> Michael Hitchens
>
>> On Sun, 22 Apr 2007, Peter Metcalfe wrote:
>
>>> Being an Ogre is a chaotic feature just as being a Broo or
>>> Scorpionfolk.
>
>> That's a rather silly circular argument. "Being chaotic means it is a
>> chaotic feature means it is chaotic".
>
> No, it's not. Ogres detect as chaos by virtue of being ogres,
> not because they have happen to have an additional chaotic
> feature. Ergo being an Ogre is a chaotic feature.
Detect chaos dos not mean detect chaos feature. Yes, ogres detect as chaotic because they are. But being detected as chaos doesn't mean they have a chaotic feature. Chaotic features are *additional* to a basic chaotic nature. You can be chaotic and not have a chaotic feature. You can't have a chaotic feature without being chaotic. I still don't know what you're trying to prove be redefining "being chaotic" as "having a chaotic feature" and "being chaotic and having a chaotic feature" as "having two chaotic features".
>> Come on. The quote says "About 1 in
>> 20 possesses a random chaos feature".
>
> Yes That's in _addition_ to their common chaotic feature, which
> is hereditary in nature.
I think that's a rather odd definition of "chaotic feature". Doesn't match anything I remember seeing.
>> Obviously being chaotic does not
>> mean you automatically have a chaos feature.
>
> In which case give an example of a chaotic that does not
> have a chaotic feature. Failing that give an example in
> glorantha where one society claims something is chaotic
> and another does not.
Hey, I'm not pushing that argument. And your first question is now silly, as you define "being chaotic" as "having a chaotic feature". So we can't give you an example that will satisfy you.
>> I'm not even sure what you're trying to prove by asking for chaos
>> creatures without chaotic features.
>
> It would help if you paid attention to what I actually said. Looking
> back on what I originally asked, I see that I asked for an example
> of a _chaotic_, not "chaotic creature", that did not have a chaos
> feature.
Please define the difference - you are not being at all clear.
>>>> Then what's under the block?
>
>>> A Praxian Horror that destroyed Genert's Garden.
>
>> Which could be called the Devil?
>
> You don't get it. The problem isn't the word "Devil", it's the word
> "The". The God Learners created the concept there was one
> Devil around in the Great Darkness. But the Devil of the Malkioni
> is different from the Devil of the Pelandans who is different yet
> again the Devil of the Praxians. Now the Devil of the Pelandan
> myth is GanEstoro, who is not chaotic but rather a darkness
> deity instead. The Devil of the Kralori mythology is Sekever who
> actually fought a battle with Tien in the Wastes - the same Tien
> who is the Devil's Son in the Monomyth.
Chaos is chaos - I seem to remember other myths talking about the chaos armies turning on each other. So a son battling a father? No problem. *Maybe* there was one devil, *maybe* not. Are you trying to be defintive about this: "There is more than one devil" or raise a possibility: "there may be more than one devil". I'll give you the latter but not the former. Weren't you the one keen on ambiguity? Just because the god learners said something doesn't mean it is automatically wrong. Or right.
Michael
Powered by hypermail