> > while, as Rory says, that's not the same way you'd react to Joe Bloggs
> > next to you on the pew, it's hardly the same as you'd react to a
> > nutter shouting on the street corner. (Which was, remember, the
> > original description I was disagreeing with).
>
> Ah - but I amended my description. :-)
Oh, sure, and I don't think I'm disagreeing with your later description. Or, at least, only on minor details, not the main thrust of it.
> they'll be treated differently,
> though not necessarily negatively. The treatement will depend on the
viewer,
> not the Ordinate (unless he is so *obviously* a nutter...)
I think my general guideline would be that whatever the observer's reaction is to an initiate of that cult, it will be more so to a devotee. If you like Deezolans, then the Deezolan ordinate is doubleplusgood, while if you think Humakti are scary, then the Humakti devotee is even scarier. Some cults are either so extreme (e.g. Danfive Xaron), or so innocuous (e.g. Asyrex), that you probably don't care much either way.
In fact, looking again at Ian's example, I'd say that the guy working in the soup kitchen and the guy firing off letters to the BBC about the sex scenes in Torchwood are *both* devotees - but of different sub-cults. People are reacting, not to their devotion, but to how they prioritise a set of virtues that they probably both broadly agree on.
-- Trotsky Gamer and Skeptic ------------------------------------------------------ Trotsky's RPG website: http://www.ttrotsky.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
Powered by hypermail