mfbrandi

OK, I missed the point … again. Sorry. So in the context of: MFB: a Chaos Taint is real but not physical DS: It's worth noting that Chaos is a form Rune … what was the point?

It's worth noting that Chaos is a form Rune. I was trying to capture in as few words as possible (whilst still wondering whether a hole was maybe — in some sense — a physical thing, after all; papers have been written on the topic, I am sure): I always think of Chaos-as-form as the chaotic feature rune (but I don’t expect anyone to agree): The chaotic feature is of and in the world, not the Outside. And this is a form rune, too: . I am guessing that it doesn’t designate a physical form.

Thanks everyone for your answers — a nice spread of views there. It doesn’t have to: there are many routes to Chaos and “chaotic action” (breaking moral rules/taboos — never mind whose for the minute) is just one. A Nysalor illuminate might be Chaos Tainted because “dedicated to a Chaos entity”, say — mutation or no mutation — though, of course, no one can tap the Taint with a hammer to see whether it “sounds Chaotic”. 😉 I am not a pusher of moral relativism. The game was simply: if we take moral relativism as the explanation of why cannibalism is only sometimes “Chaotic”, where does that leave us in respect of Chaos Taints — conceived of as intrinsic and non-relative — and what they tell us about someone (restricting ourselves to acquisition by Chaotic action to keep focussed). Think of The Scarlet Letter: Hester has to wear the letter (acquires the Taint) because of what the people around her think (“moral relativism”: it doesn’t matter whether they are right or wrong, their writ runs), but the letter itself (the Chaos Taint) is a tangible thing, with an existence independent of the moral opinions that caused its creation. The parallel — like me — is less than perfect. In play as theories of Chaotic action, we seem to have: breaking your society’s moral rules (possibly no takers for this one — maybe @John Biles “Your society defines what is Chaos”, but maybe not as presumably it doesn’t define what is “nuclear waste” … and let us hope it doesn’t wish its toxicity into being) breaking your own moral rules (@JRE, perhaps, but there may be some backsliding into the position that intrigued me in the first place) breaking moral rules in service of moral necessity (this is my take on one of @Ormi Phengaria’s ideas, but they may think it misrepresents their view) acting in opposition to or outside the Compromise or “cosmic order” (@Ormi Phengaria, again – with the same caveat) betraying Glorantha (@EricW) I don’t think that the last two collapse into each other: a creature of the Outside — Krarsht, say — cannot betray Glorantha, as they owe no loyalty in the first place, but presumably they could disregard the Compromise and seek to undermine the cosmic order.

First, my apologies for misunderstanding what you said. Second, does that mean that the amoral cannot acquire a Chaos Taint through committing abominations or breaking taboos — because they cannot see abominations and recognise no taboos — even though they may be able to acquire one via one of the other routes (e.g. handling chaos tools)? Good news for me if so: I’ll be able to slip past those Storm Bulls, no problem. So — and clearly my track record is not good — aren’t we back to “don’t pick on someone just because they have a Chaos Taint, they may not have met their own standards, but equally they may not have done anything we think is wrong”? Clearly, “if someone is aghast at their own actions, we should kill them” is a non-starter if we want to appear at all compassionate. Perhaps we don’t.

Continuation of the discussion in the Ethilrist thread. Now, according to Greg — and who am I to argue? — a Chaos Taint is real but not physical. It can have effects in the good old efficient causality sense. So: If I said that a Chaos Taint is not a real thing, Gloranthaphiles would crush me beneath their shields. If I said that a Chaos Taint is a purely relational thing — that it amounted to no more than my clanmates having taken a dim view of my past activities — people would scarcely be less happy. (Chaos Taints are hard to shake, so my reforming and my clanmates dying or changing their minds wouldn’t get me off the hook, hence the tenses.) If we integrate @JRE’s idea, we get to the point where you can cause me to have a Chaos Taint — a very real intrinsic property — by persuading my clanmates that what I do is abominable. It doesn’t matter what it is — rescuing puppies from Wakboth; helping old trollkin across the road; running a literacy scheme for hill barbarians — just so long as my fellows are persuaded that it is beyond the pale. If you are born into a society of crazy bigots, you are the one who will end up with a Chaos Taint, not them (so long as they live down adhere to their own low standards, anyway). You may even be able to change me physically through the force of your disapproval or disgust, make me a monster. This is not a reductio of JRE’s idea — don’t think that — it just means that you may get a Chaos Taint by being (in effect) cursed by your fellows for breaking their taboos. It does raise questions, though: Why does my society have this power over me, when the nation next door does not? Should we — looking down from Olympus, as it were — regard someone’s having a Chaos Taint as a sign of their moral failure? (It may go on to have bad effects on them and their morals — perhaps! — but that is not the same thing.) Even if you do not plan to embrace Chaos yourself — because you lack sophistication, taste, and flair? — perhaps you would do well to be born into a laid-back, anything-goes society, so as to avoid acquiring a Chaos Taint via the crazy moral attitudes of your fellows. How magically powerful would I have to be to inflict a Chaos Taint on an innocent foreigner purely from the force of my moral disdain? If a society does not equate Chaos and evil, can it still inflict Chaos Taints on it members through moral disapproval? Do we really think that being evil is the same as being thought evil by one’s fellows? That moral corruption is the same as dissent from one’s society’s (arbitrary) moral standards? If so, perhaps it is time to toss the concepts of “evil” and “morality” in the composter (where Mallia, Mee Vorala, Kajabor, and friends can break them down).

Your ally gets the blue boy to start talking about his favourite subject — himself and how great but underappreciated he is — then you steal Old Windypops’ chariot, because at that point you could steal his legs and he wouldn’t notice. O is not exactly the sharpest tool in the box: “First Ernalda, Orlanth’s wife, was not present. This disturbed the god for the seat beside him was empty, and half of his conversations were with the unanswering empty space.” Violence is always an option for him, but I suspect that tying his own shoelaces … not so much. Eurmal told me that Old Breezy Breeks thinks that his initial “O” is for “awesome”.

Look, thanks for all the comments, but: I do understand how it works — but then I take my eye off the ball for 5 minutes and … pow! (And like Alex von S., I think I am stuck with that. I’ll live.) I am not lobbying for a change I was just asking, because if everybody had hated the status quo, the situation would have been ridiculous I must be said that the OP’s suggestion has the virtues of: not requiring anyone to get the twenties and the units in the right order: a+b = b+a using a widely understood (if not universal) notation: “+” for addition “ab” for the product of a and b (i.e. a×b) you just have to grasp that m = 20 (or = 20) respecting the order of arithmetical operations: 7+3m = 7+(3×m) = 7+60 = 3m+7 = (3×m)+7 = 60+7 = 67 being indifferent as to whether the “m” comes before or after the number of twenties: 3m = 3×m = m×3 = m3 = 60 These seem considerable virtues for the cost of a single character, so full marks to @narsilion.

To avoid drifting too far OT here, just see this old Greg Sez thing.

Maybe, but my poor broken anglophone dragonewt brain, cannot get over the idea that the most significant digits should go on the left and the least significant on the right. Other people are just smarter and more flexible than I am. It is why I am going extinct. I could never get my head around Traveller’s hex-string UPPs, either. I think it was Alex von Schlippenbach who could never get the initialism of the London Jazz Composers’ Orchestra right and always said “LCJO” — this even led to a spin-off small group called “Elsie Jo”. Some things we know are wrong, but we are so broken that they … just … won’t … budge!

Anaander Mianaai?

And if the Uz still see themselves as an Underworld people, they might join in: this is the time of year when Yelm starts to spend more of the day above ground. But — for the sake of an alternative point of view — perhaps “Sacred Time is the best time” is a Lichtbringerlich way of looking at the world — and Kyger Litor isn’t their friend. “Everybody agrees.” But the Orlanthi can’t count — “0.81, 0.82, 0.83, 0.84, 1.” Sacred Time marks the renewal of the world, where that is understood as: life “one must descend into death and be reborn” time dawn spring return of the Sun the integration of entropy (Chaos) into the world the binding of Chaos to the world (inside) — but Chaos wants to be free (outside) compromise balance Members of the awkward squad might object on any of these grounds, but not necessarily all, and not necessarily the same subset for each grumbling diehard. For example: Vampires might object that they were never quite dead and are certainly not now alive again. They reject the cycle of death and rebirth, surely, even if some say that they parody it. Hardcore death cultists might object to cyclical time and new life, too. The road to death is straight — and strait — and there is no permissible return. “It shouldn’t be allowed — they could have spent that money hanging people. It’s an outrage!” Stasis cults might protest that time and entropy admit change into the world. “And besides, the world is not renewed; it is worse every year.” Yes, they are all a bit cracked. And they are not happy about that, either. Hardcore apocalypse hounds don’t want the world renewed. “Stop fixing the world! Can’t you see I am trying to break it once and for all?” Yelmalio: “I will not die and be reborn. I will stay lit if it is all the same to you.” Though maybe he will light a candle for Bartleby at Sacred Time. He is a perverse god … but Emily loved him. “This is not the right point in the cycle to celebrate renewal. The return of the horrible scorchy thing in the sky? Are you mad?” If humans as diurnal creatures are fond of celebrating winter solstice (“it gets better/lighter from here”) and spring equinox (“from here on, the light is dominant”), mightn’t cults of surface darkness celebrate summer solstice (“it gets better/darker from here”) and autumn equinox (“from here on, the dark is dominant”). And maybe many darkness cults think that deepest Dark Season is the best time to heroquest? So Lightbringers, quasi-Lightbringers (7M), and cults of illumination (Yelm, Nysalor) think Sacred Time is … sacred. But expect dissenters.

So is there anyone who wouldn’t rather just have a single number and do the maths as and when needed? Meanwhile, in some brave new world of vigesimal notation …

And they will trade Molotov cocktails (of which they’ve a considerable surplus) for potable liquids.

But the suggestion is not that Lanbril was a Lightbringer but that by “stealing myths” (which should be interpreted freely), Lanbril performed acts usually attributed to other gods (or not usually attributed to anyone, but if you dig deep it will seem that anyone but Lanbril did it). [extremely dubious pseudo-explanation consigned to an oubliette]

He used to be called Hyalor Butterfingers for his clumsiness, but after he blew the first glass horses, he became Hyalor Horsebreaker. This is the true connection for horses. Flesh-and-blood horses came later. Hideous images hidden to protect your eyes: (Oh, and one is always allowed to suspect Voralan involvement — them’s the rules.)

On the term misotheism (which I had to look up, but which fits nicely):

The “machine god” was no more a god than this fake banknote I ran off in my garage is a banknote — but while my still-damp masterwork pretends to be currency, Zistor was no fake or wannabe god. That was its point: not to be a god (nor indeed God). It was a machine built by atheists for deists to mock those who claim that Orlanth and company are gods and that “sacrificing” POW to “deities” is worship. It was a theological argument — a demonstration — with a big budget. God sets the universe in motion, and then She is never heard from again. There is no point in throwing POW in Her direction — and anyway, which direction would that be? By turning up to trash the Clanking City, Orlanth gives the game away: he is of the world and in it. He may be bigger, bluer, more pretentious, and have more arms than the wizard down the road, but he is an item of the same category. Zistor was not an artificial god, just an ersatz Orlanth. “You think you can list the necessary and sufficient conditions for godhood? Well, we took your list and used it to build this thing, and while it is certainly useful, I think you will agree that the clanking abomination is not God — or not, as you barbarians say, ‘a god’ — so I think you had better rethink your rash definition … and demote your ‘gods’.” So who failed to respect the divine, the Jrusteli who gathered their own firewood and knew it for what it was, or the barbarians who called firewood “god” but burned it just the same? “But in Glorantha, the gods are real,” people whine — but not every real thing is a god. (“Everything real = God” is a pantheistic identity for another day.) But sure, Orlanth’s PR consultants have to maintain that Zistor was a god … else they don’t get paid.

Sure — put this tale as early as you like (presumably making AA twice-born). Darkness has always contained Fire and still does. This may suggest that there is something a little off about the Uz complaining about Yelm. (But only a little.)

Gloranthan Karaoke, part whatever … A stooped figure — a Tusken bag lady? — under a tattered cloak and swaddled in bandages that might once have been white, struggles up to the piano. You can’t see their face. Just about stable on the stool, they cough once, start to play, and then sing in a voice a lot like Kate Westbrook’s: There is a stunned silence at the end of the performance. They have slipped unnoticed out the back before the applause starts. “Was that M-M-Mall … ?” “No.” “Ul … ?” “That, my friend, was Arroin. Good, isn’t he?”

Well, I wouldn’t worry about them. For the most part, they are either: just making it up digging up some obscure bit of lore you can safely ignore Sure, it is fun to dig up or make up stuff, but not if it is used to manacle other people. (I try to give references, but if someone gives a reference, that is not to say you have to do things their way.) No, what I was going to say was, don’t let the rules bog you down. All you really need is: No, that will never work — no dice required Yes, that will work — no dice required Maybe that will work — the resistance is x Slowly add in any bells and whistles as and when you and your players feel the need for them. People publishing games probably feel a push to include complexity — to make it seem like they are giving value for money — but as a user, do you want to be grappling with complex rules and a complex setting at the same time? Glorantha has a lot of setting, but treat it lightly: the myths are contradictory and your informants are untrustworthy Gloranthans, right? So you could make your own cut-down version of Stan Shinn’s onesheet to share with your players, then maybe add to it as/if needed: more bells and whistles from the rules as written typical resistances (i.e. suggestive but non-binding), as established in play precedents (e.g. Orlanth takes Windsday afternoon off, so don’t ask for divine intervention then), as established in play See, I told you: pretentious nonsense. Never trust a hippy, a cockney, or a Chaos cultist — so never, never, never pay any attention to me!

I think a lot of us feel it is the one that has been given the most “poetry” — whether that is because of what we bring to it or because of how well the setting authors have handled it, I am not sure. Anyway, it all seems to go quite nicely till we have Zaramaka lapping around Ga/ta, and have to decide how to introduce Aether: I want to have lights coming on in the distance to illuminate the scene for the first time — Unveiled by and scorching Uncle ZZ, perhaps The setting seems to want fire/sky lying on the earth waiting for the Freudian explosion of Umath — Was Aether a fire on the earth? Wouldn’t air just make it burn more brightly? — A plaster – or rubber! – ‘ceiling’ grounded and waiting to be moved into its ‘proper’ place?

We all feel that way, but you clearly do have a vision of how your Glorantha works, so it is OK to be more confident. (I was going to elaborate, but everything I tried just sounded ridiculously pompous — even more so than is normal for me! — so that will have to do.)

In fairness to everybody else, that may just be me. Who wants to build the Powers from Chaos stuff? Usually, it is the elements, isn’t it? Even then the idea that the earlier terms contain the later ones is likely open to various interpretations. If the tank contains water and the water contains fish, do we have to say that water is made from glass and fish from water? I am also taken by this alternative: … but to annotate it would be to take it too seriously. 😉

Doubtless there are Darkness-identifying entities that shout that, but does Darkness’ presence in the early universe give it any special connection to that rant? Perhaps. I don’t know. But consider also that when the last candle flame of ego is blown out, one is left in the Darkness. Or rather, there ‘is’ Darkness (if an absence is a presence), but no one left in it. We don’t expect to hear the cry of ME ME ME I don’t EXIST. (It is best not to ask those who have heard Zorak Zoran’s pain cries whether they can make out words in them — they have suffered enough. Some have shyly volunteered ‘Wien’ and ‘virus’ — but the sages cannot find these words in their lexicons: they mean nothing to them.)

I have never seen a copy, but The Unspoken Word 2 sounds like it might be useful. Also: … suggests to me (which may be the opposite of a recommendation from any sane point of view) that there might be some mileage in stealing myths from other gods: you think x did it, but really it was Lanbril … how well he covers his tracks! Maybe Lanbril even sells/loans out myths to other gods for a piece of the POW action. [Continues to gibber incoherently to self.]