> Andy Howard:
>
> >But aren't the cultural customs generally derived from myth, and
thus
> >possessed of ritual significance? I'll ramble further...
>
> What was initially being suggested was that because of their
cultural
> outlook, the CharUn, say, are more resistant to the chaos that
results
> from their actions than a Loskalmi might be.
>
> >The cultures who deal with chaos by giving it a place in their
> >customs (rape, secret murder, torture, keeping huge demon bats,
etc),
> >even if only to be used against their enemies, probably do appear
to
> >avoid the immediate and obvious consequences of their deeds. I'd
> >reckon their soldiers are less likely to turn into broos, at least
in
> >the short term, because the crime is no longer one of individual
> >chaos.
>
> The crime is still one of individual chaos. Chaos only results when
> "a person makes a passionate refusal to recognize the limits of the
> natural and moral universe". Glorantha: Intro p33, Cults of Terror
p19.
> In other words, the focal point of entry is through the actions of
the
> Gloranthan. It is not something that a culture can absolve a person
> from doing even through custom.
>
> --Peter Metcalfe
But... ;)
if a person isn't (as far as they are aware) making a "passionate
refusal to recognise the limits of the natural and moral universe"
but simply fitting in with what their culture says is OK... AND that
culture condones actions which the rest of the world (Great
Compromise?) says are wrong/evil/chaotic, where does the crime lie?
A clan can be magically affected by the wrong actions of an
individual member unless (or even if) it takes the appropriate
punitive action. I'm applying a similar principle to a culture - the
individual is in some ways sheltered by his culture, but in turn, his
culture takes some responsibility for his behaviour.
IMO anyway
Andy