Much of the discussion about CA restrictions has been aimed at what a CA adventurer/ess may or may not do. IMHO the healer's prohibitions would be an ideal case, aimed at sedentary members of the temple rather than at strange gad-abouts - we should extrapolate from the ideal to find the real life limits.
CA always seems (to me) to be the goddess of mercy, forgiveness etc and would thus pass over in extremis abberations, provided that there was justification, in exchange for appropriate penance. So meat could be eaten if the alternative was starving, an animal could be killed if that saved the life of a sentient (worse than this would require a by-case GM judgement PLUS good roleplaying).
BUT (and you knew there would be a but..)
Much of a healer's effectiveness will come from the temple. Spells, herbs and magic items (gifted by satisfied customers) will be allocated by the Chief Priest(ess), as will access to training facilities, the library and the apothecary. Since the CA cult's revered status depends to a large extent on their rejection of violence in a hostile world and the awe that that this rejection engenders, followers of the true path will be rewarded more than those that err.
A character that eats meat when bread was available would find that the Heal 6 matrix was given to someone more suitable. If they committed an act of violence they would not be allowed into the inner sanctum until an act of purification had been carried out (cannot regain spells).
In summary, NPC Healers would be so dedicated to the cult (it is a much harder option than Orlanth, so not for dilletantes[sp?]) that these 'threats' would be enough to keep them on the path. For player characters, the choice is their's, but the punishment shouldn't be harsh, but should guide them back to the fold.
But if they persist in using that 2-handed sword as a "walking stick", you're being to subtle.
End of Glorantha Digest V1 #143
Powered by hypermail