>> 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. 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.
Sufficient chaotic acts will make you chaotic (ie taint your immaterial nature). What is "sufficient"? No hard and fast definition. It will depend upon current circumstances. Chaos seems to have it easier to seep in when society is weak. So a practitioner of incest is more likely to get the taint if the clan is weak than if the clan is strong - see the example in Gathering Thunder. But someone in a weak clan could shack up with a sibling for life and not get the taint and someone in a strong clan could do it once and turn. It chances and probabilities.
>> 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 agree chaos is objective. Cancer is a somewhat useful parallel (it can turn up where previously there was none if the circumstances are right). It can be there and no one can be aware of it. But like all analogies you have to careful how far you push it. For example, the basis of cancer is physical, that of chaos immaterial.
Michael
Powered by hypermail