>I am certainly _not_ a
>sociologist, and thus I would defer to your opinion, Michael.
Don't. All sociologists lie.
Re: revising the elements
>My reason for bringing this up the definitions was to emphasize the fact
>(as you correctly reason) that the subject of an accusation does not have
>to be, in fact, guilty of what she is accused of.
Why don't just say that that is O'Keefe's conclusion, and skip his inane analysis?
>I would love to hear what a trained sociologist thought of this book.
If the rest of the book contains similar trivial conclusions and travesties of sociological analysis, i wouldn't want to waste time reading it.
>>Also, the spell:
>(snip)
>>Do you really need a spell to accuse anyone for being a witch? Surely the
>>accusation from a Khan (who is invested with the authority of Waha) will
>>result in the person being shunned anyway. Social 'rituals' can have rather
>>devastating result without being magical.
>
>I do happen to believe that all social rituals, in Glorantha, are also
>magical. Or, at the very least, they all have the capacity to be adapted
>into formalized 'spells'.
Well, following RQIII it seems that magic is associated with either Magic Points or sacrifice of POW. If neither MP or POW are involved it won't detect as magic. Hence, merely social rituals aren't magical.
Ignoring RQIII, however, you are spot on. Ceremonies, and certainly of the group variety, should have magical effects if performed appropriately.
>Doyle>>this spell taints the target with Chaos.
>
>Michael>Should this really be possible? Can someone non-chaotic make someone
>>chaotic? It takes the 4-point Pocharngo spell of Corruption to make someone
>>chaotic,
>
>There is a two point Lunar spell which can give you the taint. This is a
>'cast on self' spell, though. I thought three seemed like a good number,
>though I'd be willing to hear arguments for four (going once, going twice...)
My main contention wasn't the cost; it was whether the spell should be possible at all. The spell of Corruption comes from a *chaotic* source and it still costs 4 points, so it isn't easy even for the Mutator. I strongly doubt that a spell from a *non*-chaotic source can taint anyone with chaos regardless of point cost.
>>and i'd say only chaos can produce chaos.
>
>Well, that is part of the point of the last piece. I believe that Praxian
>culture is so dependent on Chaos for its continued existence, that in the
>circumstance we are discussing, it is possible for a Khan to cause someone
>to become Chaotic (or at least acquire a chaotic taint).
*How* is that possible?
I don't quite follow the logic of your argument. How can a non-chaotic person make another non-chaotic person chaotic merely because their culture is dependent on opposing chaos for its reproduction?
Are you saying that since praxian culture is strongly opposed to chaos and defined by that opposition, a praxian can make a person chaotic by strongly opposing that person?
That chaos creates praxian culture doesn't mean praxian culture can create chaos.
>>Also, condemning an obviously non-chaotic person (the Khan's stormbullers
>>should be able to establish that quite easily) to chaos isn't exactly nice,
>>is it? Sort of chaotic itself, in fact. Wouldn't stormbullers be highly
>>suspicious of a person who can bestow chaoticness?
>
>I would assume that this is explained away by the rationale "That Garangi
>must have had evil magics sheilding him from the sight of the Bull!" or
>some such nonsense.
OK. Assuming the spell is possible, there is but one justification for praxians using this ritual as i see it: the effect of the ritual of accusing witches *as the praxians perceive it* is to unveil the true, hidden chaotic nature of an evil-doer.
If so, one wonders why some witch-hunting Jaldon-wannabes haven't gone on a quest and Accused Pavis himself or his High priest as a Witch? Surely the ritual, suitably boosted, would sort out once and for all whether Pavis is evil or not?
End of The Glorantha Digest V5 #569
Powered by hypermail