Re: The origin of Ogres.

From: Peter Metcalfe <metcalph_at_pPnCvWCz5WJft8rwBkaO-e7sSbbK5kRxsR65J109L3-FUTckM-DjcIse6MLwx-HqFcH>
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2011 20:04:05 +1300

On 11/28/2011 5:22 AM, Peter Larsen wrote:
> Peter,
>
> Thanks for the summary of points of view; seeing it all in one place is
> helpful.
>
> On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 4:37 AM, Peter Metcalfe<metcalph_at_eZg8ozdCVfalQvI0BwORMv0KHEcbMvBe6T5cX_C4BGn4FgjS-Z5LQMryYUobiwWhmnBLkKKEOvLep37Na9TFYvd2.yahoo.invalid
>> wrote:
>> **
>> Lastly Peter Larsen brought up the Ravenous movie. My problem with
>>
>> translating that to Glorantha is that the Wendigo taboo (like pretty
>> much all taboos) is one of absolute liability. If one performs the act,
>> then the taboo has been broken _regardless_ of intention: Boyd still
>> became touched by the Wendigo even though he was eating from an already
>> dead body to save himself. If a god promotes a cannibalistic rite then
>> the god is promoting a chaotic rite. It's like incest; it doesn't
>> matter if you didn't know the person was closely related to you - it's
>> still disgustingly icky and you should be ashamed of yourself. If you
>> require a guilty mind to go with the action, then what you have is no
>> longer a taboo but something closer in spirit to criminal legislation.
>> While I could accept some gloranthan religions (ie the Kralori and the
>> Malkioni) be concerned with the rightness or wrongness of one's thought,
>> I find it difficult to believe that Chaos would be so dependent on one's
>> mental state.
>>
> I think it's a little more complicated than this. You have to have an [chaotic] act
> that is:
>
> 1. Against Your Gods/Spirits/Saints

Except that we are talking about Chaos here - doing something that is a crime against the Cosmos. A god, spirit or saint does not have the power to make a chaotic act non-chaotic.

> 2. Done knowingly -- Something that is done with full knowledge.
Why? Taboos do not require the breaker to have full (or even partial) knowledge of the act. If he commits the act, even by accident, he is guilty of breaking the Taboo. That's how Taboos work. To require mental intentionality ceases to make it a Taboo. And to restate what I said before, chaos is blind and amoral and as a result highly unlikely to be at all concerned with the mental state of the would-be chaotic. If cannibalism is a chaotic act, it doesn't matter what the intentions of the eater of human flesh is.

By way of analogy in Snakepipe Hollow, an adventurer could venture outside the normal boundaries of glorantha (following the Mother Maggot). Upon returning to Glorantha, they could acquire chaotic features _regardless_ of their intentions.

> 3. Once Is Risky; Repeated Behavior Is Worse

Except we are not given any examples of repeated behaviour of mundane chaotic acts turning you into a broo or whatever. The best way for a human to become a Broo as stated in the rules was the repeated acquisition of chaotic features. Now I find it difficult to believe that rape or cannibalism are even in the same league when it comes to chaotic acts.

> 4. Not Otherwise Covered by Your Pantheon -- This is probably
> overcomplicated, but I imagine that some pantheons have evil but not
> chaotic gods that "take charge" of certain sins. So kinstrife is profoundly
> disruptive to Orlanthi society, but people not wholly lost to the cosmos
> can "take refuge" in Gargath, whereas a upper class Solar son who kills his
> father may not have anywhere to "hide."

You've got kinstrife wrong. Orlanthi justice is powerless against Kinstrife. Killing your father or other members of your family is not a crime (KoS p260). In any case, I fail to see what this has to do with the supposed chaotic nature of cannibalism.

--Peter Metcalfe