Human Nature

[Igelfeld]

Let me ask that we keep this civil, let's just discuss the argument. I may be misreading things or presenting things poorly and if so I apologize. 

Doesn't matter WHY they changed. Only matters THAT they changed. People respond to, as I said, cultural mores and institutions. Economic considerations can drive changes in behavior, duh. That's what I said. You disagreed.

Let me state that disagreeing with someone does not mean you necessarily take the contradictory point, of course I don't think that external factors have no influence on behavior. If you want to stab at that strawman feel free, it won't fight back. The way I see this is that you are arguing that cultural mores and institutions govern human behavior. I am saying that mores and institutions influence human behavoir and are one factor in the determination of behavior along with human nature.

I get this from you original post that stated,

PART of the fourth is intended. Rights and freedoms. That bothers me some, but not tons. What DOES bother me is the highly modernized sexuality of especially women, but some male characters as well.

Now I know, and I assume you know some women characters who do not have highly modernized sexuality, and apparently many male characters that don't ether. So it seems to me that you are arguing that the social mores predominant during medieval time should be strictly followed by all characters because the social mores and social institutions govern behavior.

I could be mistaken here, but if you accept that mores and institutions only influence behavior and do not determine it, than you also shouldn't have a problem with some characters, discretely through RP's being sexualized. As I stated earlier:

But I would argue that regardless of the time or society, people are the same. The rules they will play by change but they will still seek to satisfy their instinctual desires. Just as we have people today who conduct activities that society considers wrong, so did the medieval societies. The 'evil' we see today is not new to our society, it may be desires manifesting themselves in different ways, but the conduct of people does not change.

I admit that the final phrase is poorly executed, it should state the human nature does not change, but I believe the intent is understood from the rest of the paragraph and if this has mislead you to understand that I am arguing that social influences have no baring on behavior I apologize. 

Regarding a definition of human nature I feel most people have a basic understanding of the term. to define it further would simply open a new vein of debate as it enters the realm of religion and presuppositions, lets try and keep things as focused as possible.

Regarding anthropology you are correct, I have not read much. My education involves much more classical Greek and roman literature, philosophy, and rhetoric. So although I do not know about the selfish society you speak of, I am quite aware of the recorded teachings on morality from ancient Egypt up through Islam, and from the eastern philosophers to the western ones. So although you might be able to point to some isolated village, I can show the breath of history and can tell you that all of these cultures have moral codes, and the codes seem highly correlated.

But before we discuss this, lets first make sure that we are understanding what each other are debating for. I am stating that human nature influences behavior along with social mores and institutions. And I think you may agree with me given your previous statement. But what I originally saw you stating is that you believe mores and institutions govern or dictate human behavior. If you could clarify your position it would be most helpful.

[egamma]

I split this thread from the following:

http://forum.battlemaster.org/index.php/topic,200.0.html

I tried to make the split make sense, although it took a few posts for the thread to go too far offtopic.

[Vellos]

But before we discuss this, lets first make sure that we are understanding what each other are debating for. I am stating that human nature influences behavior along with social mores and institutions. And I think you may agree with me given your previous statement. But what I originally saw you stating is that you believe mores and institutions govern or dictate human behavior. If you could clarify your position it would be most helpful.

It would take forever to continue a point-by-point response. So I'll just go from here.

I don't argue in the abstract. Rather, my position is that because I believe that (Proposition 1) human behavior in the aggregate and on individual levels is influenced/governed/determined by cultural mores and institutions, (Proposition 2) behavior of BM characters should reflect /those institutions which BM contains and is based on/, and (Proposition 3) that, in fact, BM characters in general /do not/ reflect those institutions.

Proposition 1:
There is no difference between "influenced by" and "determined by," unless you mean "determined exclusively by." But I don't think that's what you mean by "determined by" given that you seem to conflate it with "governed by." I would use influenced, determined, and governed interchangeably. "Pre-cultural" behavior (though of course no such thing exists) is non identical to "post-cultural" behavior. Output does not equal input, therefore, there is a function, a change. Perhaps not a perfectly mechanical one, but still some kind of function. Moreover, different cultures (different "functions") likely yield different results from the same inputs. Beyond even this, I am skeptical as to whether inputs are consistent (whether "human nature" has a determinable "content" to it, rather than merely a cognitive framework plus mutable but basic instincts). In sum, I argue that, whether or not human nature has any consistent content, certainly different cultures could produce different behaviors.

Outside of my proposition, I would suggest that different behaviors are what matter. Human nature, if it exists in a content form, is certainly buried so deeply as to be unavailable to our conscious decisions. As far as we are aware of our own nature, we are not a "nature" but a "culture," in terms of our "self-ness."*

Proposition 2:
Given this, and assuming that BM characters originate in the BM world, it seems necessary to expect that BM characters will, in general have behaviors that are somehow reflective of the BM world. While it is a valid point that the BM world has greater sex equality, I am of the opinion that, unless well-defined RP or necessities of playability dictate otherwise, we should default to the appropriate medieval model. So, for example, human sacrifice and wanton murder: not okay. Why? Not because of some epistemological commitment to "human nature," but because, lacking strong RP to the contrary, we default to medieval europe. Of course, two examples, Outer Tilog and the Blood Cult, prove my point: we do allow deviations from historicity, certainly, /when it gets specific justification through roleplaying./

Proposition 3:
However, BM characters do not live up to this model. And it isn't ignorance! Most BM players that actively RP have some idea of medieval society, and even many that don't fake it well enough. Rather, BM characters go to great lengths to be outrageous: everyone and their mother is a member of some strange sect, obscenely courageous, lacking in sexual morality, etc. Notably, I do not think characters /should be moral./ I only suggest /they should be conscious of the moral./ That is, unless a BM realm has specifically RPed itself as a realm of libertines (Vice, in Beluaterra, comes to mind), or individual characters can individually explain (and feel a proper moral shame at) their hedonism and history, characters should default to Medieval standards. That does not mean they all become monks; hardly. It just means that /if/ they are adulterers, they don't broadcast it, they feel some kind of disapprobation for their deeds. /If/ they secretly sacrifice baby kittens in their estate, they can explain what brought them to that point (a pretty huge cultural shift), how/why, and they recognize themselves as "outside the norm." Moreover, /most/ characters should not be like that. And not just most /characters,/ but most /RPed/ characters. Though I do wonder what it says about us that, it seems to me, characters with extensive RPs are disproportionately homicidal, corrupt, disturbed, and angry.

---


*Note that I am not here disputing a biological component at all. I am arguing within the confines of our "cognitive world." Obviously biology necessitates certain things, like eating and sleeping; and even drives many higher faculties. My comments are aimed not at whether we have biological impulses working in our life, but how we mediate them into human society.

[egamma]

Proposition 3:
Rather, BM characters go to great lengths to be outrageous: everyone and their mother is a member of some strange sect, obscenely courageous, lacking in sexual morality, etc.  Though I do wonder what it says about us that, it seems to me, characters with extensive RPs are disproportionately homicidal, corrupt, disturbed, and angry.

I think what that says is that people are not very interested in roleplaying 'boring' characters. For example, here are some roleplays I could broadcast about my trader, currently sailing from Paisly to Madina, with 12 caravans:

Day 1:
Gornak set sail today, with his flotilla of 12 vessels, bound south for Madina.

Day 2:
Gornak sails south.

Day 3:
Gornak sails south.

Day 4:
Gornak sails south.

Day 5:
Gornak sails south.

My point is, a roleplay is often a rumor that you hear about another noble. You're not going to hear that another noble is brushing his teeth. You're going to hear juicy gossip.

[Igelfeld]

Well put. My only point of disagreement is that I believe that human nature is definable and can be seen in action across time and culture, but in regards to what you have said about this specific case. I cannot disagree. The culture of most realms is defined as medieval and many players RP outside that without solid justification. But when you stated the consideration so matter of fact, I thought that you were of a different opinion. I was defending the way I RP one of my characters: Ulrich.

So what do you think regarding my character Ulrich. He grew up as a spoiled nephew of his rich uncle, and his family is insanely wealthy. He has always had a very high opinion of himself and believes that he deserves anything he wants. Along those lines, he is an arrogant, selfish young man who is also a womanizer. He is also a bit of a coward, and commands archers because he is afraid of the front lines of battle. That is his character, and it only shows up in RP's. When he sends letters or reports to the realm, he portrays himself as brave, noble, and moral. In your eyes is this a fair Medieval character? or is his rogue character to far from historical accuracy? 

[egamma]

Well put. My only point of disagreement is that I believe that human nature is definable and can be seen in action across time and culture, but in regards to what you have said about this specific case. I cannot disagree. The culture of most realms is defined as medieval and many players RP outside that without solid justification. But when you stated the consideration so matter of fact, I thought that you were of a different opinion. I was defending the way I RP one of my characters: Ulrich.

So what do you think regarding my character Ulrich. He grew up as a spoiled nephew of his rich uncle, and his family is insanely wealthy. He has always had a very high opinion of himself and believes that he deserves anything he wants. Along those lines, he is an arrogant, selfish young man who is also a womanizer. He is also a bit of a coward, and commands archers because he is afraid of the front lines of battle. That is his character, and it only shows up in RP's. When he sends letters or reports to the realm, he portrays himself as brave, noble, and moral. In your eyes is this a fair Medieval character? or is his rogue character to far from historical accuracy?

Your character sounds like a typical BM, and probably historical, noble. My chancellor spends his time away from the front lines to keep from losing is position. Of course, he also uses his gold to sponsor 2 armies, so he can't afford to keep his own unit--or at least, that's what he tells the realm-members.

[Vellos]

So what do you think regarding my character Ulrich. He grew up as a spoiled nephew of his rich uncle, and his family is insanely wealthy. He has always had a very high opinion of himself and believes that he deserves anything he wants. Along those lines, he is an arrogant, selfish young man who is also a womanizer. He is also a bit of a coward, and commands archers because he is afraid of the front lines of battle. That is his character, and it only shows up in RP's. When he sends letters or reports to the realm, he portrays himself as brave, noble, and moral. In your eyes is this a fair Medieval character? or is his rogue character to far from historical accuracy?

Seems reasonable enough given:
1. Your family actually is very wealthy, so it makes sense to RP that way
2. Your character is going to some length to look like the civilized, chivalric, dignified noble which "Default Medieval Atmosphere" would pay lip service to.

However, the devil is always in the details. So your character is a womanizer; okay. In what way does he fulfill that trait? Seduction itself differs culture-to-culture. So, for example, going to a gala and finding a woman to take home for the night after dancing with her is strikingly modern (we like to imagine Medieval balls, but in reality such things were likely extremely rare). Being a womanizer among noble women would also be relatively difficult.

But if you do it by picking up nuns off the side of the road (Medieval England had to establish special laws against the seduction, kidnapping, and/or rape of nuns), entirely plausible. Or maybe by creeping around the peasant festivals and waiting for a vulnerable young lass to have a bit too much to drink. Or, do the classically Medieval thing, and just rape her, and deal with the backlash later (backlash such as: unhappy peasants, bitter vendettas by claymore-wielding Scotsmen, angry illegitimate revenge-seeking heirs)

I'm not arguing characters have to be nice and good (though I dispute the idea that RPing a virtuous or conventional character is boring). I'm arguing that the manner of their behavior, good or bad, should manifest itself in relation to Medieval (or effectively RPed original) cultural standards.

This isn't just about characters' personal morality. I levy the same complaint against:
1. Democracies
2. Voting in general
3. Blanket religious freedom
4. Appeals to liberalism
5. Appeals to nationalism
6. Appeals to centralized authority
7. Outlandish dress
8. Modern ideas of justice
9. Modern ideas of spirituality and ethics (most common examples: IC atheism and utilitarianism)
10. Low regard for oaths and claims
11. Many, many others

You will note that my description of myself on this forum is "Stodgy Old Man in Training." There's a reason for that. I'm a grumpy, picky person.

[egamma]

Seems reasonable enough given:
1. Your family actually is very wealthy, so it makes sense to RP that way
2. Your character is going to some length to look like the civilized, chivalric, dignified noble which "Default Medieval Atmosphere" would pay lip service to.

However, the devil is always in the details. So your character is a womanizer; okay. In what way does he fulfill that trait? Seduction itself differs culture-to-culture. So, for example, going to a gala and finding a woman to take home for the night after dancing with her is strikingly modern (we like to imagine Medieval balls, but in reality such things were likely extremely rare). Being a womanizer among noble women would also be relatively difficult.

But if you do it by picking up nuns off the side of the road (Medieval England had to establish special laws against the seduction, kidnapping, and/or rape of nuns), entirely plausible. Or maybe by creeping around the peasant festivals and waiting for a vulnerable young lass to have a bit too much to drink. Or, do the classically Medieval thing, and just rape her, and deal with the backlash later (backlash such as: unhappy peasants, bitter vendettas by claymore-wielding Scotsmen, angry illegitimate revenge-seeking heirs)

I'm not arguing characters have to be nice and good (though I dispute the idea that RPing a virtuous or conventional character is boring). I'm arguing that the manner of their behavior, good or bad, should manifest itself in relation to Medieval (or effectively RPed original) cultural standards.

This isn't just about characters' personal morality. I levy the same complaint against:
1. Democracies
2. Voting in general
3. Blanket religious freedom
4. Appeals to liberalism
5. Appeals to nationalism
6. Appeals to centralized authority
7. Outlandish dress
8. Modern ideas of justice
9. Modern ideas of spirituality and ethics (most common examples: IC atheism and utilitarianism)
10. Low regard for oaths and claims
11. Many, many others

You will note that my description of myself on this forum is "Stodgy Old Man in Training." There's a reason for that. I'm a grumpy, picky person.

Well, now that list belongs back in the other thread, and I more or less agree with all those points.

I agree less with the democracy point for gameplay reasons--democracies tend to be more fun, in my experience, and increase new player retention (although I don't have much evidence to back that up, and there are exceptions, such as the Barony of Makar).

But if you think democracies are evil or whatever, why not play a character who plots to destroy them? I'm not sure how much success you would have, but I think you could find others who want a particular democracy destroyed. Deal with them one by one, make it the life's work of your family. You could become known for such a thing.

Or, pick a different cause. For example, religion. Work to outlaw certain religions, or not belonging to certain religions. That would have to be enforced on a realm-by-realm basis, but hey, all you got is time, right? Put a character on each continent and purge it from one end to the other. I think I may have my chancellor and priest (same realm, two characters) start pushing to have certain religions outlawed.

As for oaths, I think there was a feature request on adding some features to them--I suggest you make your way to that thread and give it some life, as I thought there were some good ideas there.

[Vellos]

Well, now that list belongs back in the other thread, and I more or less agree with all those points.

I agree less with the democracy point for gameplay reasons--democracies tend to be more fun, in my experience, and increase new player retention (although I don't have much evidence to back that up, and there are exceptions, such as the Barony of Makar).

I agree. Many of those things are acceptable for playability reasons. Doesn't mean I LIKE it that way. Just means it has to be that way.

But if you think democracies are evil or whatever, why not play a character who plots to destroy them? I'm not sure how much success you would have, but I think you could find others who want a particular democracy destroyed. Deal with them one by one, make it the life's work of your family. You could become known for such a thing.

Done it. Irombrozia exported monarchy via political marriage to the Republic of Fwuvoghor, and attempted to export it via religion to Old Fronen (succeeded at first, but counter-rebellion succeeded). Shored up monarchy via religion and political alliance with Heen, attempted to export via political alliance to Khthon. Fought long-term wars against Enweil and Riombara, the two primary archons of anti-Medievalism on Beluaterra. Later participated in secession against Riombara.

Believe me, my character Hireshmont was pretty deliberate about trying to tear apart democratic institutions. His son is more of a democrat, but not entirely, and his reasons are explained.

[Anaris]

That is partly true. Obviously, yes, there were philanderers. But it is rare that I see RPs of conventional marriages, stable relationships, or anything like that. Every RP is some horribly complex drawn out romantic love affair. Which is just bogus.

One of my characters fell deeply in love, and eventually got married, and had a stable relationship with her husband.

However, they weren't really able to "settle down" and have a normal married life until they ceased to be actively played characters.  They left the continent and settled down outside BM, where they weren't being constantly interrupted by the craziness that is life here.

I think part of the problem is that conventional, stable relationships are boring to roleplay about! There's just not enough conflict.  And if you can get one going, there's a good chance it will be upset by one thing or another, BM being what it is.  Maybe your wife will be deported.  Maybe your husband will be executed. 

Maybe there will just be a war, and you won't have time to RP about anything for three months, and then the player playing your husband will have gotten busy with school, and the character gone completely inactive.

And, of course, because there is no game mechanic to model marriage and children, and no consensus whatsoever about how many IG years make up one RL year, there are constant problems figuring out when and whether to have children, how to handle them, etc.

It's certainly not impossible, but there are a lot of perfectly good reasons not to see normal, stable relationships in BM.

[Vellos]

I think part of the problem is that conventional, stable relationships are boring to roleplay about!

I disagree.

However, even in unstable relationships: there are many ways to be unstable. Some make more sense medievally than others.

But it's not really just about relationships. Take religion. It seems like well over half the religious RPs I see are extremely abnormal hyper-ritualized settings; that is, not rituals in which I can see thousands of people participating.

[Haerthorne]

I disagree.

However, even in unstable relationships: there are many ways to be unstable. Some make more sense medievally than others.

But it's not really just about relationships. Take religion. It seems like well over half the religious RPs I see are extremely abnormal hyper-ritualized settings; that is, not rituals in which I can see thousands of people participating.

I have seen some stable relationships which, alluded to in roleplays and displayed in the manner both parties support one another in the realm itself, add a vital atmosphere. You know that the couple are going to stand with each other quite firmly, and it is especially interesting when they do not, or when one acts as a mediating (or radicalising) influence on the other. It doesn't even have to be stated quite explicitly.

As for religious rps... I had a stint not long ago where I roleplayed a priest with a heavily intellectual bent who made an effort to make converts of the nobility by demonstrating the more civilised aspects of his religion and personal abilities. He would even hold lectures on certain elements of human nature and how the world may be intepreted through his faith. Unfortunately at the time I was doing this the religion was already falling into a very sheer decline with a patriarch who didn't even know the basics of the religion and priests who never talked. The rest of the elders who should have done something were either doing nothing or busy roleplaying in ways that were completely detrimental to their positions. Eventually I gave up on the faith and from what I've seen now they have gone from having around 100 noble converts to 40.

[Gustav Kuriga]

I think that religious tolerance (which should not be confused with religious freedom) was more common than some may think in medieval times. One only has to look towards the Kingdom of Sicily in the 1200's.

[egamma]

I think that religious tolerance (which should not be confused with religious freedom) was more common than some may think in medieval times. One only has to look towards the Kingdom of Sicily in the 1200's.

I don't think so. Jews were outcasts, not owning land--that's why they got the reputation as city-dwelling jewelers, doctors, and other urban professions. Muslims in Spain were driven back to North Africa  in the 1200s.

[Haerthorne]

I don't think so. Jews were outcasts, not owning land--that's why they got the reputation as city-dwelling jewelers, doctors, and other urban professions. Muslims in Spain were driven back to North Africa  in the 1200s.

Jews I think are a special case. That said, crusaders seeking to kill Jews in the Rhineland during the First Crusade did come up against opposition from the many Bishops in the area who gave them protection, notably the Bishop of Cologne. As for the Muslims, they were not driven back to North Africa until the fall of Grenada in 1492 following over two centuries of existence as a tributary kingdom of Castille. This status as a tributary kingdom was very much in the tradition of the Muslim lords who owed tribute to Christian Kings, and vice versa, in the earlier medieval period. There are plenty of examples that show to us that Spain was perhaps the most tolerant of different religions, seeing as muslim, christian and jew existed in relative harmony and cultural primacy, though decidely more so in the 10th century and in the Muslim side. It was by the beginning of the 16th Century that the last Muslims were either converted or exiled from Spain... and of course that leads onto the proposition that the Reformation was a far more intolerant time than any period before or after. Spanish Inquisition, Bartholomew's Day Masacre, 30 Years War, English Civil War...

Yet I'd rather give more examples of... not so much tolerance and everyone living side by side in harmony, but examples of the incredible variety that existed in medieval Europe. Always include the Byzantine and Islamic world in that, since we are all children of the Roman Empire (whether we like it or not). Norman ruled Southern Italy, though often embroiled in conflict, managed to have Muslims, Orthodox and Catholic Christians without one side genociding or converting the other. The presence of the Normans meant especially that, as outsiders, they had little interest in supporting one side over another.

After around three hundred years of Muslim rule, much of the "Holy Land", from Jerusalem to Antioch and Edessa, was in fact quite evenly mixed with Christians and Muslims. Of course there would be more Christians in Antioch than in Jerusalem, the stipulations of the Bishop of Jerusalem when it was conquered originally still held sway even after various mad Caliphs and oppressive Jews (who took advantage of the Sassanid war against Byzantium beforehand to massacre the Christians of the city) had their way with the populace. One Caliph of Egypt even had to make huge concessions to the Christians, whose churches he had all recently demolished the roofs of and then had rebuilt, because he had annoyed the Muslim population of his realm. That it was even considered as an alternative, and that his mother was a Christian, shows us that it was not a black and white division.

Christians were also learning from Muslim texts, who were learning from Christian and Pagan texts, before, during, and after the Crusades. These texts usually ranged from commentaries on classical sources to commentaries on the nature of god and faith itself.

Finally of course there are the huge number of heretics living rather peaceful lives, the existence of pagans in centres of monotheistic religiosity and the presence of incongrueties within the faiths themselves that give support to a theory that the Middle Ages were not as intolerant as popular imagery depicts. But this is not purely tolerance on the part of medieval people. In addition to values of tolerance in peace time, it helps a great deal that for most their religiosity and ethnicity were not defined in the same way they would be in another few hundred years. Christianity enforced a popular identity following their experiences with heretics in the middle ages, and with a need to identify themselves they clashed with those who were clearly not what they were.

... and oh dear I went on a rant.