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.
