>Moorcock's (and, originally, Warhammer's) Chaos had a kind of romantic
>tragedy about it. Perhaps this is due to the dualism in Moorcock's
>system? Some of Moorcock's Chaotic characters are quite drawing at
>times and the Warhammer Chaotic characters seem to be of this school.
>I don't tend to see this in Gloranthan Chaos, perhaps because in
>Glorantha Chaos is just Wrong Wrong Wrong in so many of the cultural
>narratives. Have I been looking at it wrong?
I see all three as different. Warhammer chaos is a simplistic "evil person" type of thing - for the most part psychopaths who enjoy death and destruction. Moorcock's chaos is a balance to law - the extremes of both are horrible and the only hope for humanity is to keep them roughly in balance. It's trickier to identify the place chaos has in Glorantha. Most cultural narratives claim that the lozenge would be better if it were excluded yet accept that it can't be because of "the compromise". Chaos also entered Glorantha because of the actions of gods who are not intrinsically chaotic. That's reflected in the gray area of actions which are not in themselves chaotic but bring chaos. These are culturally variable - rebellion in Dara Happen culture, kinslaying in Heortling culture and breaking caste in strict Malkionism.
There's certainly room for romantic tragedy in Gloranthan chaos, individuals acting with good intentions but introducing chaos either accidentally or as a means to a desirable end. Societies in Glorantha generally condemn chaos but only religious fanatics such as Uroxi would never work with it. The Lunars are more open about this than others but using chaos when appropriate isn't restricted to them.
-- Donald Oddy http://www.grove.demon.co.uk/
Powered by hypermail