Chaos!

[Triff]

I love gloranthan chaos, with it's chaos feature table. I'm sure I will include that element to non-glroanthan games I will play later too. How many of you have exported the gloranthan chaos to non-gloranthan settings? Does it pose any problems doing so, with the mythological backing taken away?

SGL.

[soltakss]

I sometimes use the Chaos Features Table for mutations in games that have mutations.

But, I don't use Chaos as it is in Glorantha as it is a very unique concept. I don't often use Gloranthan cults outside Glorantha, either, as they don't really fit. However, I do use the spells and genral outlines for cults and sometimes have pulled across most of a cult for a certain setting.

Where spells are Chaotic in nature, I generally ignore them, change them or change the rationale.

I don't often use Gloranthan chaos creatures in other settings, either. So, I don't have broos in Alternate Earth, although Stupor Mundi has them as minor demons/devils, which is an interesting idea. Ogres are normally out, but Stupor Mundi has them as demonic children, the children of incubi and so on, which again is an intersting idea. Scorpionmen only really fit in deserts, Jack O'Bears don't really fit except as Pumpkinhead monsters, Gorp might be usable elsewhere and so on. I'd use some of them where I need a strange creature, but they wouldn't be chaotic in the Gloranthan sense.

In Fantasy Earth settings, Chaos isn't the enemy. In games with Christian backgrounds, the enemy is often the Devil or pagans (or Christianity depending on the period/setting) or heathens. In games with Muslim backgrounds, the enemy could be Christianity, Infidels in general, Djinnis or the Devil.

Even in CoC type settings, the enemy is the Cthulhu Mythos and doesn't touch Chaos. Eternal Champion has a different type of Chaos and Gloranthan Chaos doesn't fit. And so on.

All in my opinion, of course.

[TRose]

A Chaos/mutation table would be good. For fun some times I used a mutation table from a science fiction game I had( Gamma world I believe) instead of the chaos table a long time ago. Only thing was some of the mutation ,while great for players would not be of much use to a Chaos creature going into combat. But them many features should be that way in my opinion. I remember on Broo that had the ability of Photosynthesis so he live off dirt and water. Great for survival in most areas but not much good in a fight.

[Nightshade]

I've tended to use Gloranthan style chaos in several games; you do get things that look like it in some mythologies other than Glorantha, though not to the degree or importance that you see it there.

[TRose]

Might add that a Good place to pick up added chaos features is Sorcerer of Pan Tang. They have a few pages devoted to Demon features that are fun to play with. I gave a Broo a sling and a couple of eye stalks in the Big Rubble and did he play havoc with the party.

And of course there always making up your own when you get an evil thought. My favorite was my flamethrower Broo. I think most of us know the Human body makes flammable methane gas and how the human body expels it. So I thought how is the simplest way a body would make and throw flame. My players first was wondering why the Broo ran up to them turned around , grabbed his knees and mooned them. And of course then it hit them. For 3d6 fire damage.

Maybe we could make a list of our favorite chaos features we have come up with.

[Aycorn]

Oh hell yeah! Chaos will be found in my pseudo-Celtic world. I think the whole "Slaine" "battle-warping" thing is a perfect match. And I'm gonna transplant Dorastor (or parts of it) into the setting in some way.

[Triff]

And of course then it hit them. For 3d6 fire damage.

Maybe we could make a list of our favorite chaos features we have come up with.

Oh that's a nice one! Gotta use that next time I game. :-)

I'll start a list at the wiki when I'm back. Sounds like a great idea! Smells like baked bread is one of my favorites. Starving adventurers lost in the wilderness. Mmmmm!!! Somebody is baking bread!

SGL.

[Lord Twig]

I have pulled Gloranthan Chaos into other settings and it works fine. Even if you have a standard Good vs. Evil setting, where Evil tries to corrupt the Good, you can always add the Chaos that "just wants to destroy everything".

As for memorable chaos features...

Similar to "how would the body expel gas?" is the "how would the body spray acid?" That Broo that ran up and grabbed his member wasn't so funny when he started to spray the party with acid. Not only was it painful, it was really gross! The perfect Broo!

[badcat]

'This charming beast has +3D6 Charisma'. Never forgot that one.

[Joseph Paul]

Almost all mythological monsters are chaotic in that they are the chopped up, left over bits of other animals and are therefore an affront to order and law.

Joseph Paul

[Nightshade]

Almost all mythological monsters are chaotic in that they are the chopped up, left over bits of other animals and are therefore an affront to order and law.

Joseph Paul

That's only true until you look into their origin, though; most of them are deliberate efforts on someone's part, and are at least consistent within type.

[TRose]

That's only true until you look into their origin, though; most of them are deliberate efforts on some one's part, and are at least consistent within type.

I remember watching a show on the history channel while back where they put forth the theory that many mythical creatures where the results of the ancient trying to explain what creatures ancient fossils where. One example they gave was that the Griffin was the result of people finding skulls of Protecetops dinosaurs. After all the skull looks like that of a bird ,but one larger then any alive. While that of a mammoth could have given rise to the cyclops. The skull of the mammoth has a big hole in the middle for the trunk that could be mistaken for an eye socket if you never seen a elephants skull.

[Nightshade]

I remember watching a show on the history channel while back where they put forth the theory that many mythical creatures where the results of the ancient trying to explain what creatures ancient fossils where. One example they gave was that the Griffin was the result of people finding skulls of Protecetops dinosaurs. After all the skull looks like that of a bird ,but one larger then any alive. While that of a mammoth could have given rise to the cyclops. The skull of the mammoth has a big hole in the middle for the trunk that could be mistaken for an eye socket if you never seen a elephants skull.

I was refering to their mythological, rather than anthropological origins.

[tired librarian]

I was refering to their mythological, rather than anthropological origins.

but at some point they are one and the same, yes?

[Nightshade]

but at some point they are one and the same, yes?

Not really. One exists in the context of an in-myth, in-game reason, the other is a sociological/metagame reason. As such, what's relevant for the discussion tends to be one or the other, not both.

[Atgxtg]

Not really. One exists in the context of an in-myth, in-game reason, the other is a sociological/metagame reason. As such, what's relevant for the discussion tends to be one or the other, not both.

Uh, yes really. People in previous era believed that mythological creatures existed. Most myths are attempts to explain those things about life that people don't understand. All the mythological monsters serve some sort of purpose to the societies that created them, usually several purposes.

RPGs merely let modern people play as part of such a culture, and often makes such creatures real. Even setting speficic monsters are drawn in some part from real world ideas-as the authors live in in the real world.

[Nightshade]

Uh, yes really. People in previous era believed that mythological creatures existed. Most myths are attempts to explain those things about life that people don't understand. All the mythological monsters serve some sort of purpose to the societies that created them, usually several purposes.

But its still only relevant on one level. When talking about the function a monster serves mythologically, you're inevitably talking about sociology on a metalevel; but the PCs don't see sociology. They see its in-world function (which may be metaphysical or religious, but that's _not_ the same thing).

One is origin context, the other world context. The difference is that the mythological context is _real_ in world, which it isn't when looking at sociological/anthropological origins. As such they're simply not the same thing.

[drohem]

Mythological = anthropological to eariler socities and cutlures.

[Nightshade]

Mythological = anthropological to eariler socities and cutlures.

Irrelevant to my point however; what function something serves _in the mythology_ has no direct relationship to the reason it exists in an anthropological sense. Anthropological meanings are based on sociology and psychology; mythology meanings are based on divine politics and mythical history. The latter is derived from the former, but they _aren't_ the same things.

[Atgxtg]

Irrelevant to my point however; what function something serves _in the mythology_ has no direct relationship to the reason it exists in an anthropological sense. Anthropological meanings are based on sociology and psychology; mythology meanings are based on divine politics and mythical history. The latter is derived from the former, but they _aren't_ the same things.

They would be to the people of those times.

It is like the world is flat or the sun going round the earth. We know neither is true (well there is a slight bit of truth to both of them).

FOr gaming purposes it all depends on what paradigm you are using. If a magical setting then the anthropological (actually that's the wrong word for it-since anthro- implies that the creatures are some form of man) origins might have no meaning whatsoever.

We used to run into stuff like this when playing medieval and other historical settings. For instance, metal fell faster than wood, illness was caused by evil sprints, thunder and lightning were revealed, and a bunch of other things that we know to be untrue were enforced as the laws of the universe.

The problem is some games tend to mix & match. For instance D&D used to do "ecology" series on mythical beasts. If magic and the other medieval ideas actually exist and work on a world, then science, evolution, and ecoloogy might not.

However, most myths are swamed by some truth. With creatures, here the linkage exists historically, is with the idea of what would you do if you came across the remains of some unidentifiable, by scary-looking creature? As has been mentioned before, the prevailing theory is that when people discovered dinosaur bones it led to the legends of dragons.

[Nightshade]

They would be to the people of those times.

I simply disagree. Some creatures serve sociological functions even _within_ their mythology, but some don't, and those would _not_ be seen as representatives of the principals they do sociologically to those in an environment where they actually exist (barring, of course, their mythology actively being sociological in nature; if people view their gods as reflecting them rather than being seperate from them, you can have some of this).

[Atgxtg]

I simply disagree. Some creatures serve sociological functions even _within_ their mythology, but some don't, and those would _not_ be seen as representatives of the principals they do sociologically to those in an environment where they actually exist (barring, of course, their mythology actively being sociological in nature; if people view their gods as reflecting them rather than being seperate from them, you can have some of this).

Could you give some examples of this, so I can get a better grasp of you line of reasoning? I'm wondering if we are talking about the same thing.

[Trifletraxor]

How come so many anthropologists play RPGs?

SGL.

[drohem]

Irrelevant to my point however; what function something serves _in the mythology_ has no direct relationship to the reason it exists in an anthropological sense. Anthropological meanings are based on sociology and psychology; mythology meanings are based on divine politics and mythical history. The latter is derived from the former, but they _aren't_ the same things.

No, I disagree.

[Atgxtg]

How come so many anthropologists play RPGs?

SGL.

Because there have been two Indiana Jones RPGs?

It's part of the GM's curse. When someone starts to run, especially if they run a lot of RPgs, and several different types of RPG, they start to pick up a mish-mash of knowledges required by those games.

Who else but a gamer can hold discussions on mythology, ballistics, use Einstein's theory of relativity to work out the energy output of a photon torpedo, and know the difference between Lorica Segementata and CHOBHAM? :shocked: