I wouldn't say arbitrary. His formula, as I (mis-)understood it, has logic, but I didn't find it helpful. But comments from Paul King and Andrew Solovay make me think I had Peter's position wrong.
Peter, responding to me:
> > There is a table in one of the old RQ books that assigns
> > chaos features randomly. This is what I have always understood
> > "chaos feature" to mean.
>
> But chaos is reproducible in the form of chaos cults. If they
> were truly random then they would provide no consistent magic
> being all change and flux. Ergo some forms of chaos are
> consistent. In being so, they are not foreign to the nature of
> chaos because they are in opposition to the laws of the Cosmos.
I only said "random" in order to better identify a table that I did not have in front of me. I don't think randomness is part of something being a chaos feature. So, if that was your point, I agree with you. If not, then I don't understand your point.
> >Defining ogres' ogreness as a chaos feature does nothing helpful.
>
> Except refuting the silliness that chaos is socially constructed
> among other things...
I agree that chaos is not a social construct. I have not yet accepted that ogres' ogreness is a choas feature (though Andrew makes that argument pretty well). Because I don't accept your premise, I don't think you refuted the conclusion, though I also reject the conclusion. (Though I think it would be fun to mislead new players into thinking that chaos is a social construct, only to disillusion them later.)
> > We already have a label for what it is that Bullmen detect in ogres:
> > it is "being chaotic" -- whatever that may mean.
>
> Storm Bullies are not reliable.
Come to Prax and say that, buddy. ;-)
> Secondly what makes a person or thing chaotic? Is a
> practitioner of incest chaotic? Or a rapist? An act of
> treachery would seem to be chaotic but Argrath betrayed
> Kallyr without instantly sprouting a tentacle.
I assume you're making your point about chaos not being a social construct. I think any of these could play a part under the right circumstances, but none is sufficient by itself. Chaos is an objectively, if difficultly, observed thing in Glorantha. It's no different than the element Darkness. Or a spirit. Some people have the right senses, others don't. And they can argue about it, despite it being objectively observable.
> > I think it is more fun to have chaos detectable by people who are
> > obviously fanatics about it where no chaos feature is discernable.
>
> I don't ever recall suggesting that chaos always be obvious or visible.
> What I have said is that being a chaotic is an objective definition with cancer being
> invoked as a parallel (sometimes its obvious but often it's extremely hard to detect).
I'm glad we agree on that. I didn't mean to imply that you thought otherwise. There are hidden chaos features, after all.
Peter, responding to Paul:
> What I actually did say was that being a chaotic creature was a chaos feature.
Hmmm. So, do you also say that "having a chaos feature" is congruent with "being chaotic"? Do you further say that, if you could find a 100% reliable Bullman, "being sense-able as chaotic by the Bullman" is congruent with either "being chaotic," "having a chaos feature," or both?
Andrew, whom I have edited for brevity, attempting to summarize Peter's position:
> RQ2 talked about creatures having or aquiring a "chaos taint". In
> RQ2, this was *distinct* from having a "chaotic feature". . . .
>
> Peter's contention is that the "chaos taint" never comes *in
> isolation*. If you have a "chaos taint" (if you are "chaotic"), there
> is always *some* physical and/or spiritual effect. This may be the
> random "chaotic feature" of RQ2/Anaxial's Roster. It may be a non-
> random, consistent characteristic of that kind of chaotic being (such
> as an ogre's strength and pointy teeth . . . ).
>
> But the point is, the chaos taint never happens *all by itself*. If
> Oddi is not chaotic in spring, and he is chaotic in the fall, then if
> you look hard enough you'll find *something* objectively different
> about him besides just the chaos taint; . . . maybe he'll have an
> extra finger. He *won't* be "just the same as before, only with a
> chaos taint".
I don't know if it is Peter's position, but it is a nice summary of one possible position. (And a nice job of avoiding the labels that might have carried unintended baggage.) I have always thought that the chaos taint was: (a) graduated, so Bullmen could tell how chaotic something is, and (b) independent of having an another objective difference like an extra finger. Thus, people who propotiated Mallia might have a temporary whiff of the taint about them. Bullmen would be digusted and might beat up their khan. But it's not irredeemable at that point. There is some point on the scale where it's permanent, absent overwhelming magic to undo it, if your Glorantha permits it (like the Cleansed One quest or the Blue Toad). And then there's some point where nothing can undo it.
Jeff:
> . . . when the discussion is reduced to "Yes, it is!" "No, it isn't"
> . . . it may be time to move on to more fruitful topics.
No, it isn't!
Chris
Powered by hypermail