On 13/07/2013, at 11:03 AM, Peter Metcalfe <metcalph_at_quicksilver.net.nz> wrote:
> On 7/9/2013 5:12 PM, David Cake wrote:
>
>> I agree with Peter that "It's evil, kill it" is a very long way from either what the Lunar Way demands, or what Lunar chaos fighters would really need. I suspect Lunar anti-Chaos efforts are headed by experienced Illuminates, Examiners and such, and emphasise the judgement to know when to accept it as the Lunar way demands, and when to mercilessly destroy it as too dangerous. And the even finer judgement needed to find the line between the dark and light side of Illumination, a line often only drawn in the heart - and perhaps a line sometimes less relevant than usefulness to the state.
I think they probably have specialised anti-chaos programs in existing organisations, though some of them might be informal (eg a network within the LCM of magicians who have studied chaos, for example). Occasionally in the course of history, if there is enough chaos fighting to be done, these will turn into de facto organised chaos fighting organisations, but I think this is very seldom. But even if they had a specialised chaos fighting organisation, that wouldn't mean that they have a Storm Bull equivalent - if the Lunars had a dedicated organisation for dealing with chaotic 'problems', it would likely have a lot of chaos experts, themselves adept with the practical use of chaotic magic, in it.
> If I were to make up a Lunar Cult dedicated to opposing chaos then the
> result would not be a cult that destroys chaotic activity but adjusts it
> so that it is at peace with its surroundings. For instance, a Broo
> tribe would still be there not it is no longer raping your livestock
> and spreading disease although other aspects of their culture
> (disgusting sexual acitivities, blatant chaotic activity) would continue
> unabated. Whether their conservative neighbours will be any happier is
> something else as they would not be in the business of missionary outreach.
I think the Lunars are pragmatic enough to use a range of different methods in dealing with chaotic problems, but that sort of accomodation is definitely one of them.
At other times, they might slaughter a bunch of broo just the same way they might slaughter a bunch of rebellious Lodril cultists.
>>> Careful now, Thanatar isn't bad because it is chaotic. Thanatar is bad because it is an *Orlanthi* custom. >> Atyar originates in the East,
Well, sure, that is how it became unified with Than to form the tripartite Thanatar cult. But the whole story looks a bit dubious in hindsight (Lhankor Mhy priests running around in First Age Kralorela?) and there was certainly an Atyar cult independent of Orlanthi custom. Regardless, it is a side issue - the principle is the same for many other cults with no Orlanthi connections.
>> though the Than half of the cult is of course of Orlanthi origin, and it seems pretty clear that the 'reuniting' of the cults occurred in Orlanthi lands in the First Age. I'm sure the Lunars don't give 'pure' Atyar followers a pass on the mind eating just because they aren't too Orlanthi, though.
Sure. But you don't let the cult flourish just because some of its practices are OK. The Lunars might not find object to
>
>
>> But it doesn't really matter where it comes from. Both head taking and mind eating are prima facie ethically nasty, no matter where the practices came from, being both fancy ways of murdering.
No, and I carefully didn't say it was - I said it was ethically nasty. It is a fancy and cruel way of murdering someone, and unpleasant murder requires serious ethical justification. Ethical justification is possible, especially if you are a sometimes cruel and often very pragmatic state like the Lunar Empire, but its not easy.
> Orlanth took the head
> of Sh'hakazeel and very few Orlanthi see that as a morally wrong act.
Sure. But Sh'hakarzeel was a monster, and Orlanth is a god.
> It is morally wrong to take the head of an innocent victim but what if
> the victim was a) a powerful soldier or priest intent on despoiling your
> lands
It is still an unusually cruel, and perhaps unlawful, punishment. Thanatari heads generally eventually go insane. Having your head taken combines both elements of slavery and long term psychic torture, and so there may well be cases in which killing someone is justified, but head-taking is still not.
> b) a particularly loathsome criminal or
Well, if they are really awful, perhaps yes. But equally perhaps not. The Lunars are known to tolerate torture, and on occasional exotic magical torture, but not lightly.
> c) taking heads was a
> funerary custom ("it's the skull of me grandad. He's looking after me,
> he's is")?
Quite possibly, but that is not what Thanatari head-taking is. The heads are tormented slaves and eventually go insane. Doesn't sound like something most people would want to happen to their grandad. There are, of course, Gloranthan societies who have funerary customs most of us would find gruesome and horrifying (Zorak Zorani turning their dead into undead cannon fodder, for example), but there is no evidence that head taking is one of them. In fact, quite the opposite - we know the funerary customs of the Thanatari, and they are quite different - they use the ghosts as servants and sometimes resurrect them in the bodies of those whose mind is consumed, but they don't leave the spirits trapped in their heads. Cheers David
Powered by hypermail