Me>>Is Ebola evil just because no cure for it exists?
>To a primitive society, lacking the crucial objectivity to recognize
>that diseases are caused by organisms which do not have a philosophical
>reason for doing the harm that they do, yes it is.
The ultimate point was not whether the culture's perceptions of disease being evil is a legitimate belief to hold but whether it is possible for a diety which represents a force 'that kills indiscriminately' to be a constructive member of society.
The Orlanthi worship Humakt whom they acknowlege is _Death_ and yet they see him as Good! Given the normal human reaction to Death (something to be feared), surely Humakt should be an evil being? So what is to prevent Malia from being a 'good' diety in Glamour or other select parts of the Empire?
Michael C. Morrison:
>I've been following the discussion of spells v. emotion and wonder if
>some confusion is due to our respective understandings of the rules?
[He then points out that the RQ2 rules, one could learn the spells from someone, via spellteaching]
IMO the spirit magic is the same regardless of how it is learned. A magician could teach his charges every single trick that he had learned with the spell but the chief constraint is time.
>If these spirits are more or less like other spirits (a big if,
>I suppose), they can learn other uses for their own spells over
>Time, and allow their (what's the word for someone who has
>captured and dominates a spirit?) to use the spell in these
>different ways.
It's not a question of whether the spell spirit knows 'other uses'. It does whatever the caster wants it to do if it can. The chief variable here is caster knowlege and mastery. An good analogy would be a sword in the hands of a rank amateur and a swordmaster. The swordmaster can do tricks that the amateur can't with the sword. The spell spirit's INT is 'limited' in that it's only good for knowing the spell so it can't learn other uses.
Pam Carlson:
>I have a difficult time thinking of Malia being accepted as a legal
>diety anywhere, even in the LE. (Well, maybe in the Kingdom of
>Ignorance, or in LDoaH's army, but I know little about those.)
Forget the Malia Writeup in Lords of Terror. The issue is whether Malia could be a Healing Cult. If she can be a healing cult then what is to prevent her worship?
>The whole solar culture revolves around the principle "Do what's right
>(Just), even if it kills you." Propriating Malia does NOT fall into
>that category.
Almost every other culture in the word says propitiating Malia (amongst other evil spirits: Gorakiki-locust etc) is a bad thing and yet just the practice is commonplace in Glorantha. As for Malia being against the precepts of the Solar Culture, the Lunar Empire is not bound by ignorant legalism IMHO.
>As to whether Malia is Evil - I say yes. In Glorantha, disease is not
>caused by biological viruses dispasionately seeking to replicate themselves
> - it's caused by hostile spirits. Disease kills you, your husband, your
>children, your chickens. There is nothing good about it, and it causes
>suffering, so it is evil.
These hostile spirits are also responsible for decaying processes according to Cults of Terror p26.
'Malia is also the janitor of the gods, providing the
corruption which turns flesh and bone back to dust.
Without work in this regard, there soon would be no
room for the living'
Ergo I do not believe that Malia is objectively evil.
>The most moral thing to do is to support your healers and good gods in
>their fight against Malia. Propriating Malia is done by desperate
>people, and they are to be despised. Every time Malia is propriated
>they undo the good gods' efforts against Malia.
The Good Gods are fighting against Malia? They would be breaking the Cosmic Compromise if they did so. Malia is part of the natural world.
>Even in the real world, with our modern outlook on medicine, killer
>diseases are portrayed as evil. The old terrors of plague,
>tuberculosis, smallpox - and now AIDS and cancer - certainly seem
>evil when they strike someone you love.
And yet the RW disease masters who work with them are seen as forces of Good, are they not? Why cannot we have an analogue with these noble people in glorantha? Making them Malian Cultists is merely another opportunity to play up the distinction between the enlightened empire and the benightened barbarians.
>We have a unique opportunity through technology to innoculate ourselves
>without strengthening a deity behind disease, but Gloranthans don't have
>that choice. Any worship of Malia adds to her strength, and is therefore
>evil. Better to devote your efforts to finding new paths toward her
>destruction.
We innoculate ourselves by injecting weakened diseases (or their toxins or mutated bateria), do we not? Translate this into Glorantha terms and what have you got? 'To stop the creeping chills ravaging you this winter, I recommend you go to Malia Theresa (brill name that) and ask her to fill you with a special healing spirit to ward the illness off'. The methods we now use to combat disease would be seen as patently chaotic by most gloranthans and yet the method will work.
And as 'worshipping of Malia adds to her strength' it is my belief that the worship of Malia is done to gain control over her minions rather than promote the occurence of them. The writeup implies otherwise but that's based on the chaotic viewpoint of diseased broos and so can be safely ignored. IMO the population of disease spirits in Glorantha is stable.
Powered by hypermail