Re: Adept's questions on chaos

From: donald_at_H2Gf_yNDdtFV-xVD5CziqHpqcfzZ6KYHMZe1AQvE_-mrMnAhERYFypnLx_RpZ-86N2bg7
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 15:24:37 GMT


In message <20070419125410.19489.qmail_at_eUBD7bXAmkatAlKuc8OKY7Gqhpj3qbxccYPhGkbABRso3wBgOIXRXEPNLWjadWpl4qCn-2k2IPY4nC2tt6irGsfPjuoy0ge3Cpr7ySJ4WlyX5Uc.yahoo.invalid> Peter Metcalfe writes:
>At 01:16 a.m. 20/04/2007, you wrote:

>>Doctors in the RW have a clear definition of cancer which,
>>with training, anyone can apply. If we, or more importantly
>>Gloranthans, haven't a definition of what a chaos feature is
>>then that isn't an objective test for chaos.
>
>But we do have an objective definition of chaos - a chaotic
>feature is pretty much definitive.

Yet you haven't defined what a chaos feature is. Given the argument you were making recently that Krasht isn't chaotic because he isn't associated with the chaos rune there seems to be a lot of disagreement about what chaos is.

> Chaos is not a subjective
>phenomenon (and heaven help us if the sobjectivist
>debate breaks out again).

>> >Except that this issue [of Chaos spreading] has been
>> >addressed in the Cults of Terror.
>>
>>Which is of course a completely objective document, like
>>everything else published about Glorantha.
>
>And the problem with the Cults of Terror treatment is what?

Every cult is written as a theistic cult when we now know that most of them are animist and Vivamort is sorcerous. If something is that inaccurate on a major issue then it becomes unreliable on other points.

-- 
Donald Oddy
http://www.grove.demon.co.uk/

           

Powered by hypermail