Chalana Arroy, a question or two.

[Dragon]

19 minutes ago, simonh said:

Cool, it doesn't say it kills the baby. As I said removing a parasite which then dies for lack of a host might be ok.

Indeed, 'removes the consequences' can be interpreted as either the baby was removed from the world or removed from the womb - let's say magically transported outside the victim's body. At that point, established that it is Chaotic because Cure Chaos Wound would not have worked otherwise, the Chalana Arroy is under no requirement to protect a Chaotic living thing. A bystander could stomp on it, or simply let it starve. I doubt the Chalana Arroy should do the former.

I feel the interpretation should be left to the GM who understands the sensitivity of their players.

[PhilHibbs]

https://wellofdaliath.chaosium.com/home/gloranthan-documents/prosopaedia/deities/c/chalana-arroy/natyrsa-the-chaos-foe/

Quote

Natyrsa put aside her passivity. She realized that Chaos is not a part of the world, and thus not part of Life. As such, it can and should be destroyed.

 

[simonh]

1 hour ago, Dragon said:

Indeed, 'removes the consequences' can be interpreted as either the baby was removed from the world or removed from the womb - let's say magically transported outside the victim's body. At that point, established that it is Chaotic because Cure Chaos Wound would not have worked otherwise, the Chalana Arroy is under no requirement to protect a Chaotic living thing. A bystander could stomp on it, or simply let it starve. I doubt the Chalana Arroy should do the former.

I feel the interpretation should be left to the GM who understands the sensitivity of their players.

I think from the perspective of the characters the CA healer has a cool moment and the problem just goes away, otherwise it detracts somewhat from the peace and harmony vibe, but sure.

Nice catch on Natyrsa Phil. The stuff schisms are made of, but there's lots of narrative potential in that.

Edited September 3, 2021 by simonh

[Akhôrahil]

4 hours ago, soltakss said:

Or slapping misbehaving patients, but not too hard, or giving them a wrist burn when putting on bandages.

The key word here is "needlessly".

I have a CA healer in my campaign whose approach is "that's not a real injury and doesn't even properly hurt, don't be a baby about it".

[Akhôrahil]

21 hours ago, Manimati said:

i wonder how a CA cultist should behave when attacked in spirit combat.

You have to be allowed Spirit Combat under Chalana Arroy, or else Resurrection couldn't work (as you have to beat the unwilling spirit back into the body using Spirit Combat). Likely it doesn't qualify as "harm". Well, or "living" for that matter.

And not only that - CA cultists who use Resurrect even need to be decent at Spirit Combat in order to succeed.

Edited September 3, 2021 by Akhôrahil

[Jeff]

3 minutes ago, Akhôrahil said:

You have to be allowed Spirit Combat under Chalana Arroy, or else Resurrection couldn't work (as you have to beat the unwilling spirit back into the body using Spirit Combat). Likely it doesn't qualify as "harm". Well, or "living" for that matter.

And not only that - CA cultists who use Resurrect even need to be decent at Spirit Combat in order to succeed.

Spirit Combat is not physical violence. 

[Bren]

Sometimes spirit combat does physical damage.

Hit Point Damage
When suffering a special or critical attack in spirit combat,
an embodied target (such as a human) takes actual physical
damage to their hit points equal to the number of D6s rolled
for the attack’s damage. Thus, 1D6+3 points of spirit combat
damage will inflict 1 hit point of physical damage. RQiG p 369

[Bren]

The target for Resurrection is the spirit of the deceased, and the body is already dead, so presumably damage wouldn't occur in that specific instance.

[simonh]

1 hour ago, Bren said:

Sometimes spirit combat does physical damage.

Hit Point Damage
When suffering a special or critical attack in spirit combat,
an embodied target (such as a human) takes actual physical
damage to their hit points equal to the number of D6s rolled
for the attack’s damage. Thus, 1D6+3 points of spirit combat
damage will inflict 1 hit point of physical damage. RQiG p 369

You’d have to be in spirit combat with an embodied living being though, and it’s hard to imagine a circumstance in which a Chalana Arroy worshiper would be in that position. However yes I suppose in that case they would have to abstain.

Edited September 4, 2021 by simonh

[Bren]

I'd thought that the physical damage applied to embodied spirits who are currently discorporate and I like the image of the body of a discoporated character showing wounds based on spirit combat effects. But looking at the page again, I'm less sure that is the correct interpretation of the rule.

If it is true, that's a problem for the Chalana Arroy worshiper attacked by a shaman. If not, then I suppose the issue would be moot.

Edited September 4, 2021 by Bren

[David Scott]

9 hours ago, Bren said:

Sometimes spirit combat does physical damage.

Covered by "needlessly cause pain to any living thing". There is a need, the subject won't come back to life. It's a pretty borderline case.

14 hours ago, Akhôrahil said:

(as you have to beat the unwilling spirit back into the body using Spirit Combat)

Spirit combat isn't alway actual combat, it's a catch all for term for three different things (see Spirit Combat page 366)

• fighting a hostile spirit
• contest of psychic energy
• forcing powerful spirits to teach rare spells

A Chalana Arroy initiate is clearly involved in a contest of psychic energy, manoeuvring the departed soul back into its body against the natural order of things. The spirit doesn't have to loose all its MPs, just has to loose some to force the soul back in.

[soltakss]

12 hours ago, Bren said:

Sometimes spirit combat does physical damage.

Hit Point Damage
When suffering a special or critical attack in spirit combat,
an embodied target (such as a human) takes actual physical
damage to their hit points equal to the number of D6s rolled
for the attack’s damage. Thus, 1D6+3 points of spirit combat
damage will inflict 1 hit point of physical damage. RQiG p 369

Unless a Chalana Arroy worshipper is discorporate, this does not apply to them, as they would be attacked by discorporate spirits.

Even if it did, I would argue that they could pull the blow and not cause physical damage.

[Dirk Le Daring]

@Jeff Thank you kind sir, for your clarification. It is always a good thing to get it from the Hippogriffs's Beak. 😉 

I do like the strict doctrine....

Also to everyone else who has replied (Too many to quote, but you know who you are 😉 ), and thus contributed to this discussion... Thank you all so much, this is great, and it is fantastic to see so many different opinions expressed in a civil manner. 

Such an awesome community. 

Do not stop, I am quite enjoying this discussion. Have learned a lot, and should I ever play a Chalana Arroy, will use all of your input for reference.

Thank you again everyone.  (Awesomeness) 

[soltakss]

2 minutes ago, Dirk Le Daring said:

Do not stop, I am quite enjoying this discussion. Have learned a lot, and should I ever play a Chalana Arroy, will use all of your input for reference.

I am currently playing a Chalana Arroy Healer. It is interesting to realise that I am playing him with a zero tolerance for taking part in combat, with immediate shouts of "Don't hit me, I'm a Healer" whenever we get into tricky situations. I originally thought of using weapons to parry and wearing armour, but that just didn't feel right when I started playing Yangan.

He has used Sleep and Harmony to great effect, though.

[Akhôrahil]

21 minutes ago, soltakss said:

I am currently playing a Chalana Arroy Healer. It is interesting to realise that I am playing him with a zero tolerance for taking part in combat, with immediate shouts of "Don't hit me, I'm a Healer" whenever we get into tricky situations. I originally thought of using weapons to parry and wearing armour, but that just didn't feel right when I started playing Yangan.

I wonder if it's considered poor form to hold a CA healer for ransom. Non-violence might be good for the soul, but it makes it easier to capture you. And you likely don't get to stop healing everyone who needs it just because you're their captive, either.

[soltakss]

1 hour ago, Akhôrahil said:

I wonder if it's considered poor form to hold a CA healer for ransom. Non-violence might be good for the soul, but it makes it easier to capture you. And you likely don't get to stop healing everyone who needs it just because you're their captive, either.

We'll probably find out.

 

[Byll]

2 hours ago, Akhôrahil said:

I wonder if it's considered poor form to hold a CA healer for ransom. Non-violence might be good for the soul, but it makes it easier to capture you. And you likely don't get to stop healing everyone who needs it just because you're their captive, either.

A good Chalanan shouldn't be conflicted about healing people. If there are injured or sick people in front of them, then they should triage them and heal them in order of need.

Keeping a Chalanan captive might not be so trivial unless the captor has lockable rooms, manacles stout ropes etc to hand. If the Chalanan thinks they are needed more elsewhere and determinedly tries to leave, then the captor is going to have to use violence against the Chalanan to prevent that. That might be construed as allowing the Chalanan to embargo any cult healing of the offender. 

[Baron Wulfraed]

2 hours ago, Byll said:

A good Chalanan shouldn't be conflicted about healing people. If there are injured or sick people in front of them, then they should triage them and heal them in order of need.

But consider your "order of need" against "If I heal you, I'll be so spent I won't be able to heal anyone else"

I suspect if I were to play a CA healer I'd triage as "Class 1: here's a bandage, wrap that scratch yourself; Class 2: significant damages, but not overly draining on my abilities, I can heal a group with no trouble; Class 3: significant damages/death, would be the only patient I can handle for days, if I can finish the mass of Class 2, I'll come back and see what can still be done"

[simonh]

18 minutes ago, Baron Wulfraed said:

But consider your "order of need" against "If I heal you, I'll be so spent I won't be able to heal anyone else"

If your their captive, unless rescue seems imminent that’s not really a consideration, and even then it seems more an excuse than a reason. Maybe there will be people in more need later and maybe this person here doesn’t need healing as badly, but that could always be true in any situation. What if you’re wrong? You just committed a deep sin. These people in front of you need healing.

Edited September 4, 2021 by simonh

[RHW]

Bit of a hot button topic, I suspect, but for a Bronze Age society, a fetus probably isn't considered a "living thing." Back then (and still today depending on where you are) a large percentage of pregnancies would have ended in miscarriage, stillbirth, or maternal death. The classical Greeks had numerous superstitions about what caused miscarriage, most of them nonsense, but enough to show it was a bit of an obsession. To this day in parts of PNG, children aren't considered worth naming until they make it a year.*

IMG, aborting a broo fetus is S.O.P. for Chalanans. Moreover, in life threatening situations, healers almost certainly end non-viable pregnancies, ogre pregnancies, etc. Mythically, you could argue that ending a pregnancy caused by rape is a cultural imperative, especially for Orlanthi/Ernaldans. Such children might be born as ogres or broos regardless of the species of the father.

On the other hand, one interesting thing about Glorantha is that the standard of medical care, because of healing magic, is probably very high. Broken legs or missing limbs, disease, even death, can be overcome. I suspect the infant mortality rate is much lower than it would have been in the Bronze Age, ditto maternal mortality, so Gloranthans might have more emotional attachment to a pregnancy, given the higher chance of success. Like the Romans, the Dara Happans and other highly patriarchal societies might have laws against abortion.

Still seems very unlikely most Chalanans (or the goddess herself) would consider terminating a pregnancy as "killing." 

YGMV.

 

*Or so I was told when I was there.

Edited September 4, 2021 by RHW
Eurmal made me tpye bad.

[simonh]

Chalana Arroy isn’t the goddess of necessary compromises or moral trade offs. I just don’t see it that way at all. She’s a fertility goddess. There are going to be things many people in society think are the right thing to do, for the greater good, that she’d have no truck with.

In Roman times there was disagreement on whether abortion was medically ethical, and I would expect most if not all Chalanans to be on the strict side of that debate. I don’t think what general society or Heortling culture think has much bearing on this, Chalanans will make their own determination based on myth, divine inspiration and personal feelings.

In history there have been those that opposed such interventions, that stance was not unknown, and it would be surprising to not see that stance in Glorantha. If Chalanans aren’t going to represent that view, who is?

Edited September 5, 2021 by simonh

[Shiningbrow]

16 hours ago, soltakss said:

I am currently playing a Chalana Arroy Healer. It is interesting to realise that I am playing him with a zero tolerance for taking part in combat, with immediate shouts of "Don't hit me, I'm a Healer" whenever we get into tricky situations. I originally thought of using weapons to parry and wearing armour, but that just didn't feel right when I started playing Yangan.

He has used Sleep and Harmony to great effect, though.

Did you have a long discussion with the other players and GM about this before drawing them up?

[Akhôrahil]

8 hours ago, simonh said:

In Roman times there was disagreement on whether abortion was medically ethical

With CA, I think it’s not a case of them condemning violence for everyone (although they may lament it), and more a case of ”I won’t do such things”. If the question of war comes up in the clan ring, the CA representative might be opposed and remind everyone of the costs, but not condemn the whole enterprise as unethical. (I think, at least.)

[simonh]

23 minutes ago, Akhôrahil said:

…the CA representative might be opposed and remind everyone of the costs, but not condemn the whole enterprise as unethical. (I think, at least.)

RQ is a game and we play it to have fun, so there’s no point party pooping with CA healer characters that get preachy and condemn everyone all the time. They’ll give their opinion and that’s that.

Ethically there is an issue concerning enabling conflict and slaughter. A war band with a capable healer is a more effective fighting force and can keep fighting for longer. They might refuse to compromise of make peace with an enemy because they think they can win a fight due to the advantage a healer gives them. That’s not good.

On the other hand the goddess did accompany the other Lightbringers. She was an adventuring goddess who went out into dangerous places. Of course the aim of that quest was to right a wrong, to heal a would and restore a broken world. It is reasonable for a Chalanan character to care what it’s all about and if they’re just being used, or if they could do more good elsewhere.

[Joerg]

With a sufficiently empowered Chalana Arroy priestess present, there shouldn't be the need to make a choice between mother and child at any time. Especially as, prior to birth, both would be a single target for the healing.

Another thing I just realized - according to the rules, a resurrectee would be unconscious when returned to their body until they regenerate their first MP, as their spirit would have had to be fought down to zero MP in order to return to the body. Would that rules-effect be inside the in-world parameters of this procedure, or would you expect a resurrectee to return in a dramatic recall to their last living experience?