>I agree with Michael on this point. There is a table in one of the
>old RQ books that assigns chaos features
>randomly. This is what I have always understood "chaos feature" to
>mean. If that has changed, I missed it.
But chaos is reproducible in the form of chaos cults. If they were
truly random then they would provide
no consistent magic being all change and flux. Ergo some forms of
chaos are consistent. In being so,
they are not foreign to the nature of chaos because they are in
opposition to the laws of the Cosmos.
>Defining ogres' ogreness as a chaos feature does nothing helpful.
Except refuting the silliness that chaos is socially constructed among other things...
>We already have a label for what it is that Bullmen detect in ogres:
>it is "being chaotic" -- whatever that may
>mean.
Storm Bullies are not reliable. Secondly what makes a person or
thing chaotic? Is a
practitioner of incest chaotic? Or a rapist? An act of treachery
would seem to be chaotic
but Argrath betrayed Kallyr without instantly sprouting a tentacle.
>I think it is more fun to have chaos detectable by people who are
>obviously fanatics about
>it where no chaos feature is discernable.
I don't ever recall suggesting that chaos always be obvious or
visible. What I have said
is that being a chaotic is an objective definition with cancer being
invoked as a
parallel (sometimes its obvious but often it's extremely hard to detect).
--Peter Metcalfe
Powered by hypermail