Chalana Arroy, a question or two.

[soltakss]

2 hours ago, Darius West said:

21 hours ago, soltakss said:

Not really, unless you, or your GM, have a very extreme interpretation.

What about if your CA high priestess is a bitch who is out to get you ?

Then move to another Temple.

It happens fairly often.

2 hours ago, Darius West said:

Agreed.  But what about deliberate self harm, such as needing to remove your own foot because it is trapped?

If the restriction is to cause no harm to another then do whatever you like to yourself.

2 hours ago, Darius West said:

I am personally against any restriction to do with self harm, and would go further than that even.  Can a CA be cast from the cult for causing a lethal accident such as malpractice?  What about killing a fly (which are servants of Malia)?  I would argue that these things are lamentable within CA, but should require atonement rather than ejection.

Again, if that's how you want to play it, then fine.

Personally, I subscribe to the "Don't be a dick" school of GMing, although my Players might not agree.

Arguments such as the above fail that test, in my opinion.

[Byll]

On 1/7/2022 at 5:45 PM, Jeff said:

Foes incapacitated by a Chalana Arroy initiate (e.g., through a spell such as Befuddle or Sleep) are under her protection.

On 1/7/2022 at 5:45 PM, Jeff said:

She may not allow them to be harmed in any way, though they may be disarmed or captured.

20 hours ago, soltakss said:

Presumably, she can allow them to leave and then her protection ends. Personally, I would escort them to a place of safety and let them go. I would not allow others to harm them as soon as I have released them from my protection, for example.

I've always understood the intent to be that such foes are only under her protection far as long as they continue to be incapacitated by her spell. Although their position may be significantly more perilous after her spell has lapsed, once they are no longer incapacitated, the foes are responsible for whether they surrender, parley or continue to use violence.

In most cases, if I was the Chalana Arroy, I would be trying to talk my comrades and foes down from reengaging in combat if it had paused enough for my voice to be heard.

I would not feel obliged to interpose myself to defend a foe no longer incapacitated, nor would I mark an ally who acted against a recovered foe as an offender against Chalana Arroy.

On 1/7/2022 at 5:45 PM, Jeff said:

Ideally, Chalana Arroy’s healers value all life equally. In practice, a hierarchy of value exists; plants are eaten for food, and if necessary, an animal can be killed to heal a sentient being or another, more valuable, animal. Animals are also killed to obtain ingredients for medicines. Such slaughter must be done sparingly and as mercifully as possible.

21 hours ago, soltakss said:

I would have butchers employed at Chalana Arroy Temples to do such a thing, to ensure the Chalana Arroy Initiates can keep their hands clean.

I can't see the Chalana Arroy cult employing the butchers directly, or allowing them to operate on Chalana temple property. They would have to work nearby, sponsored by Chalana - members of other cults, or work pro-bono

On 1/7/2022 at 5:45 PM, Jeff said:

The killing of an intelligent being is never acceptable. 

What does this even mean?

The easy take is I as a Chalana will never kill an intelligent being, even a chaotic one. Fine

Suppose one of my friends and allies has killed an intelligent being... (not a rare ocurrence)

1/ "I refuse to accept that you killed that broo Priest of Thanatar. If Lhankor Mhy / Irrippi Ontor sages question me about it my truthful reply will be that it never happened, sorry, that's the way it has to be"

2/ "You are beyond the pale I shall no longer associate with you, and don't expect a sacred time card from me"

[Akhôrahil]

1 hour ago, Byll said:

I've always understood the intent to be that such foes are only under her protection far as long as they continue to be incapacitated by her spell.

Pretty sure you don't get to put someone to Sleep, disarm him and tie him up, and let your friends kill him as soon as he wakes. That makes no sense to me.

"Out of contact" seems right. Basically, "Now run off, and I will try to make my friends give you a few minutes before they come after you."

And anyway, Sleep + Ransom seems like an excellent money-maker, and doesn't require killing anyone. 🙂

Edited January 9, 2022 by Akhôrahil

[soltakss]

2 hours ago, Akhôrahil said:

Pretty sure you don't get to put someone to Sleep, disarm him and tie him up, and let your friends kill him as soon as he wakes. That makes no sense to me.

There was an Isaac Asimov story where he was exploring the Three Laws of Robotics. One of the relaxations of the Laws was removing the "Inaction" clause to the First law, so that a robot was not forbidden to cause harm to a person through Inaction. The thought experiment that ensued went something like this:

• Old First Law: I cannot drop a heavy object onto a person's head, as I would be causing harm by action.
• New First Law: I cannot drop a heavy object onto a person's head, as I would be causing harm by action.
• New First Law: I could drop a heavy object above person's head, as I could quickly grab the heavy object and so not harm the person.
• New First Law: Once I have dropped a heavy object above a person's head, I know that it will fall and kill them, but now I am not forbidden by inaction to stop it, so I can let it go, thus causing the person's death.

Your example follows similar logic. "This person is under my protection until the effect of the Sleep or Befuddle spell wears off, then they are no longer under my Protection". It makes me feel really uncomfortable to have that. As a Chalana Arroy cultist, I should say when my protection ends. So, I agree with you that it cannot be how that should work.

[Byll]

3 hours ago, Akhôrahil said:

Pretty sure you don't get to put someone to Sleep, disarm him and tie him up, and let your friends kill him as soon as he wakes. That makes no sense to me.

"Out of contact" seems right. Basically, "Now run off, and I will try to make my friends give you a few minutes before they come after you."

And anyway, Sleep + Ransom seems like an excellent money-maker, and doesn't require killing anyone. 🙂

There is something in what you say.

If the foe is tied up and no threat by the time the Chalana Arroy's spell wears off then I'd agree it would offend Chalana Arroy if an ally killed them. So one should protest and interpose to protect the tied up foe. 

If the foe is unrestrained and still in possession of their weapons when the spell wears off then I think the Chalana Arroy expects her party to give the foe an opportunity to flee or surrender. If the foe elects to renew combat, I don't think that the Chalana is obliged to make herself the foe's hostage or victim to shield them from her friends.

Of course if the foe is obviously chaotic then there is requirement to protect them 

[PhilHibbs]

5 hours ago, Byll said:

Suppose one of my friends and allies has killed an intelligent being... (not a rare ocurrence)

1/ "I refuse to accept that you killed that broo Priest of Thanatar. If Lhankor Mhy / Irrippi Ontor sages question me about it my truthful reply will be that it never happened, sorry, that's the way it has to be"

2/ "You are beyond the pale I shall no longer associate with you, and don't expect a sacred time card from me"

3/ "Not my problem, I didn't kill anyone and they were not under my protection."

[Akhôrahil]

6 minutes ago, Byll said:

If the foe is unrestrained and still in possession of their weapons when the spell wears off then I think the Chalana Arroy expects her party to give the foe an opportunity to flee or surrender. If the foe elects to renew combat, I don't think that the Chalana is obliged to make herself the foe's hostage or victim to shield them from her friends.

Yes, agree. You Sleep the enemy, someone wakes him up, he rejoins the combat... you can't reasonably be expected to keep your allies from attacking him now. Although perhaps the ideal solution is to just Sleep him again.

I think it seems kinda tasteless if you let your friends rob someone you have put to sleep, as well, but that might be more a question of general morality than a divine command.

Edited January 9, 2022 by Akhôrahil

[Darius West]

16 hours ago, soltakss said:

Then move to another Temple.  It happens fairly often.

Amen LOL.  Of course not everyone always has the financial liquidity to migrate, and not everyone has the survival skill to travel unequipped and un-provisioned.  I tend to let CAs off easy, as if you can forage for healing herbs you should know a food plant when you see it imo.

12 hours ago, soltakss said:

There was an Isaac Asimov story where he was exploring the Three Laws of Robotics.

A great comment and a great example soltkass.  I hadn't thought of the 3 laws being used this way, and I like the way you think.

So how about this situation...  A Chalana Arroy initiate sees a Gagarth worshipper getting ready to flee a crime by using telekinesis, and as this is the 'big bad', and nobody else can act, the CA lets rip with a 3pt divine Dispel Magic.  The Gagarthi acted first, and is now 30 feet in the air, and they fall awkwardly (fumbled jump) and broke their pelvis due to the weight of the loot they were carrying, and died.  The Chalana Arroy didn't anticipate the height the Gagarthi would get, or their fumble. 

Should the Chalana Arroy be excommunicated?  This is a real example that happened in a game I saw back in the 1980s, and the GM had the healer chucked from the cult.  I was only spectating and had no "dog in the ring", but found it an interesting 'test case'.  Obviously anyone else who wants to chime in, the more the merrier.

17 hours ago, soltakss said:

If the restriction is to cause no harm to another then do whatever you like to yourself.

We have no clarification on this point.  I would suggest a CA can self-harm without penalty, but the oath says "harm no living thing" and the CA is unequivocally a living thing.  This just isn't covered anywhere, and I think it needs to be.

17 hours ago, soltakss said:

Personally, I subscribe to the "Don't be a dick" school of GMing, although my Players might not agree.  Arguments such as the above fail that test, in my opinion.

Now you raise the issue, as a GM, I have seen a fair bit of hatred and jealousy towards Chalana Arroys from other players, (quite apart from when I played Malicia).  Initially they love having someone with Heal 6 around to patch their limbs up, but that wanes over time, and the CA begins to look like a massive financial drain and a one trick pony who 'wet blankets' everything with their oath constraints or by declaring some enemy "under healer's protection".  Their tendency to monopolize magic crystals has been a particular sticking point for some parties, but this is understandable imo.  There are a lot of treasures that have no value to a CA, but they can always use more magic crystals, but then, everybody else needs them too.  It is watching these incidents that actually gave me the idea for Malicia in the first place, especially when CAs try to charge the party for healing after the adventure, and after all the loot has been divided up.  I just thought "Wow, there is so much potential for a deeply corrupt and sleazy Chalana Arroy there".

[Shiningbrow]

How do we feel about being smacked around a little after the Sleep/Befuddle has worn off, and they're tied up, in order to get some answers???

Not serious damage (e.g. Only a HP or so worth)

[soltakss]

2 hours ago, Darius West said:

So how about this situation...  A Chalana Arroy initiate sees a Gagarth worshipper getting ready to flee a crime by using telekinesis, and as this is the 'big bad', and nobody else can act, the CA lets rip with a 3pt divine Dispel Magic.  The Gagarthi acted first, and is now 30 feet in the air, and they fall awkwardly (fumbled jump) and broke their pelvis due to the weight of the loot they were carrying, and died.  The Chalana Arroy didn't anticipate the height the Gagarthi would get, or their fumble. 

No Chalana Arroy cultists in their right mind would dispel a flight/wind walking/similar spell mid-flight as they know that this will cause the target to become hurt. It will cause harm and could kill an intelligent person.

I am sure that you could ask the same about an unintelligent creature under Flight and Chalana Arroy cultists could dispel it. Sure, why not? They probably wouldn't, though.

2 hours ago, Darius West said:

Should the Chalana Arroy be excommunicated?  This is a real example that happened in a game I saw back in the 1980s, and the GM had the healer chucked from the cult. 

As a GM, it would mean that the Chalana Arroy cultist has killed someone. If they were chaotic then maybe it is a slap on the wrists, otherwise they get the full punishment that the GM/High Healer sees fit.

Don't forget that Chalana Arroy have a reputation to maintain.

If people go around thinking that Chalana Arroy cultists can kill people be dispelling a Flight, or similar, spell then what's to stop people taking out Chalana Arroy cultists?

High Healers put a stop to that kind of thing, very hard.

2 hours ago, Darius West said:

Now you raise the issue, as a GM, I have seen a fair bit of hatred and jealousy towards Chalana Arroys from other players, (quite apart from when I played Malicia). 

I haven't seen that, yet, but we are only a few sessions in our campaign.

I can see the POW Crystals thing as being an issue, as that is what is constraining me, as an Adventurer.

[Alex]

18 hours ago, soltakss said:

There was an Isaac Asimov story where he was exploring the Three Laws of Robotics.

I was very fond of Asimov in my impressionable youth, but as a model for a legalistic set of "laws" for how theistic magic should work in Glorantha, I really can't think of a worse model one might follow.

[PhilHibbs]

19 minutes ago, Alex said:

I was very fond of Asimov in my impressionable youth, but as a model for a legalistic set of "laws" for how theistic magic should work in Glorantha, I really can't think of a worse model one might follow.

Exactly. If you come up with an adventurer who takes that kind of attitude, ask yourself "would the White Lady call this character to serve her", the answer surely has to be "no". In RQG terms, rules-lawyering to cause harm is very much acting against the Harmony Rune.

[Baron Wulfraed]

6 hours ago, Darius West said:

Amen LOL.  Of course not everyone always has the financial liquidity to migrate, and not everyone has the survival skill to travel unequipped and un-provisioned.  I tend to let CAs off easy, as if you can forage for healing herbs you should know a food plant when you see it imo.

Justification for the CA to join an adventuring party heading in the direction of said alternate temple ("You help me get to Water Reeds Temple*, I'll provide healing en-route")

6 hours ago, Darius West said:

So how about this situation...  A Chalana Arroy initiate sees a Gagarth worshipper getting ready to flee a crime by using telekinesis, and as this is the 'big bad', and nobody else can act, the CA lets rip with a 3pt divine Dispel Magic.  The Gagarthi acted first, and is now 30 feet in the air, and they fall awkwardly (fumbled jump) and broke their pelvis due to the weight of the loot they were carrying, and died.  The Chalana Arroy didn't anticipate the height the Gagarthi would get, or their fumble. 

The opponent is fleeing. As such they are no longer a threat or possible cause for harm to others in the party (unless one is counting loss of the "loot" as injurious). Therefore, the CA should take no action.

This is basically an expansion of what gets taught at concealed carry firearm classes -- once the threat of death or grave injury ceases to exist, one is not to shoot.

6 hours ago, Darius West said:

Should the Chalana Arroy be excommunicated?  This is a real example that happened in a game I saw back in the 1980s, and the GM had the healer chucked from the cult.  I was only spectating and had no "dog in the ring", but found it an interesting 'test case'.  Obviously anyone else who wants to chime in, the more the merrier.

I probably wouldn't go that far... But would consider severe discipline (hits on loyalty and/or honor, for example) and maybe "house arrest" (can not leave the temple environs; can only treat patients coming to the temple).

6 hours ago, Darius West said:

Now you raise the issue, as a GM, I have seen a fair bit of hatred and jealousy towards Chalana Arroys from other players, (quite apart from when I played Malicia).  Initially they love having someone with Heal 6 around to patch their limbs up, but that wanes over time, and the CA begins to look like a massive financial drain and a one trick pony who 'wet blankets' everything with their oath constraints or by declaring some enemy "under healer's protection".

You've just echoed my view on AD&D (2nd Ed) paladins -- as handled by my GM of the time.

• Opponents are losing, so they surrender to the party paladin
• Paladin must accept, and protects opponents from rest of party
• Since party is not equipped to transport prisoners, paladin accepts decrees of parole from them and releases them (with just eating knives/daggers and minimal armor perhaps)
• Paroled opponents rush back to their base, rearm, and set up next ambush down the road.

 

* Walter Reed Army Medical Center 😁

[soltakss]

2 hours ago, Alex said:

I was very fond of Asimov in my impressionable youth, but as a model for a legalistic set of "laws" for how theistic magic should work in Glorantha, I really can't think of a worse model one might follow.

It was more an example of how rules-mongering can have undesired effects.

[Dragon]

On 1/8/2022 at 2:27 PM, PhilHibbs said:

Only "De-Nature Alcohol" and "Mark of Sin", but those are from The Book of Doom, not an official Chaosium publication.

Sorcery spells by Rune and Technique

Thank you so much for the reference document.

[Dragon]

1 hour ago, soltakss said:

It was more an example of how rules-mongering can have undesired effects.

I loved Asimov too. But, the entire idea that a certain robot can override the Three Laws by inventing a Zero-th Law was certainly rules-mongering in my estimation.

[Dragon]

7 hours ago, soltakss said:

No Chalana Arroy cultists in their right mind would dispel a flight/wind walking/similar spell mid-flight as they know that this will cause the target to become hurt. It will cause harm and could kill an intelligent person.

This.

[Dragon]

10 hours ago, Darius West said:

...especially when CAs try to charge the party for healing after the adventure, and after all the loot has been divided up. 

Presumably that Chalana Arroy is part of the party, and agreed to whatever shares the party defined. Any such CA who then says, 'because I fixed your maimed leg during the battle against the scorpion men, you also owe my temple' should be brought before the Lawspeakers for violation of the contract. The party agreed to bring the CA along knowing the CA's contribution to any fights was almost completely limited to healing. Sure, the CA could also track, listen, devise, etc..

Now, if the Chalana Arroy didn't get shares of the proceeds, the CA is entitled to charge for healing. For example, a healer you rescued.

The party should simply part ways with a double dealing CA?

[Alex]

2 hours ago, Dragon said:

I loved Asimov too. But, the entire idea that a certain robot can override the Three Laws by inventing a Zero-th Law was certainly rules-mongering in my estimation.

That's kinda like them Gregging the previous set of rules. 🙂

Edited January 10, 2022 by Alex

[Darius West]

8 hours ago, Dragon said:

The party should simply part ways with a double dealing CA?

Actually the matter was queried with the local Lawspeaker, who reviewed the matter and remonstrated with the local CA priestess, and it was found that the CA initiate Clarinda the Gentle was delinquent with her tithes, and with under-reporting her income by not declaring her adventure earnings for the last 3 years.  Further investigation revealed that Clarinda had previously claimed donations to the temple that she had subsequently spent on her own training.  As a result she was cast from the temple, and settled with the Poss clan of Lismelder who were looking to start another feud with their Colymar neighbors.  Naturally they gave the delinquent Clarinda perpetual bedpan duty for being an ex-Colymar.  Clarinda then started trying to resuscitate her reputation.

[Scotty]

After 13 pages of meandering, it's time to bring this thread to a close. I've split the last page into a new thread with an open title.