The things that attracted me, as a player and GM, to Glorantha were its depth, and the lack of easy moral decisions (Are the Lunars evil? Were the Romans evil?). This meant that I could imagine a world as rich and complex as this one, and use it as a vehicle in which to tell engaging and satisfying stories. The presence of Chaos acts against this. There are several reasons for this:
Chaos is a cop-out for plot writers
- -----------------------------------
This trend towards the "Good vs Evil" cop-out has been developing "recently". AFAIK, some 17% of Chaosium-published RQ2 scenarios revolved around chaos. Some 40% of Chaosium/AH-published RQ3 scenarios did. This is a dangerous trend, turning adventures into simple munchkin-friendly hack'n'slay sessions. Glorantha can be so much more than that.
This trend might be reversed with the greater emphasis on socially-situated 'adventures' that might follow from Hero Wars. I wait in hope.
Chaos means no moral or ethical decisions
- -----------------------------------------The assumption that chaos = evil means that characters, and therefore players, never have to consider the ethics of their actions. Frex, at the end of Gaumata's Vision, the PCs have to decide what to do with a bunch of chaotic children. An interesting moral question. Lots of MGF there as the PCs explore and argue the options. At least, there would be if it wasn't obvious to the PCs that chaos = evil, therefore the children must be killed.
At the beginning of the _Troubled_Waters_ campaign, the PCs had real qualms about slaughtering the cute, innocent, little mudsharks. At the end of the campaign, they had no problem killing cute, innocent, little chaos mostrosities. Guess which episode they talk about more?
And removing the big "Beware: Evil! Soul Destruction in Progress!" sign from cults like Thanatar makes them more appealing, more seductive, more interesting. Humakt offers great power, but at a cost to society. Thanatar offers great power, but at a cost to society. Is one better than the other? Are there situations where gaining Thanatari or Humakti powers are justified? Does the end ever justify the means? Without chaos, you can ask this question.
Chaos makes characters lack depth
- ---------------------------------
Chaotic villains are treated as victims
- --------------------------------------At present, players have no reason to sympathise with their enemies. If a character is evil, does evil things, it's not their fault. They're chaotic: they can't help it. There's no sense of people being responsible for their actions, and the effects they have. Nobody has to think why evil happens, how it can be stopped, what role they play in bringing it about.
Chaotics make for second-rate antagonists
- -----------------------------------------
"Humans are the only race more dangerous that broos in the [Zola
Fel] Valley" (RoC, p. 109)
If I want to give my players a run for their money, why should I give
them second-rate opposition? Why not set them against the most
dangerous opposition there is?
In fact, I think that the presence of Chaos in Glorantha is so pernicious that I think it should be removed from all out contacts with the world. If we do that, what do we loose? Very little, if anything.
The real world doesn't have clearly labelled evil. This makes for difficult judgements. Gameworlds like _Call_of_Cthulhu_ don't have clearly labelled evil. That makes for interesting play. Why should Glorantha be so impoverished?
IMHO. Neil.
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr Neil Smith email: neil.smith_at_rmcs.cranfield.ac.uk CISMG, Cranfield University, phone: +44 1793 785900 RMCS, Shrivenham, Swindon, SN6 8LA, UK fax: +44 1793 782753 ------------------------------
End of The Glorantha Digest V6 #526
Powered by hypermail