Arkat Cult conflict with Illumination

[Darius West]

16 minutes ago, AndreasDavour said:

...and also...

we are all Arkat!

I'm Arkat and so is my Wife !

[mfbrandi]

2 hours ago, Darius West said:

That's easy to understand … By analogy, cancer the disease isn't morally evil, but that doesn't mean you won't seek medical treatment like surgery to have it removed. Chaos is the cancer of the goddess Glorantha.

So evil may mean immoral or wicked and we probably wouldn’t say that a dragonsnail is that. It also means harmful or detrimental, which is why — for clarity — the Nysalor write-up says “the illuminated one will know as truth that Chaos is, in itself, neither evil nor inimical” (CoT “Classic”, p. 86, emphasis mine). That is, Chaos is not in itself harmful (according to the illuminate, anyway). So if cancer is supposed to be an example of something inimical but which lacks the personhood necessary to be called immoral or wicked, that seems to miss the point.

Whichever side one comes down on as to whether Chaos is inimical, it should be a puzzle that a gang of illuminates so desperately wants to wipe it out. The setting is not meant to give up all of its secrets easily, and perhaps some questions it poses are designed to be undecidable. I don’t know.

Dragonsnails might destroy crops, but so might elephants. Chaos doesn’t seem to come into it. As for the peaceful worshipper of Primal Chaos, an Arkati might see them as a tool but nothing more: “their great duty is to maintain order and stamp out Chaos, and they know no limit in pursuing that duty” (ibid, p. 87). An Arkati “never will deal fairly or honestly with any Chaotic being” (ibid, p. 87) — that is not the attitude one has to a friend.

The Arkati oppose Chaos and the Dark Side (of their own cult/illumination), but these are not the same thing: “Law and Chaos create in different ways, and all creativity rests upon co-operation between elements of existence. He who operates solely from personal desire will not cooperate, since the childish core of any being’s personality knows no constraint … In this sense, fully Lawful beings can be as much agents of the dark side as was the worst Gbaji prophet” (ibid, p. 87). So the Dark Side is being explained in terms of failure to cooperate and so failure to create — equated with parasitism and failure of , which sounds like one of Steve Ditko’s Objectivist rants — whereas Chaos is able to create and so to cooperate, so some Chaos is not on the Dark Side. It is not that being Chaotic insulates one against being a parasite — the two may be compatible (even if Dark Side childishness cripples the Chaotic being’s creativity, they do not necessarily cease to be Chaotic) — but the gimme gimme gimme, it all belongs to me attitude of the Dark Sider is not Chaos, it is its own thing.

Spoiler

An alternative interpretation would be that by going over to the Dark Side and surrendering one’s creativity to enjoy the pleasures of parasitism, one renders oneself neither Lawful nor Chaotic. I take no stand against that, but I am not asserting it here.

In light of all that:

2 hours ago, Darius West said:

the illuminate could turn to the worship of Thanatar and use Consume Mind to destroy people to get easy access to skills and magic, and nobody could tell the illuminate was a chaos worshipper.  Such is the temptation of chaos.

So the illuminate who has gone over to the Dark Side — via faulty, self-serving reasoning, remember — might indeed use Thanatari or other Chaos magic to serve their own greedy, childish whims, but how usefully is that described as the temptation of Chaos, rather than the temptation of the Dark Side? They might just as easily have taken magic from a non-Chaotic cult, would we then have said “such is the temptation of [insert runic association here]”? I don’t say that would be inaccurate, but the problem is treating everyone and everything as merely means to one’s own petty ends, no? Of course, every tool has its virtues that make it covetable. Sever Spirit? Tempting!

Edited August 29, 2023 by mfbrandi
too many wills

[Malin]

I think I've gained at least 1d6% in Illumniation by now

[Zac]

33 minutes ago, Malin said:

I think I've gained at least 1d6% in Illumniation by now

This has all been a very complicated Nysoralian Riddle. 

[Akhôrahil]

On 8/28/2023 at 6:02 PM, Zac said:

Or maybe the "Illuminates" that are seen are the ones that have been driven crazy by using their illumination to justify irresponsible and/or horrific behaviour?

Our big name Illuminates are hardly paragons of virtue, it must be said. It starts with Jar-eel and goes downhill from there.

[Akhôrahil]

On 8/28/2023 at 3:17 PM, mfbrandi said:

Two conceptions of religious morality (owed to our blessed Auntie L):

• God says it is evil because it is evil
• It is evil because God says it is evil

Is that an alias of Eutyphro’s?

[mfbrandi]

21 minutes ago, Akhôrahil said:

Is that an alias of Eutyphro’s?

What “Auntie L”? Nah, this guy:

He didn’t claim to have invented those conceptions, but he drew our attention to them — and you just know which he thought the deeper. Poor lamb.

[John Biles]

Several things:

We mostly observe crazy-town illuminates because the non-crazy ones live quiet lives trying to become more enlightened or just ascend to whatever the goal of their mystical practices is.  The ones who become famous are the ones who became bonkers.

Especially because illumination offers you many ways to overcome the normal limits on going bonkers with power.

We don't have rules for illumination in RQ:G which would clarify what exactly illumination does now (to my knowledge).  Looking at the Lords of Terror rules, though, it would seem to basically eliminate any passions connected to order and chaos from illuminates, along with the set of 'rip off the gods' cheat codes, like ignoring spirits of reprisal.

The central problem for illuminates is that you have to build your own new moral code because the one you absorbed from your culture has lost its ability to influence you due to upbringing and initiation.

This is how occulted illuminates differ - they basically just go with 'whatever is my will is what is fine to do' and then find a crazy train to ride.

Oddi gets something some illuminates don't get - guidance in building a new moral system.  Those who do don't end up occulted, of which Sheng Seleris is the classic form of occultation.  This is why Nysalorian illumination did so much damage.

 

 

[scott-martin]

12 hours ago, John Biles said:

basically eliminate any passions connected to order and chaos

Now my scores have gone up. Thank you!

[Jeff]

On 8/27/2023 at 12:21 PM, Zac said:

I am just trying to wrap my head around some descriptions of the Arkat Cult from the Cult Compemdium.

And

If they are Illuminated they should have lost their fear of Chaos. So why are they trying to destroy Chaos? Is it some form of false Illumination?

As pointed out by others, all sentient beings have an innate fear/hatred of Chaos (and that includes Chaotic entities). It is natural as Chaos is inherently "wrong". 

Now Illumination removes that inherent fear/hatred and the Illuminate KNOWS that Chaos is not inherently good or evil, it just is. That is unsettling at the very least.

Arkat understood that but concluded that Gbaji/Nysalor was evil (and would agree that entities like Thed, Cacodemon, etc. are evil as well). Nysalor needed to be destroyed, lest the evils he unleash grow and get worse. The temptation to use Chaos as an instrument/weapon was recognized as a moral evil, much like the temptation to use nuclear weapons is recognized as a moral evil. 

[Qizilbashwoman]

On 8/29/2023 at 12:02 PM, Malin said:

I think I've gained at least 1d6% in Illumniation by now

you get more from reading de la resurrección de la muerte, but you also lose SAN.

Yes, I did discover a medieval Jewish heresiarch's book in an obscure language - Ladino - in real life, and yes, there were cultists (see image below from a graveyard in Germany).

 

Edited August 30, 2023 by Qizilbashwoman

[Malin]

8 hours ago, Qizilbashwoman said:

ou get more from reading de la resurrección de la muerte, but you also lose SAN.

That one is going in my shopping bag, as a professional writer, SAN is overrated 😄

[Charles]

My view is that there are two strains of Chaos in Glorantha.

• Most of the obvious Chaos is Unholy Trio/Wakboth influenced and therefore delights in destruction and corruption and pain and hate.
• There is some pre-Wakboth Chaos, which is as likely to create as to destroy, and as likely to love as to hate.  I suspect that much of this Chaos is not obvious, or is easily confused with the more ‘evil’ Chaos.

My feeling is that Nysalor was not initially ‘evil’ Chaos but many or even most of his followers took the easy route which led them to ‘evil’. My justification for this is that several well known deities (Aldrya, Yelm) seem to completely accept Nysalor. As the fight between Arkat’s followers and armies versus Nysalor’s armies and followers escalators, Nysalor was forced into a more evil role as the alternative was immediate destruction.

[Qizilbashwoman]

5 hours ago, Malin said:

That one is going in my shopping bag, as a professional writer, SAN is overrated 😄

i haven't read it yet myself, but the story around it is so interesting. nowadays few people understand the significance of the skull and crossbones in the early modern art of Judaism, because it looks like pirates or Christian imagery of the same era!

Nota bene: one of his students was Baruch Spinoza, the most notable recipient of a herem (excommunication from Judaism).

 

1 hour ago, Charles said:

My feeling is that Nysalor was not initially ‘evil’ Chaos but many or even most of his followers took the easy route which led them to ‘evil’. My justification for this is that several well known deities (Aldrya, Yelm) seem to completely accept Nysalor. As the fight between Arkat’s followers and armies versus Nysalor’s armies and followers escalators, Nysalor was forced into a more evil role as the alternative was immediate destruction.

 

 

I think it was accepted by Yelm and Aldrya because enlightenment movements had a very long history in Peloria and made their way into Solar faiths. The earliest figure was Rashorana, who was slain by the Devil and then returned, but she was followed by figures like the Atarks and Jernotius. These extra-Solar deities are the origin of Illumination's acceptance into Pelorian and then Imperial culture, although there were strong anti-Illumination movements in history within Solar cultures.

Edited August 31, 2023 by Qizilbashwoman

[Joerg]

1 hour ago, Charles said:

My view is that there are two strains of Chaos in Glorantha.

• Most of the obvious Chaos is Unholy Trio/Wakboth influenced and therefore delights in destruction and corruption and pain and hate.
• There is some pre-Wakboth Chaos, which is as likely to create as to destroy, and as likely to love as to hate.  I suspect that much of this Chaos is not obvious, or is easily confused with the more ‘evil’ Chaos.

My feeling is that Nysalor was not initially ‘evil’ Chaos but many or even most of his followers took the easy route which led them to ‘evil’. My justification for this is that several well known deities (Aldrya, Yelm) seem to completely accept Nysalor. As the fight between Arkat’s followers and armies versus Nysalor’s armies and followers escalators, Nysalor was forced into a more evil role as the alternative was immediate destruction.

Chaos is an inevitable side product of Creation through the Chaosium, the "organ" of Glorantha which pulls in unlimited potential from the Void outside and gives it definition (through the runes) to act as part of the Cosmos. The Chaosium does not work perfectly (how could it facing infinite possibilities), but it will result in imperfections at odds with the Creation around them. King of Sartar (Orlanthi Mythology section) calls such entities "Predark", without specifying whether this means "things from before Darkness was manifested" or "Chaos from Ages before the Darkness Era of the Gods War".

Rashoran and their lore of accepting the imperfect as part of the Cosmos and taking energy or magic out of such imperfections obviously predates Wakboth, and was what inspired the Unholy Trio to abuse such knowledge to manifest Moral Evil attached to Ultimate Destruction.

Nysalorean lore included the ability to approach Chaos without being immediately consumed by it. From there to inflicting Chaos unto unwilling others (like the Black Eater at the Battle of Night and Day) is just a short step, though, and with his wounding of Korastor Nysalor clearly stepped out of a morally neutral stance towards Chaos. The Red Goddess inflicting her hummingbird, the Crimson Bat, onto her enemies and later her subjects is another such step away from that careful or innocent neutrality that may have been part of Rashoran's lessions.

The deities who completely accept Nysalor are those whose enemies were struck by Nysalor's use of Chaos upon their enemies.

If the Nysalorean movement started innocent, it wasn't the conflict with Arkat which destroyed their innocence, but the Battle of Night And Day with the resulting Curse of Kin. The conflict with Arkat unveiled the underlying corruption, starting with that battle in Seshnela where Gerlant intervened and the followers of Nieby and his prophet Gaalth turned into tentacled monsters.

[Qizilbashwoman]

On 8/31/2023 at 3:44 AM, Malin said:

That one is going in my shopping bag, as a professional writer, SAN is overrated 😄

if you are curious what the heresy is, it is that thanks to Maimonides (d. 1204), Jewry worldwide did not believe in bodily resurrection. Going against Maimonides in the 1600s was kind of a Big Deal, particularly for Western Sefardim, who were recent converts after spending 200 years practicing Catholicism. (There were many heresies in that era, the most infamous of which was Sabbataeism; the entire Jewish world from England to Yemen believed for a whole year the actual Messiah had come, people sold everything in preparation for the Last Judgment.)

Edited September 3, 2023 by Qizilbashwoman

[davecake]

On 8/29/2023 at 12:27 AM, mfbrandi said:

I think — but really, what do I know? — that the Buddhists might agree: in your meditation, you have to get past the stage of “temptation” by hallucinated demons on your way to the peace of being blown out.

Well, that's what the Buddhists would say, but they are just one kind of mystic (most closely corresponding to the followers of Machunasan in the East Isles). Mysticism is far broader than that. Illumination is better compared to the broader concept of moksha, common to both Hinduism and Buddhism, at least. 

If you read the Bhavagad Gita in context, in which Krishna is explaining to Arjuna that the truly spiritually enlightened man should still do his duty, which may occasionally involve some mass slaughter of hundreds of people in battle, right before Arjuna heads out and does just that (again), you might find the idea of Arkat as Illuminated, moral, and also a terrifyingly warlike killer more understandable. 

[Akhôrahil]

2 hours ago, davecake said:

If you read the Bhavagad Gita in context, in which Krishna is explaining to Arjuna that the truly spiritually enlightened man should still do his duty, which may occasionally involve some mass slaughter of hundreds of people in battle, right before Arjuna heads out and does just that (again), you might find the idea of Arkat as Illuminated, moral, and also a terrifyingly warlike killer more understandable. 

This is of course also what is pastisched at the end of The Reminiscences of Paulis Longvale, with Paulis and Oddi.

Edited September 25, 2023 by Akhôrahil

[mfbrandi]

1 hour ago, davecake said:

If you read the Bhavagad Gita in context, in which Krishna is explaining to Arjuna that [he] should still do his duty, … mass slaughter … you might find the idea of Arkat as Illuminated, moral, and also a terrifyingly warlike killer more understandable.

Well, “explaining … that [he] should … do his duty” is doing the work here (it makes it sound like we’ve already conceded that Krishna is right — that it is Arjuna’s duty to fight and he is just being squeamish): we only get to understand how Arkat/Arjuna can be moral (in the sense of good or acting well, rather than merely engaged in thinking — well or poorly — about goodness or right action) if Krishna’s arguments are sound. But if Krishna merely browbeats or dazzles Arjuna into fighting, or tells him that the decision to fight or not is above Arjuna’s pay grade, what then do we learn?

Putting aside the rights and wrongs of particular fictional wars and the quality of the arguments for fighting them, which of these sounds more fun/interesting?

1. Your charioteer reveals himself to be God and says,
   “A warrior’s duty is to kill and blah blah blah, so go out and kill.”
   You say, “OK, God. Silly me.” Off you trot to the slaughter, bow in hand.
    
2. Your charioteer reveals himself to be God and says,
   “A warrior’s duty is to kill and blah blah blah, so go out and kill.”
   You say, “I see now that you are God — wow! — but you know what? I would prefer not to.”

[scott-martin]

24 minutes ago, mfbrandi said:

But if Krishna merely browbeats or dazzles Arjuna into fighting, or tells him that the decision to fight or not is above Arjuna’s pay grade, what then do we learn?

I always laugh at that part of the Brook/Carriere when they elide the entire thing with a wink and the line "he spoke for a long time, a very long time" and then get back to the action at hand fortified with whatever it was. The religion is there for those who chase the religion. The play resumes after barely a pause.

And it strikes me that a lot of these arguments are for Yudhishthira types worried about the fine points of dharma (can good dogs go to heaven) and not necessarily the Arjunas crowding the game table. So with Arkat, who was ultimately just an eccentrically trained horal and not designed to worry too much about sacrifice and prayer.

 

[Jeff]

20 minutes ago, scott-martin said:

And it strikes me that a lot of these arguments are for Yudhishthira types worried about the fine points of dharma (can good dogs go to heaven) and not necessarily the Arjunas crowding the game table. So with Arkat, who was ultimately just an eccentrically trained horal and not designed to worry too much about sacrifice and prayer.

 

And this key. Arkat was a man of action - he's Kshatriya not Brahmin. He knows his duty and carries it out, regardless of how many dharmic eggs need to be broken.

[Darius West]

On 8/28/2023 at 4:21 AM, Zac said:

I am just trying to wrap my head around some descriptions of the Arkat Cult from the Cult Compendium.

An Arkat will never accept the use of chaotic magic. They never will deal fairly or honestly with any chaotic being or thing. Now that their Heroquesting abilities have been dispersed through all cults, they aim only to destroy chaos, and will not rest till they have done so.

And

The Arkat cult maintains a strict watch on itself and the rest of the world. As Illuminates, they can detect Illumination in others

If they are Illuminated they should have lost their fear of Chaos. So why are they trying to destroy Chaos? Is it some form of false Illumination?

In answer to your points...

Illumination represents a spiritual freedom that is very desirable in some ways, but also a dangerous temptation and a license to riot if a person has a corruptible temperament.  Illumination allows an individual to obtain a lot of power, because it stops the Gods from being able to send spirits of retribution to discipline an illuminate who breaks the rules.  Arkati know that liberty is not license, and just because you CAN do something, doesn't mean you should.

Now as to chaotic beings, the Arkati, despite being illuminated, know that Chaos is a terrible thing that can destroy the world, much like fire will destroy a forest, because that is its nature. While Arkati know that individual chaotic creatures may potentially have it within them to become decent and honorable, realistically such an outcome is ridiculously unlikely, and nearly every chaotic creature is an atrocity prone monster.

As for not using Chaotic magic, there is the temptation.  Chaos is implicitly ruinous, i.e. to reference the above, just because you can burn down a forest, doesn't mean you should.  Just because you have the ability to break cult strictures, doesn't mean you should.  It isn't about fearing chaos, they understand chaos' nature and realistically understand that they don't much care for Chaos' destructiveness.  For example, try as one might, it is quite impossible to be a morally upright Thanatari. The golden rule (do as you would be done by), which is the fundamental point of morality is something Thanatari implicitly ignore, and this is a problem with chaos cults in general.

The advantage for Arkati is that they can unerringly detect illuminates, and if they are not Arkati, then they are a danger to the world as there is no restraint on the power and exploitation that can potentially engage in.  The Arkati are thus something of a police force controlling illuminated criminals.

[g33k]

23 minutes ago, Darius West said:

... While Arkati know that individual chaotic creatures may potentially have it within them to become decent and honorable, realistically such an outcome is ridiculously unlikely, and ...

Not at all unlikely!
It is, in fact, equally-likely as:

23 minutes ago, Darius West said:

... nearly every chaotic creature is an atrocity prone monster...

Chaos is essentially limitless; but without inherent "direction" (neither towards evil & destruction nor toward goodness & decency).  Most, inevitably, will be somewhere between the polar extremes.

There are some specific monsters -- broo, etc -- who do seem inherently drawn towards the "evil" side of things; but it is AFAIK largely unexplored (within Glorantha) whether they're born evil or raised evil.  The Lunars claim to have tamed Chaos, to have Broo legions.

But in the final analysis, the "limitless potential" of Chaos must include (because limitless) "the potential to utterly destroy Glorantha." 

This is, to me, one of the terrible moral quandaries of Glorantha:  individual chaotic creatures may be decent and honorable, but they may only seem that way; and (like Illuminates) even "decent and honorable" Chaotics may also feel -- free from the Gods' oversight -- that some situation-at-hand demands terrible deeds.

 

Edited September 25, 2023 by g33k

[mfbrandi]

43 minutes ago, g33k said:

This is, to me, one of the terrible moral quandaries of Glorantha:  individual chaotic creatures may be decent and honorable, but they may only seem that way; and (like Illuminates) even “decent and honourable” Chaotics may also feel — free from the Gods’ oversight — that some situation-at-hand demands terrible deeds.

But this is true of people in general, including non-chaotic non-illuminates.

I have a particular horror of people who do not ask enough questions: “Top brass says we go over the top at dawn — bayonets fixed — and that’s good enough for me.” But that is my little quirk: neither the gods nor the top brass are to be relied on to have good practical or moral sense. If you let the gods decide these matters for you, and the gods are wrong, you are still accountable for your actions. “I was only following orders” won’t wash.

[g33k]

4 minutes ago, mfbrandi said:

But this is true of people in general, including non-chaotic non-illuminates.

...

Yes, yes it is.

That's the point; I did say it was a terrible moral quandary, after all!

Edited September 25, 2023 by g33k