>> > I think is up for debate is what other factors might affect the level of risk and to what extent if intentionality plays a part, e.g. regarding Troll funerary rites in which since the deceased troll was not killed for the purpose of providing a meal it's apparently ok.
>>
>> If the act is chaotic then the intent behind the act doesn't matter as
>> chaos is not about being or thinking evil.
In my Glorantha, I agree that various acts presided over by chaotic gods are by definition chaotic. The link between the act and transformation is somewhat tenuous. I would perhaps use some accumulation of risk. Do it once and you are very unlikely to be changed, but do it repeatedly and the change becomes inevitable.
>>However intentionality is like a multiplying factor.
Definitely
>>Otherwise I don't know how to account for practices like those of the Cannibal Cult and Maran Gor or the Black Sun that seem to mostly get away with it. (Note the 'mostly' though).
I think that they have rituals to help mitigate the problem and there used to be something about not being able to use a second gods magic within a temple to a different god. I suspect that the ritual stuff would always be carried out in a temple. Probably by the young and enthusiastic members, with their cult superiors carefully monitoring their behaviour afterwards. There would probably be some prescribed limit about the frequency and total number of such rituals that anyone can participate in. All to minimise the risks involved.
Gavain
Powered by hypermail