it could be natural and expected>>
Yes, I agree. But our characters certainly have the freedom to choose some morals over others. The gods themselves advocate their own sense of morallity, why not assume that some gods have a better set of morals than others?
Brittany (...the player of Aspasia Darkbrook)
OLDTIMER
Re: You people think too 20th century
02/26/2003 10:14 AM CST
Well the honest truth in DR is that policy of the GameMasters pretty much dictates the morality. For instance, I would rather, on a moral basis, keep some offender halted for 20 minutes rather than kill them. But policy dictates that would more than likely be harrassment where killing them would not be. In many cases it is the player wishing that the offending character has some kind of in game penalty for the action committed, afterall the player of that naughty character probably just cost you alot of game time, it just so happens that killing is the most condoned method the GM's allow.
In DR unfortunately policy keeps a character from dishing out a punishment anywhere near the extent of the crime. A character can destroy your altered armor that took you six years to finally get and your only recourse is to kill them once, which will have them dead for under 10 minutes.
The subject of morality in DR is handcuffed for you can not rightfully address it without addressing game policy.
Daython
In DR unfortunately policy keeps a character from dishing out a punishment anywhere near the extent of the crime. A character can destroy your altered armor that took you six years to finally get and your only recourse is to kill them once, which will have them dead for under 10 minutes.
The subject of morality in DR is handcuffed for you can not rightfully address it without addressing game policy.
Daython
LENNONJON
Re: You people think too 20th century
02/26/2003 12:43 PM CST
<<The questions I would ask to follow up the point you make above are this. Where has societys' understanding about the destructive nature of certain behaviors and actions come from? Why has society set up these penalites to dissuade the behavior? Why has it decided that anything is wrong or worthy of penalty? On what basis does it decide when something quallify's as a grey area?>>
Theres some great books on the evolution of culture, religion, and morality. Ill post titles if you'd like (or you can email me at my play.net addy), but don't want to cause people to cry again when I incorporate RL examples into the discussion.
--Just a "clueless" Squire
Theres some great books on the evolution of culture, religion, and morality. Ill post titles if you'd like (or you can email me at my play.net addy), but don't want to cause people to cry again when I incorporate RL examples into the discussion.
--Just a "clueless" Squire
F4S4VR
Re: You people think too 20th century
02/27/2003 11:16 AM CST
>Theres some great books on the evolution of culture, religion, and morality. Ill post titles if you'd like (or you can email me at my play.net addy), but don't want to cause people to cry again when I incorporate RL examples into the discussion.
Are those RL books you are referring to? If so, I am so disappointed that you would, once again, insist upon bringing that kind of thing into this discussion. RL references have no place on these boards and only serve to insult, hurt and confuse other posters. Please at least TRY to restrain yourself. I realize that your complete lack of self-discipline makes the use of restraint a daunting task, but I am sure that you have the capacity to, at a bare minimum, pretend to make some small effort. Don't you?
(TIC)
Gloryarm
Are those RL books you are referring to? If so, I am so disappointed that you would, once again, insist upon bringing that kind of thing into this discussion. RL references have no place on these boards and only serve to insult, hurt and confuse other posters. Please at least TRY to restrain yourself. I realize that your complete lack of self-discipline makes the use of restraint a daunting task, but I am sure that you have the capacity to, at a bare minimum, pretend to make some small effort. Don't you?
(TIC)
Gloryarm
LENNONJON
Re: You people think too 20th century
02/27/2003 11:37 AM CST
<<Are those RL books you are referring to? If so, I am so disappointed that you would, once again, insist upon bringing that kind of thing into this discussion. RL references have no place on these boards and only serve to insult, hurt and confuse other posters. Please at least TRY to restrain yourself. I realize that your complete lack of self-discipline makes the use of restraint a daunting task, but I am sure that you have the capacity to, at a bare minimum, pretend to make some small effort. Don't you?>>
Hehe. I hate you...
--Just a "clueless" Squire
Hehe. I hate you...
--Just a "clueless" Squire
PTAH
Re: You people think too 20th century
02/27/2003 12:00 PM CST
>>Theres some great books on the evolution of culture, religion, and morality. Ill post titles if you'd like (or you can email me at my play.net addy), but don't want to cause people to cry again when I incorporate RL examples into the discussion.<<
I still don't get the idea where you think I have a problem with this. Perhaps you've misunderstood or misrepresented something I've said in the past?
Brittany (...the player of Aspasia Darkbrook)
I still don't get the idea where you think I have a problem with this. Perhaps you've misunderstood or misrepresented something I've said in the past?
Brittany (...the player of Aspasia Darkbrook)
