> Micheal Hitchens
>
>> On Sun, 22 Apr 2007, Peter Metcalfe wrote:
>
>>> 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.
>
> Well what else is being detected? It's certainly not their general
> capacity for ill-will.
Umm, I would have thought detect chaos was detecting chaos. A chaos
feature is a particular manifestation of chaos, changing a particular
creature from what is "normal" for its kind. Broos, being particularly
chaotic, are all different, but that's only beecause they are very
"tainted". In my opinion there is a difference between the, likely
immaterial (word used instead of spritual, to avoid confusion with sprit
plane), basic taint of chaos and its physical manifestations. I do not
think that chaos has to be manifested physically in a creature for
a) that creature to be chaotic
b) that creature to be detectable as chaotic by such as the Storm Bull's
sense
>> Yes, ogres detect as chaotic because they are.
>
> So this chaotic property they have is a bug, not a feature?
Trite word play. Look at the discussion of chaos you quoted at length. It talked about the *attitude* of the creature, not the physical form. The ultimate nature of chaos is not physical. It erupts physically into the material world, because the material world is just that - material. In my opinion the basic taint of chaos is an immaterial one - a feature (stain?) on the creatures soul/essence/spirit.
>> Chaotic features are *additional* to a basic
>> chaotic nature.
>
> What's to stop a "basic chaotic nature" from being a chaotic
> feature? As far as I can see you are making a distinction
> without a difference. For the most part Ogres are human.
> That thing that distinguishes them from normal humans
> can easily be considered a chaotic feature.
The difference is between the physical and the immaterial. You can't have the physical manifestations without the immaterial, but you can have the immaterial without the physical. So I see a usefulness in a distinction between the two.
>> 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".
>
> I'm not redefinining anything. As for what I'm trying to prove, you
> could read the thread and find people arguing that chaos in
> glorantha was a social construct.
Hmm. There are some social constructs labelled chaos (eg., Westerners lumping trolls in a lot of other things under "krajalki"). *However* I think that's a mistake on the westerners part. So we can talk about a "social construct" chaos as a viewpoint held by certain denizens of Glorantha. If we want to talk about chaos' objective place in Glorantha then any pretence that it is a social construct is simply false.
>>> 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.
>
> Once again saying "I think" when trying to contradict people is
> weak writing. If you think they are wrong, say so. If on the other
> hand you just think they are using a flawed definition then it's
> better to describe what you think is a better definition.
I think (hee hee) that I have above
Taint of chaos, chaotic nature: having the immaterial essence tainted by
chaos (and the degree can vary)
Chaos feature: a physical manifestation of the chaotic nature
You cannot have a chaos feature without the taint, but you can have the taint without the feature(s). I think this is a better defintion as it distinguishes between physical and immaterial and also allows us to consider methods of detecting chaos. Those that work on the immaterial would be more reliable than those that work on the physical. But those that work on the physical would be more easily able to be proved *within* Glorantha.
>> 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 was asking for an example which _falsifies_ my definition. Hence
> my question was not "silly" but a legitimate query. I don't know
> who "we" is meant to be but I was hoping that the people who
> believed that chaos was socially constructed would give an
> example in the sources of a person who was chaotic depending on
> the cultural milieu of the observer.
Depends what definition of chaos you are using. The socially constructed one or the objective one. A troll is chaotic to a westerner, but I don't think anybody on this list believes trolls are "objectively" chaotic.
>>> 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.
>
> I would have thought it obvious - a chaotic creature is a creature
> like a broo or a walktapus. A chaotic is something that has been
> intrinsically affected by chaos, whether intentionally or not. Thus
> a human worshipper of Thed is a chaotic but not a chaotic creature.
> If he were to mutate into a broo then he would become a chaotic
> creature.
OK. But I don't think that's all that relevant. To me a chaotic creature is a member of a race who are all chaotics. Broos, scorpion men, ogres, and (yes) krarstkids, etc. A human worshipper of Thed (ie hasn;t turned into a Broo) is not a chaotic creature. Chaotic creatures, under my defintition above, are born with the taint of chaos. Whether the chaos manifests separately is a different matter. A human worshipper of Thed was not born a chaotic creature and was not born with the immaterial chaos taint. It is likely, at some point in the worship of Thed that the worshipper *will* acquire a chaos taint. When? No set rules (this is chaos after all). The longer and more devoted teh wroship, the higher the chance, but it would simply be that. Nothing short of becoming a broo would be "do this and now you are chaotic".
Can you stop being chaotic? I would like to think you could. It would involve heroquesting, as the essence of chaos is immaterial. It would be harder for those born chaotic. It would be harder the more your are tainted. I don't know if this matches Greg's view, but in my Glorantha it is reversible. But it is not as simple as saying "I'm not chaotic anymore and I don't worship chaotic entities"
>>> 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?
>
> The specific example is Kajabor turning on Wakboth or vice versa,
> not Tien turning on his own father.
So? All I was pointing out was that chaos fought chaos. I can see no reason why Tien couldn't fight his father. In fact I would find it more likely than not. I don't see chaos as being strong on harmonius family relations. So using the myth of Tien fighting the Devil as evidence that Devil can;t be singular or can;t be Tien's father doesn;t hold up.
>> *Maybe* there was one devil, *maybe* not.
>
> There is no maybe. The devil myths do not match in every detail and
> the original source for the One Devil is the Monomyth. The Solar
> mythology in glorantha differs from place to place and as a result
> people have said Many Suns. The Devil mythology should be
> treated likewise.
>
>> Weren't you the one keen on ambiguity?
>
> I'm keen on a lot of different things. Having many devils is lot
> more potential for mythical variation rather than the One Devil.
Perhaps so, but does that mean it's an open and shut case for the multiple Devils? I can;t why it has to be so. Gods and godlike entities are vast and perhaps beyond full udnerstanding by humans. Chaos even more slippery to comprehend. Could there have been multiple devils? Could there have been one, who had shifting characteristics in different mythic places? Yes. I am yet to be convinced the material is defintive either way - use what fits best in your Glorantha.
Michael
Powered by hypermail