> My point is that for cultures that do not recognise kinstrife as a
problem,
> or where it is practically expected, chaos is automatically *not* a
> consequence. There is a cultural context to what leads to chaos. BA
also
> suggests a strong theme that *personally* taking part in kinstrife
can lead
> to you becoming *personally* associated with chaos.
I think that, like rape, murdering or aiding the mortal enemies of your own kin is absolutely moraly corrupt and thus aiding and abetting the forces of chaos, no matter what the cultural context.
Different cultures do have different attitudes to various forms of bad behaviour. In Sartarite society, robbing and murdering foreigners is often considered acceptable. Can it be a coincidence that the principle chaos god worshiped by fallen Sartarites (Urain) is primarily obsessed with violence? In another culture where 'kinstrife' is common, I'd expect appropriate manifestations of chaos to be more prominent. In the bureaucratic and corrupt Empire Krarsht is a big problem, for example.
> I also fail to see how this is any more untenable than the idea
that
> societies that are more accomodating of some practices are just as
> vulnerable to the dangers of such acts.
I don't see any evidence that they aren't. Committing corrupt acts doesn't instantly, or automaticaly corrupt the perpetrator with the mark of chaos. Rather, committing a corrupt act allows more chaos to seep into the world. The more you transgress, the worse the problem gets and the greater the chance of a permanent moral, and even physical taint. Even cultures in which fratricide is nominaly acceptable won't often have members of society who dedicate themselves to the task with such dedication that chaotic corruption becomes inevitable. Nevertheless, chaos is there lurking in the corners of their minds.
> > >By denying any possibility of a cultural component to chaos, you
are, in my
> > >opinion, throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Sure there are
> > >universals, and sure they are important, but I have yet to see
any
> > >suggestion that the story ends there.
I'm sure culture does have an influence over how people cope with their behaviour. Someone who is raised to believe that all murder is unmittigatingly corrupt, yet still commits murder in an act of passion, will be less likely to be able to cope with the psychological trauma than someone who was raised to see it as being a relatively minor crime. A traumatised person is perhaps more likely to lapse into further degenerate behaviour, and may even abandon morality altogether if he believes he is beyond redemption anyway. However this is an indirect effect.
Simon Hibbs
Powered by hypermail