Re: Chaos

From: Peter Larsen <peterl_at_admin.stedwards.edu>
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 23:09:39 -0500


Peter Metcalfe says many things about chaos and leaves me utterly puzzled.

Larsen's model: There are acts that are chaotic. These acts are associated with some chaotic force (spirit, god, whatever). performing these acts strengthens that force and chaos in general. Unprotected people who perform these acts risk the attentions of the force they are strengthening, usually with gross physical effects. Some people, however, are protected.* Protected people avoid the personal effects of their chaotic actions, although the world is still weakened -- sometimes close to the "scene of the crime," sometimes elsewhere.

Metcalfe's model: Some acts are collateral worship of chaotic deities. This strengthens chaos but not much, since other gods are probably getting some of that worship, too. Other acts are direct worship of chaotic deities that may cause observable chaotic effects. There is no way to be sure which is which without a lot of pawing through myth looking for "chaotic" actions by non-chaotic gods, because then it can't be caotic, can it? Chaotic acts cause chaos, but, if you're just being collateral about it, you get away unscathed (by chaos, at any rate).

        Maybe I am misrepresenting your model, but, if not, it's full of hair-splitting, specal cases, and "because I said so" holes. I really don't understand why raping someone is direct worship of Thed but eating someone is not direct worship of the Ogre ancestor -- he's the source of cannibalism, for crying out loud! Urain is, apparently, a god of no particular kind of chaos (if he's a chaos god anymore instead of bad weather, as Wesley Quadros asks), so I guess he just gets collateral worship. Krjalk is god of treachery -- how treacherous do you have to be before it's direct worship?

        I really don't see why my model is so much inferior to yours.

Peter Larsen

--__--__--

Powered by hypermail