Conduct Unbecoming...

[TeaDidikai]

One of the drawbacks to having a scene based not on similarity, but of exclusion is that sources vary greatly- including expected conduct on the part of the scene.

While a certain amount of courtesy is expected, other concepts are not so cut and dry.

This includes taking from closed cultures, the use of intoxicating substances at different rituals, concepts such as hospitality and honor aren't quite as clear as single source ideologies might suggest.

Further there seems to be a strong sense of personal responsibility.

To those ends- is there any self-policing within the overall scene?
Is there accounting for one's actions? Does one's actions as a Godhi, a Priestess etc reflect on one's gods? Does it reflect on one's tradition? Their personal community?

Should it?  

[queertastrophy]

TeaDidikai

To those ends- is there any self-policing within the overall scene?
Is there accounting for one's actions?

I think it varies from person to person, and perhaps from group to group, as well.

Personally, I'm accountable for my actions. While there may be things here and there affecting my judgement at times, it basically boils down to me. I ******** up. I did well. I didn't represent a deity thoroughally enough, and I gave a false impression to someone else. Etc.

Quote:

Does one's actions as a Godhi, a Priestess etc reflect on one's gods?

I don't think so.

I'm not going to look at an invidual who screws up and think, "THOR MUST LOVE HAVING INEPT FOLLOWERS!" It's the same wonky train of thought that some have about extreme Christians fundamentalists (if that's even the right word) like Phelps--"Look at this a*****e; these are the people YHVH has? Screw that religion!"

Likewise, a person's good actions won't really change my opinion of the deity in question. My opinions of deities are based on what I've read from mythos and my UPG (which isn't what would be called "extensive").

Quote:

Does it reflect on one's tradition? Their personal community?

Sometimes. For example, say a tradition is very strict about hospitality rules and the adherant does well by them--that reflects positively on the tradition, and the follower. But, I'm not going to hold a ******** to somebody unless they do it constantly, and in that case it's the follower, and not the tradition that is in poor light.

In the cases of followers of certain traditions being required to call out and ask for proof from people who also claim membership to that tradition, if they were to not do that, it's the follower who's at fault, not the tradition.

I only see people's actions reflecting poorly on one's traditions and community if they insist that they are model examples of the tradition/community, and everything they do is how it's done, etc. Then that creates a false representation, which people might pick up on and think "Oh, hospitality's not important to X tradition!"  

[TeaDidikai]

BlueRoseTorn

Quote:

Does one's actions as a Godhi, a Priestess etc reflect on one's gods?

I don't think so.

I'm not going to look at an invidual who screws up and think, "THOR MUST LOVE HAVING INEPT FOLLOWERS!" It's the same wonky train of thought that some have about extreme Christians fundamentalists (if that's even the right word) like Phelps--"Look at this a*****e; these are the people YHVH has? Screw that religion!"

Likewise, a person's good actions won't really change my opinion of the deity in question. My opinions of deities are based on what I've read from mythos and my UPG (which isn't what would be called "extensive").

I wonder about this myself.

While it is completely possible that the gods do not exist at all, or are completely removed from human interests- many mythologies have clear statements of the gods taking action against those who have slighted them.

Could one reasonably look to the lives of these clergy for examples of punishment for displeasing their gods?


I agree with you Blue, that what you present is largely how the scene works in practice.

I wonder if it should be.

There is a very loud voice of protest against "judgment" in the scene.
I think that may be a source of very poor behavior that is excused in the name of freedom.

But I cannot come to terms with the idea that Freedom and Responsibility are not hopelessly entangled. To those ends- individuals such as Buckland and the Frosts and Ms. Wilson and the like seem to be protected by a shield of people more concerned with image than with what is right.