If you only have MRQ1, that's probably why you have such a shitty understanding of the cult system, since I'm given to understand that stuff is crap. You gotta go back to the Perrin and Stafford stuff like Cults of Prax, or forward to MRQII. Stafford's system isn't presented in a modular way, but it can be adapted easily to represent other institutions besides cults. The MRQII system is modular, and even more open and easy to adapt.

Cults of Prax has sub-sections within each religions write up that include things like "Reason for Continued Existence", "Social / Political Position and Power", "Particular Likes and Dislikes", "Mundane Benefits", "Requirements to Join", etc. The emphasis is on "What it is like to be a member of the cult" rather than "All cult members wear this kind of funny hat on Fridays" (though admittedly, there is a bit of that). That's because cults are ethos.

The rest of your post basically derives from two points of confusion on your part.

1) Culture is not a homogeneous entity, and morality within it is not homogeneous either. This is why you can't talk about "Arab morality" or whatever. The ridiculous "stoning women" example is just that. Heck, stoning women isn't legal in every country of the Middle East, nor approved of by every Arab. Just as not every American is against it. You're confusing legality with culture with morality here. They are three interpenetrating but distinct areas.

Institutions within a culture tend to overlap in the values and practices they advocate, but this does not make them indistinct, nor does it mean they teach the same things. Boy Scouts don't teach "Christian" morality (itself a non-existent concept as can be seen by profitably distinguishing Catholic morality from Protestant from Eastern Orthodox, etc.), they teach a compatible but not identical set of practices and beliefs to most Protestant sects.

For example, Boy Scouts has no interest whatsoever in redeeming one's soul, despite the acceptance of the grace of God and its salvic power being the most important ethical decision one can make in most types of Christianity.

Yes, Boy Scouts tells us not to lie, as does Christianity. So does Islam and Kantian deontology. It does not follow that Boy Scouts = Christianity = Islam = Kant's moral system. One can be a Boy Scout and not a Christian (I was) and still have one's character formed usefully.

2) Morality is not the law, and the law is not morality. The idea that the law serves as a codificiation of the ordinary morality of the group that follows that law is simply false. The law is not even really _like_ morality, though the two do possess a relationship in that they both govern human behaviour. The law has no concepts of disgust, shame or guilt, for example.

Claiming that things like "Arab morality" exist because some Arab governments have similar laws on certain issues is a bizarre over-generalisation. How many laws of America do you personally endorse, Spike? How do the regulations on cabbages or on sodomy govern your personal feelings on how you ought to conduct your life? How much power do you actually have to change them if you disagree with them? How much power would you have if, like many Arab countries, you were living under an authoritarian dictatorship?

Or do you, as I suspect you do, and I certainly do, preserve an independence of thought and belief regardless of what the law is? Not only that, but have you never broken the law, even in a minor way? Never smoked pot, never parked illegally, never jay-walked, never punched someone? If you did, you disagreed with your government and with your law because you thought it was the right thing to do at the time.

In short, when I'm talking about culture, I'm talking about a heterogeneous mass of individuals and institutions that overlap with one another in many ways, but that are not perfectly aligned and that often disagree or deviate from one another. Their individual actions give rise to norms and practices that as well, may overlap and interact, but that are also not perfectly aligned, just as many molecules of water moving together may form a wave, but are not necessarily all moving in the same direction at the same speed when doing so.

So yes, dealing with that heterogeneous mass is the best way of dealing with morality.

The rest of your post is a combination of strawmen and bullshit. Try harder, bro.

While it certainly sounds like the older stuff is a lot more detailed, I'm not entirely convinced that they justify entirely separate moral frameworks for every cult in a region.  Aren't you one of the people who complains that D&D style religions are 'teh stupid'?  I ask, because when you disassociate the cult morality from the cultural milieu you are actually making the cults more like D&D style religions than...oh... historic.   By your stated idea, Alcibadies wouldn't have had to worry about blaspheming the Elusinian Mysteries, because only cultists would have cared, not the greater Greek culture.  

The local cults would, collectively, contribute to a greater moral framework, or draw from it... chicken and egg... with individual areas of emphasis... but they wouldn't be existing in a vacuum as you suggest.  I don't actually think you are stupid enough to believe that they do exist in vacuum, but that is exactly what you are arguing.  "Man, I just joined the Boyscouts... oh man! All that time I was stealing and raping and shit? I was totally wrong!... I see it now! oh, the humanity!"

The mere fact that I talk about dominant cultures and sub-cultures would suggest that I don't need to be told that culture is not homogeneous.  We can, however, select general trends, and identify exceptions.

Likewise, I never made an argument that the law was morality, but thank you for going for a cheap shot. I said the law reflects or is informed by the local moral codes.  Likewise, I never said that all this or all that did this all the time. However, it is legal to stone your wife in many arabic (and, for that matter, non-arab muslim nations, like Iran) on the flimsiest of evidence of adultery. Its legal to hang Homosexuals as well in those same nations. It is hardly a debatable matter, though you seem to think otherwise, that these are vast differences between Muslim culture and modern western culture (avoiding the 'christian' culture, as not so long ago it was legal and moral for christians to kill homosexuals with a pear of anguish... hardly an improvement), as reflected in what activities are legal and which are punishable by death or by simple divorce.

Your last paragraph is nothing more than an imprecise description of culture that isn't particularly objectionable nor insightful, and adds nothing to the conversation.  As I said before, you seem to be arguing for my point: That cults (or the boyscouts, a rugby team or going to college) do not provide a moral framework in and of themselves, but may merely shape the moral framework provided by the dominant local culture. To put it into your metaphorical framework: Culture is the wave, the direction the body of water (Moral framework) is moving, cults and boyscouts and rugby teams are all smaller overlaping areas of influence, all moving in the same general direction, even if their individual movement is not parallel or even, necessarily, going in the same general direction.. the molecules.

But you have not been arguing that. You've been arging that the molecules movement is the direction, and the wave is unimportant or even non-existant (a lacuna in your posts, as you don't actually mention or account for it at all).

But you're right, I was totally strawmanning it when I pointed out that your arguments are not up to the standard of intellectual rigor... that I assigned to you and that you did not explicitly claim in this thread. Mea Culpa.

You're continuing to make the same errors. Aeschylus broke the law when he nearly revealed the Eleusinian Mysteries. Alcibiades broke the law when he castrated the herms. The people who brought them to trial as plaintiffs were members of the cults in question.

Learn your history before you start drawing examples from it.

Also:

Quote from: SpikeLikewise, I never made an argument that the law was morality, but thank you for going for a cheap shot. I said the law reflects or is informed by the local moral codes.

Quote from: SpikeThe moral code of a people is expressed clearly in the laws they pass.

You said no such thing. You said it is "expressed clearly" in laws. Not that it influences them, or has some other, more tenuous, relationship, but that it clearly expresses the morality of a people. If you want to back away from that statement, you are welcome to.

You're continuing your mistake whenever you talk about "Arab" or "Muslim" morality, since these are much more diffuse and diverse than you're pretending they are. Plenty of Muslims believe that stoning women is wrong and that homosexuals should not be killed. My point is not that all Muslims are super-tolerant, but that there is incredibly diversity within those communities that is being papered over here when you falsely talk about "Muslim morality" or whatever.

Finally, I have not claimed that these institutions exist in vacuums from one another. Heck, I've used words like "overlap" to indicate their relationships to one another, and mentioned that they have relations to one another several times. Pay attention. Read what I've written.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;437187You're continuing to make the same errors. Aeschylus broke the law when he nearly revealed the Eleusinian Mysteries. Alcibiades broke the law when he castrated the herms. The people who brought them to trial as plaintiffs were members of the cults in question.

Learn your history before you start drawing examples from it.

Learn your history before correcting others.  Alcibiades was accused of, yes, mutilating the herms (which has no cultic aspect relevant to our conversation, and was thus left out intentionally), and profaning the Elusinian mysteries by, as I recall, conducting them in his home among friends. He wasn't brought to trial by cult members but by political opponents.  The entire point was that very few people could be considered cultists of the Elusinian mysteries, but the entire city of Athens was up in fucking arms over these accusations.... because they violated the moral code of everyone, not just the few die-hards who actually were initiated into the mysteries...

You do realize that more than one ancient greek could have been accused of violating the Elusinian mysteries, don't you? :rolleyes:

QuoteYou said no such thing. You said it is "expressed clearly" in laws. Not that it influences them, or has some other, more tenuous, relationship, but that it clearly expresses the morality of a people. If you want to back away from that statement, you are welcome to.

My bad, I assumed that your ability to comprehend english was better than that.  You are right that I used the term 'expressed clearly' in the post. And I can certainly admit that it was less clear than it could have been, despite the use of example.  

Because the linguistic gap between expressing and reflecting is so wide, and most people can't make that leap to understanding. :rolleyes:

QuoteYou're continuing your mistake whenever you talk about "Arab" or "Muslim" morality, since these are much more diffuse and diverse than you're pretending they are. Plenty of Muslims believe that stoning women is wrong and that homosexuals should not be killed. My point is not that all Muslims are super-tolerant, but that there is incredibly diversity within those communities that is being papered over here when you falsely talk about "Muslim morality" or whatever.

And plenty of individuals think dogfucking is perfectly acceptable behavior. Amazingly, no one claims that dogfucking is somehow a cultural norm in the western world.  Amazingly, in predominantly muslim nations, particularly those with Islamic governments (compared to the Secular governments that, yes, also exist), the fact that most people do think its okay is pretty much a given, seeing as how often it happens and how openly.  Exceptions do not invalidate cultural norms, but if you really want to get into pedantry, I'll preface the next round of muslim cultural differences with a by nation list, which will REALLY bog down the already glacial pace of this discussion.

QuoteFinally, I have not claimed that these institutions exist in vacuums from one another. Heck, I've used words like "overlap" to indicate their relationships to one another, and mentioned that they have relations to one another several times. Pay attention. Read what I've written.

I did. Pay attention to what I wrote. Here, I'll even quote and bold myself for you.

Quote from: Spike one whole post earlierBut you have not been arguing that. You've been arging that the molecules movement is the direction, and the wave is unimportant or even non-existant (a lacuna in your posts, as you don't actually mention or account for it

Wow! LOOK AT THAT!!!  I actually pointed out that your posts failed to even mention the broader cultural context, the milieu as I've called it since the first response to you!  Right THERE!  The very moment you actually referenced the overlap as relevant you essentially conceeded my point, which I pointed out earlier as well.  The tenor and nature of your initial post here was that being a boyscout was far more relevant to your moral framework than being a Canadian, and you rejected my attempts to say 'no, being a Canadian is more informative than 'boyscout' for your general moral framework'.... which you have then rebutted!

So when you start going on about the wave and the overlap and all that I have to ask myself 'WHY THE FUCK ARE YOU ARGUING WITH ME THEN?!?'

Oh... but that's just bullshit and strawmen from me... :rolleyes:


Here, let me be perfectly clear:

Quote from: Spike, in the opening salvo of the argumentRunequest's Cult system barely touches on any of that (the Army or converting to a religion, certainly), and by your lights only provides a moral framework for joining organizations that explicitly lay out a framework, and none at all for the cultural milieu that surrounds those cults.

Quote from: Psuedoephidrine, in his very next post"Canadian" is not the locus of moral decisions. I know terms like "predominant culture" sound authoritative, but they are totally vacuous here. Cultures are composed of individuals and institutions in relation with one another./QUOTE]

In the interest of fairness, yes, you do use relation here, which is at least as similar to overlap as expressed is to reflected in.

However, the actual paragraph is contradictory.   Being 'Canadian'... that is, being part of a culture that is 'composed of individuals and instituitions in relation with one another' is not the locus of moral decisions... because the institutions (Boyscouts, sporting clubs, universities, Cults) that are part of that 'instituitions in relation with'  ARE the locus of moral decisions?


Whatever man. You win the thread, I've got better things to do.

Too cool for school, Spike?

It's pretty simple. You're treating "Culture" as if it was some real thing in itself. And not just a real thing, but a homogeneous entity that is the same for all people within it and to which the individual is subservient. That's why you keep on saying dumb, mildly racist shit about other groups of people and why you still haven't answered my question about whether you disagree with the laws of your country (or are even aware of more than a handful of them).

Don't get pissy here because I'm calling you out on your lazy, dumb generalisations.

For the record, being "Canadian" does mean that my morality is that of an impoverished Inuit hunting guide clubbing seals in northern Labrador, nor his mine. Because our lives are radically different from one another. While there are perhaps a small handful of institutions that deal with both of us, they don't even do so in similar ways.

Once you grasp the idea that sloppy reifying of abstract generalisations isn't useful for understanding how and why people make the choices they make about how to live their lives, we might be able to get somewhere.

OK so if I'm gathering correctly, RQ cults are written from a more anthropological perspective rather than any objective ethical viewpoint..so it would seem they model a character's moral decisions more accurately but without passing any judgment on the morality in question.

I'd guess this lets you model characters who are low-to-average functioning in terms of moral judgment quite accurately since they're more likely to blindly follow the dictates of their culture, though perhaps not characters who can do alot of advanced moral thinking of their own. (my thinking here is based off what I've read of Kohlburg's moral stages, where a character who takes on cultural values from external sources fairly indiscriminately fits in at about level III or IV, depending on whether they are primarily paying lip service to society in public or internalizing the laws without much processing. Though admittedly a majority of people IRL are usually considered to be at that level.

The other problem with an RQ cults type system (again if I'm inferring correctly) seems to be that any new world needs the main cultural or religious belief systems to be codified as a new alignment. Whereas a simplified system just drops those cultures in the grid, and leaves alot of choices down to individual character roleplaying.

The more thinking I do on this the more I just give up on trying to model alignment in general, I think.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;437655OK so if I'm gathering correctly, RQ cults are written from a more anthropological perspective rather than any objective ethical viewpoint..so it would seem they model a character's moral decisions more accurately but without passing any judgment on the morality in question.

I'd guess this lets you model characters who are low-to-average functioning in terms of moral judgment quite accurately since they're more likely to blindly follow the dictates of their culture, though perhaps not characters who can do alot of advanced moral thinking of their own. (my thinking here is based off what I've read of Kohlburg's moral stages, where a character who takes on cultural values from external sources fairly indiscriminately fits in at about level III or IV, depending on whether they are primarily paying lip service to society in public or internalizing the laws without much processing. Though admittedly a majority of people IRL are usually considered to be at that level.

It allows you to model enculturation more accurately and effectively. Individuals aren't slaves to their cultures - they have to choose how seriously and fervently they advocate the positions of the cult. If they choose not to, that's fine, but they lack the social support that belonging to an institution and upholding and practicing its values will bring.

QuoteThe other problem with an RQ cults type system (again if I'm inferring correctly) seems to be that any new world needs the main cultural or religious belief systems to be codified as a new alignment.

This is just part of world-building in RQ. You can recycle things with minimal changes if you're constantly using Catholic knock-offs, for example. It's about as onerous as designing a new pantheon for clerics every time you change your game world.

Ah well...I shall have to check it out. Thanks!