Chalana Arroy Cult Strictures and their interpretation.

[Akhôrahil]

On 6/21/2017 at 11:33 AM, Joerg said:

I expect most Gloranthan healing to happen without overt magic use from the healer, but providing conditions that allow the natural magic of the living body to heal itself - bandages, splints, salves, ointments, fumes.

While I would normally tend to agree with this, the Guide indicates otherwise - that physical damage is routinely healed with magic.

p. 9: "Injuries are not as serious on Glorantha as they are in our world, for most physical damage and infection can usually be healed by one’s friends or family, or at least by someone local. This contrasts with life on Earth, where many people’s sole recourse for serious injury is to journey to highly-paid specialists found only in urban centers. However, the ease with which magic heals wounds means that violence is even more popular in Glorantha as a way to settle disputes than it is on Earth."

Edited June 26, 2017 by Akhôrahil

[Joerg]

1 hour ago, Akhôrahil said:

While I would normally tend to agree with this, the Guide indicates otherwise - that physical damage is routinely healed with magic.

p. 9: "Injuries are not as serious on Glorantha as they are in our world, for most physical damage and infection can usually be healed by one’s friends or family, or at least by someone local. This contrasts with life on Earth, where many people’s sole recourse for serious injury is to journey to highly-paid specialists found only in urban centers. However, the ease with which magic heals wounds means that violence is even more popular in Glorantha as a way to settle disputes than it is on Earth."

Sure. Still, there is Gimpy's, with its three amputated proprietors. Often enough the available healing magic is a lot less than the demand for it. This is especially made clear for the availability of resurrections whenever that possibility is mentioned.

You're probably good when your side is the one taking the battlefield.

Having near instant healing available for the first moderately serious wounds means that your party will push on, collecting the next such set, and so on, until the high-powered healing options are used up, the lesser options stitch up the absolute minimum required to continue, and yet another encounter inflicts new wounds. In other words, the normal course of an adventure.

Chalana Arroy's son and subcult Arroin is the patron of normal healing.

[Jon Hunter]

On 2017-6-20 at 1:26 PM, Darius West said:

According to Cults of Prax when you join Chalana Arroy as a lay member you swear an oath to "never harm a living creature and to aid all within the limits of your ability".  At the same time you swear never to learn any combat abilities.  For the latter it is fine if you knew how to fight before you joined Chalana Arroy, but you must put such things behind you.

So the question is, how do Chalana Arroy cultists cope with their radical pacifist agenda when it entirely collapses into paradox?  For example:

1) The Broo Baby conundrum.  A victim of broo rape is going to die unless the broo baby inside them is removed, and it can only be removed by killing the broo baby.  Thus do you allow chaos to live and the victim to die?

2) Diseases are technically alive, and curing them is effectively killing the disease, which is harming a living creature and therefore against Chalana Arroy's requirements.  And if diseases aren't alive, why not?  Are they more or less alive than a whirlvish or an elemental?  Where exactly is the line drawn?

3) You can grow healing herbs but you cannot pick them because that will harm a living creature.  Or don't plants count?  If plants don't count as living creatures, how do Aldryami feel about that?

4) You cannot perform surgery because that involves cutting people with a knife, and that is technically harming a living creature and using a weapon to do so.

5)  Do the undead count as living creatures for the purposes of harming them, or can Chalana Arroy cultists cut loose on the undead with their childhood weapon skills provided they don't increase their skills subsequently?

6) If a living shaman attacks a Chalana Arroy cultist in spirit combat, are Chalana Arroy cultists unable to fight back in spirit combat because it will potentially harm the shaman?

7) Can a Chalana Arroy use a shield to defend the fallen?  Or is a shield a weapon?  You can certainly use a shield as a weapon, and there is the chance that the attacker will fumble as a result of being parried and cut their own leg off (for example).  Will that constitute a breaking of the oath?  What about dodging?  It is certainly a combat skill, but does that mean that a Chalana Arroy is not allowed to step out of the way of a charging Rhino?

8) Is a Chalana Arroy thrown out of the cult if they stub their toe or burn themselves cooking?  Technically their little accident has caused them to harm a living creature, i.e. themselves.  What about accidental malpractice?

9) To what extent does the "harm no living creature" issue impact on a Chalana Arroy's diet?  Are they all "fallists" (fruit only), "breatheairians" (sylph eaters), egg eaters (provided the eggs aren't fertilized), or can they eat meat and veg if someone else did the killing?  At what point are they required to take moral responsibility for a death so they can eat?  This is a minor issue compared to some of the others.

10) Are you permanently banned from Chalana Arroy for absent-mindedly sitting on a bug and squashing it?

11) Given that riding a horse can cause saddle chafing even with a blanket, are Chalana Arroy cultists unable to ride a mount?  Does riding constitute a combat skill?

Hint) Be very careful that your answers don't create fresh paradoxes.

So, as you can hopefully see, there need to be some points of clarification on these issues.  To what degree are Chalana Arroys subject to regional variance in the interpretation of their cult oaths too?  For example, is an Aldrayami Chalana Arroy more or less squeamish about killing plants for food and medicine? Also, how rigorously is the oath enforced?  Is breaching the oath an instant and permanent dismissal from the cult, which may constitute harming the individual worshipper by destroying their livelihood, or is the oath breaker merely required to atone?

The closest real life alternative to the Chalana Arroy oath would be the Jains, and their philosophy is so rigorously anti-harm that some Jain holy folk walk naked so the insects may feed on them freely, and wear only a huge broom-skirt that sweeps the path ahead of them of bugs (of course they completely ignore the billions of micro-organisms their body destroys every day just by breathing in and out).  Increasing the the poor Jains become masochistic prisoners of their own compassion, and in many ways Chalana Arroys have the distinct potential to go the same way.  In short, it is very difficult to be a Chalana Arroy unless you are also an illuminate.

Are these serious questions or an exercise in pedantry?
 

[TRose]

 Two thing about Broo and Broo rape  First Chalana Arroy has worshippers among the Broo, The Wild Healer of the Rockwood and a few in Doraster.  Some Orlanthi will state its not really Chalana Arroy that is worshipped by the Broo in Doraster but  no one say that about the Wild Healer.

 Now about Broo rape and Broo larva.

  Years ago while in Thailand I was told the told that local  fishermen thought of themselves as good Buddhist . And they did not kill the fish they just  let them come onto their boat and if they died that was the will of the Gods  and it would be a shame to waste the meat of the fish .

 A similar attitude could be with cure chaos wound cast on some one pregnant with a broo larva.
The spell could expel the broo larva   unharmed from the host . And if the larva is unable to survive outside its host body well that bad for it.

 Might mention I don't see most Gods in Glorantha being rules lawyer when it come to the behavior of their followers( Well Solar deities maybe)

[Darius West]

7 hours ago, Jon Hunter said:

Are these serious questions or an exercise in pedantry?
 

Isn't religion and its many restrictions always both serious and an exercise in pedantry?  Consider Leviticus, Manu, the monastic laws of the Buddha, Canon law, systems of taboo, Islamic Koran based jurisprudence etc.  The fact is that most religions seek to regulate human behavior, often quite minutely, and that generates situations where the teachings of the religion come into conflict with each other.  In such situations most religions have a rationalized system of answers as to how a good worshipper should proceed, and which of their proscriptions should take precedence.  Chalana Arroy is interesting in that its cult restrictions of pacifism have strong precedence IRL, specifically with Jainism, and Jains have a great deal of difficulty adhering to their beliefs, such that the beliefs if taken to their logical conclusion become an onerous encumbrance that eventually kills the worshipper.  Don't you think that when considering a cult that shares so many beliefs with Jainism as Chalana Arroy does, we need to elaborate on why Chalana Arroy doesn't become a long term suicide pact like Jainism?  

[Jon Hunter]

5 hours ago, Darius West said:

Isn't religion and its many restrictions always both serious and an exercise in pedantry?  Consider Leviticus, Manu, the monastic laws of the Buddha, Canon law, systems of taboo, Islamic Koran based jurisprudence etc.  The fact is that most religions seek to regulate human behavior, often quite minutely, and that generates situations where the teachings of the religion come into conflict with each other.  In such situations most religions have a rationalized system of answers as to how a good worshipper should proceed, and which of their proscriptions should take precedence.  Chalana Arroy is interesting in that its cult restrictions of pacifism have strong precedence IRL, specifically with Jainism, and Jains have a great deal of difficulty adhering to their beliefs, such that the beliefs if taken to their logical conclusion become an onerous encumbrance that eventually kills the worshipper.  Don't you think that when considering a cult that shares so many beliefs with Jainism as Chalana Arroy does, we need to elaborate on why Chalana Arroy doesn't become a long term suicide pact like Jainism?  

OK as practitioner of spirituality, I can see you have stumbled upon the dichotomy between dead religion and live spirituality.

The letter of the law kills the spirit of the law brings life.   - Paraphrase of the Book of Romans

I see Glorantha as a  world which enacts with spirituality reality each day and thus the balance is much more towards the live spirituality than blind religious Literalism, than much of the religion we find within our world.

A clever man called Hans Kung wrote a long book called the church, in it he separated the christian faith into its essence and its form, its form is appropriate to a culture and time, it is transient, can change and is an application of an unchanging central essence into a particular culture and time. The essence is what is unchanging, the core , what would destroy or completely alter the faith it changed

If people obsess about the form of faith ( similar to your questions ) they stand a chance of loosing the essence, as an interpretation in one situation maybe not be relevant for another, or even for different believers at different points in there faith.

So Christianity (broadly) views Levitical Law as a explanation of a faith in a time and place, and a blind obedience to it brings death and now is misplaced, but Jesus was able to sum up in the essence of all of Levitical Law and its interpretations (yokes) in "Love the Lord your God with ..... and love you neighbor as you love yourself."

I see these same dichotomy's happening in Gloranthan cultures but generally a lot more emphasis on living faith than stale religion.

 

Edited June 27, 2017 by Jon Hunter

[kaydet]

17 hours ago, Jon Hunter said:

If people obsess about the form of faith ( similar to your questions ) they stand a chance of loosing the essence, as an interpretation in one situation maybe not be relevant for another, or even for different believers at different points in there faith.

Such as the divide between the eastern and western branches of Christianity, or between Sunni and Shia Islam.

I feel that the adherents of Chalana Arroy would not be particularly prone to quibble about the "wording" of their cult taboos.

[MOB]

16 minutes ago, kaydet said:

Such as the divide between the eastern and western branches of Christianity, or between Sunni and Shia Islam.

I feel that the adherents of Chalana Arroy would not be particularly prone to quibble about the "wording" of their cult taboos.

Sweepers and Keepers, as @jajagappa mentioned earlier.

Neither school is formal, nor do initiates choose one or the other way, but it is simply the way that the Healers think about the world.

Though the Sweepers believe that life is sacred, they only go so far as to keep the living creatures swept away from the Hospital. The Keepers, on the other hand, try to avoid stepping on anything, and also leave insects, animals and in fact all living things unmolested and at peace. Where the Keepers reside or preside or are in the ascendant, such places are utterly infested with what others consider vermin. Insects crawl over everything (including the priestesses); plants grow in wild profusion through all the brickwork, etc.

 

[kaydet]

I think that speaks to @Jon Hunter's point, right? That the healers are concerned with the moral and spiritual interpretation of their rule, rather than a dogmatic adherence to one doctrine or another.

[Darius West]

On 6/27/2017 at 9:37 PM, Jon Hunter said:

OK as practitioner of spirituality, I can see you have stumbled upon the dichotomy between dead religion and live spirituality.

The letter of the law kills the spirit of the law brings life.   - Paraphrase of the Book of Romans

I see Glorantha as a  world which enacts with spirituality reality each day and thus the balance is much more towards the live spirituality than blind religious Literalism, than much of the religion we find within our world.

A clever man called Hans Kung wrote a long book called the church, in it he separated the christian faith into its essence and its form, its form is appropriate to a culture and time, it is transient, can change and is an application of an unchanging central essence into a particular culture and time. The essence is what is unchanging, the core , what would destroy or completely alter the faith it changed

If people obsess about the form of faith ( similar to your questions ) they stand a chance of loosing the essence, as an interpretation in one situation maybe not be relevant for another, or even for different believers at different points in there faith.

So Christianity (broadly) views Levitical Law as a explanation of a faith in a time and place, and a blind obedience to it brings death and now is misplaced, but Jesus was able to sum up in the essence of all of Levitical Law and its interpretations (yokes) in "Love the Lord your God with ..... and love you neighbor as you love yourself."

I see these same dichotomy's happening in Gloranthan cultures but generally a lot more emphasis on living faith than stale religion.

11

As a practitioner of spirituality, you should understand why an argumentum ad verecundiam holds little currency, especially to an atheist with a theology doctorate, but rather than merely take offense (for I refuse to be so limited and closed minded) I will carefully dissect what I disagree with about your comment in a careful and logically consistent fashion in keeping with my training.  I am well aware of Hans Kung and his work, and I am not alone in finding all notions of a "philosophy of essences" to be a fallacy; certainly not Kung at his best.  I personally found Kung to be at the height of his powers when he was refuting "Papal Infallibility" (Though it might be argued that if the Pope is always wrong, he is indeed infallibly wrong). There is perhaps a measure of irony in that you are defending the notion of a living spirituality against a dead legalism with reference to a theologian, given that most people who make such a point take a very dim view of theology and theologists as the epitome of the dead legalistic intellectualism that they so object to.  Returning to the point of conjecture, philosophically speaking, any argument put forwards expressing a notion of an "essence" is very flawed indeed, for how can you ever be certain that you have indeed captured the precious but elusive "essence" and not merely engaged in a form of reductionist summary? Human thought is not like plant matter that can be distilled to create a fragrant concentrate called an "essence", that is an analogy, and analogies inevitably collapse and become exercises in absurdism if tested a little.  If indeed the letter of the law kills the spirit of the law, then why indeed is there any written law at all?  Well, obviously a law must be transcribed for posterity to guide the living, and once that is the case, according to the post modernists, one cannot properly every grasp the true intention of the words, and nor in fact is the author the sole proprietor of its meaning.  This postmodern criticism finds itself at odds with much of religion which makes all arguments and rulings within a framework of a claim to some absolute and transcendental truth handed down from a superior being that lays claim to a superior reality principle. The paraphrasing of the Book of Romans you put forwards is just such a claim, and must be treated, ultimately as merely a rhetorical device to be used to silence dissent.  For how indeed can one person's interpretation of what is the letter of the law and what is the spirit of the law ipso facto be superior save by an argumentum ad verecundiam which is merely an exercise in hollow authoritarianism?  If a person finds themselves at odds with an interpretation of religious law, they should be allowed to dispute it, not merely be silenced. After all, who can truly say that some people know God more deeply than other people when it is considered a matter of fact within Christian theological discourse that God is completely beyond human comprehension?  And as God is beyond human comprehension, is not the worship of such a god merely the worship of one's own ignorance via the idolatrous philsophical proxy of an unknowable deity?    As for the quagmire that is the Christian interpretation of what Jesus really said and what Jesus really meant when referring to Levitical Law, please don't assume the matter can be summarized in a single two line sentence, given the number of doctoral dissertations on the subject, and the degree to which these dissertations find themselves at odds.  The fact is and remains that Christianity is the most schismatic religion in the world, with over 30,000 sects in the USA alone, so to make the claim that someone has a more authentic spirituality than someone else is the sort of fraught statement that cannot be proven with reference to evidence. Even if one can prove the pedigree of one's gnosis with miracles, lets face facts, Penn and Teller did most of Christ's miracles by way of humor, and they are atheists who make no claims beyond their ability as stage magicians.

Okay Jon, now that it out the way, let's talk Glorantha.  

By saying there is a separation between living and dead religion you are, I think unintentionally, engaging in a form of prejudice.  You seem to be assuming that religious legalism is somehow not a valid form of spirituality, which is odd given that Law is so important to so many religions in Glorantha and one of the central mythic narratives is the conflict between the deities of Law and those of Chaos.  This is more evident among the Malkioni and Dwarves perhaps, but every religion and cult have dogma; a core set of beliefs and expected behaviors and responses that must be adhered to if you wish to belong, and these must be of a somewhat restrictive nature.  The notion being that the deity becomes an archetype to which the worshipper seeks to align themselves to or mimic in order to form a closer association and thus incarnate their deity into themselves as a form of adorcism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adorcism, and thus gain power.  

So where is the prejudice?  I think you are missing the humor of the situation.  The gods themselves are now ossified relics who cannot change, save incrementally through the multiple hero quests of their most devout followers.  It is like a metaphor for institutional reform.  The whole situation is reminiscent of that wonderfully dark and humorous Terry Gilliam movie "Brazil", where the hero is a bureaucrat doing battle with the inertia of the system.  Now to suppose that religious institutions are only going to be good, and the people within them perfect exemplars of their faith, fair-minded and decent, full of the living gnosis of their deity is to miss a central truth about the situation. If humans can be small minded bastards, so too can gods.  Deities and hero quests don't inevitably only change deities for the better.  If you are a deity who is consistently worshiped by obnoxious people who are sticklers for the rules, you, the deity, will gradually become more like the people who follow you, for good or ill.  In many ways this will be exaggerated, as heroes tend to be exaggerations of certain human tendencies.  I got that straight from Greg Stafford in person btw. So just as the worshipers are trying to become closer to their deity, they are actually reducing their deity's personality to the cult dogma through the feedback effect that worship produces.  The whole thing will degenerate into a form of claustrophobic and incestuous "village politics", or worse, academic politics a la Sayre's Law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayre's_law.

Back to Chalana Arroy.  It says that her worshipers can't kill anything, they can't use weapons, and are not allowed to destroy anything.  That is an horrifically dogmatic prohibition even for someone living a privileged life where most things are done for them.  Worse still, in Glorantha life is often cheap and nasty, and many people make a living by being effective killers, so life as a worshiper of Chalana Arroy can be very hard indeed.  In order to maintain their connection to the goddess, the worshiper needs to keep their vows, so the issue of what happens if they squash a bug accidentally is really actually pretty important, as is the issue of what the penalty for such a "heinous transgression" is. This isn't dead spirituality, this is the issue of a defining oath that forms the core dogma of a living belief system, with rewards and punishments for observance and failure respectively.  Now at one level you can argue that this is a form of Spiritual Materialism, but in Glorantha with its immanent powers that is normal, and the notion of a transcendental reward from a transcendental deity is as absurd as it would be to the highland tribesfolk of Papua New Guinea, who routinely jettison underperforming gods in favour of more responsive ones.

Simply put, there has never been a religion that doesn't impose legalistic strictures on its worshipers.  If this is somehow "dead spirituality" why is it utterly prevalent ?  Even Aleister Crowley's Thelema made pretty unusual demands of its worshipers while simultaneously claiming "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law", and then subsequently added a second clause (because arguably "do what thou wilt" didn't really mean "do what I want" enough) and so "Love is the Law, love under will" was added, and all the while pretty much forced members to transgress taboos they may not have felt comfortable about.  So even in the real world equivalent of a chaos cult you run into strictures of inclusion, if not omission. Surely we must develop a sense of humor about this amusing human propensity to demand the imposition of strictures on them as part of their worship?

The point here is role playing.  Having unreasonable strictures imposed on your character is a good deal of the fun of the situation.  They provide a sense of gravity and direction. You learn to orient your character according to the strictures, and they become an essential part of the character and therefore the story.  If you can just do anything you want, there are no limits, and so no sense of achievement when you overcome challenges with effectively one hand tied behind your back.  You need conflict and adversity to make a story, and cult strictures should be as much an adversary as the Lunar Empire, something you need to accommodate even if it is often very uncomfortable.  And yes, if a Chalana Arroy is incautious and squashes a bug, there should be a penalty, it is, after all, a better story for it.  The point here is, how much of a penalty should apply for any given transgression, and what indeed constitutes a transgression and what doesn't.  So Jon, I urge you to develop a sense of humor about religious dogma and incorporate more religious dogma into your Glorantha.  I have never known a game to be poorer for it, and it might surprise you how much richer the world feels for including it.

Edited June 29, 2017 by Darius West

[Jon Hunter]

3 hours ago, Darius West said:

As a practitioner of spirituality, you should understand why an argumentum ad verecundiam holds little currency, especially to an atheist with a theology doctorate, but rather than merely take offense (for I refuse to be so limited and closed minded) I will carefully dissect what I disagree with about your comment in a careful and logically consistent fashion in keeping with my training.  I am well aware of Hans Kung and his work, and I am not alone in finding all notions of a "philosophy of essences" to be a fallacy; certainly not Kung at his best.  I personally found Kung to be at the height of his powers when he was refuting "Papal Infallibility" (Though it might be argued that if the Pope is always wrong, he is indeed infallibly wrong). There is perhaps a measure of irony in that you are defending the notion of a living spirituality against a dead legalism with reference to a theologian, given that most people who make such a point take a very dim view of theology and theologists as the epitome of the dead legalistic intellectualism that they so object to.  Returning to the point of conjecture, philosophically speaking, any argument put forwards expressing a notion of an "essence" is very flawed indeed, for how can you ever be certain that you have indeed captured the precious but elusive "essence" and not merely engaged in a form of reductionist summary? Human thought is not like plant matter that can be distilled to create a fragrant concentrate called an "essence", that is an analogy, and analogies inevitably collapse and become exercises in absurdism if tested a little.  If indeed the letter of the law kills the spirit of the law, then why indeed is there any written law at all?  Well, obviously a law must be transcribed for posterity to guide the living, and once that is the case, according to the post modernists, one cannot properly every grasp the true intention of the words, and nor in fact is the author the sole proprietor of its meaning.  This postmodern criticism finds itself at odds with much of religion which makes all arguments and rulings within a framework of a claim to some absolute and transcendental truth handed down from a superior being that lays claim to a superior reality principle. The paraphrasing of the Book of Romans you put forwards is just such a claim, and must be treated, ultimately as merely a rhetorical device to be used to silence dissent.  For how indeed can one person's interpretation of what is the letter of the law and what is the spirit of the law ipso facto be superior save by an argumentum ad verecundiam which is merely an exercise in hollow authoritarianism?  If a person finds themselves at odds with an interpretation of religious law, they should be allowed to dispute it, not merely be silenced. After all, who can truly say that some people know God more deeply than other people when it is considered a matter of fact within Christian theological discourse that God is completely beyond human comprehension?  And as God is beyond human comprehension, is not the worship of such a god merely the worship of one's own ignorance via the idolatrous philsophical proxy of an unknowable deity?    As for the quagmire that is the Christian interpretation of what Jesus really said and what Jesus really meant when referring to Levitical Law, please don't assume the matter can be summarized in a single two line sentence, given the number of doctoral dissertations on the subject, and the degree to which these dissertations find themselves at odds.  The fact is and remains that Christianity is the most schismatic religion in the world, with over 30,000 sects in the USA alone, so to make the claim that someone has a more authentic spirituality than someone else is the sort of fraught statement that cannot be proven with reference to evidence. Even if one can prove the pedigree of one's gnosis with miracles, lets face facts, Penn and Teller did most of Christ's miracles by way of humor, and they are atheists who make no claims beyond their ability as stage magicians.

Okay Jon, now that it out the way, let's talk Glorantha.  

By saying there is a separation between living and dead religion you are, I think unintentionally, engaging in a form of prejudice.  You seem to be assuming that religious legalism is somehow not a valid form of spirituality, which is odd given that Law is so important to so many religions in Glorantha and one of the central mythic narratives is the conflict between the deities of Law and those of Chaos.  This is more evident among the Malkioni and Dwarves perhaps, but every religion and cult have dogma; a core set of beliefs and expected behaviors and responses that must be adhered to if you wish to belong, and these must be of a somewhat restrictive nature.  The notion being that the deity becomes an archetype to which the worshipper seeks to align themselves to or mimic in order to form a closer association and thus incarnate their deity into themselves as a form of adorcism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adorcism, and thus gain power.  

So where is the prejudice?  I think you are missing the humor of the situation.  The gods themselves are now ossified relics who cannot change, save incrementally through the multiple hero quests of their most devout followers.  It is like a metaphor for institutional reform.  The whole situation is reminiscent of that wonderfully dark and humorous Terry Gilliam movie "Brazil", where the hero is a bureaucrat doing battle with the inertia of the system.  Now to suppose that religious institutions are only going to be good, and the people within them perfect exemplars of their faith, fair-minded and decent, full of the living gnosis of their deity is to miss a central truth about the situation. If humans can be small minded bastards, so too can gods.  Deities and hero quests don't inevitably only change deities for the better.  If you are a deity who is consistently worshiped by obnoxious people who are sticklers for the rules, you, the deity, will gradually become more like the people who follow you, for good or ill.  In many ways this will be exaggerated, as heroes tend to be exaggerations of certain human tendencies.  I got that straight from Greg Stafford in person btw. So just as the worshipers are trying to become closer to their deity, they are actually reducing their deity's personality to the cult dogma through the feedback effect that worship produces.  The whole thing will degenerate into a form of claustrophobic and incestuous "village politics", or worse, academic politics a la Sayre's Law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayre's_law.

Back to Chalana Arroy.  It says that her worshipers can't kill anything, they can't use weapons, and are not allowed to destroy anything.  That is an horrifically dogmatic prohibition even for someone living a privileged life where most things are done for them.  Worse still, in Glorantha life is often cheap and nasty, and many people make a living by being effective killers, so life as a worshiper of Chalana Arroy can be very hard indeed.  In order to maintain their connection to the goddess, the worshiper needs to keep their vows, so the issue of what happens if they squash a bug accidentally is really actually pretty important, as is the issue of what the penalty for such a "heinous transgression" is. This isn't dead spirituality, this is the issue of a defining oath that forms the core dogma of a living belief system, with rewards and punishments for observance and failure respectively.  Now at one level you can argue that this is a form of Spiritual Materialism, but in Glorantha with its immanent powers that is normal, and the notion of a transcendental reward from a transcendental deity is as absurd as it would be to the highland tribesfolk of Papua New Guinea, who routinely jettison underperforming gods in favour of more responsive ones.

Simply put, there has never been a religion that doesn't impose legalistic strictures on its worshipers.  If this is somehow "dead spirituality" why is it utterly prevalent ?  Even Aleister Crowley's Thelema made pretty unusual demands of its worshipers while simultaneously claiming "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law", and then subsequently added a second clause (because arguably "do what thou wilt" didn't really mean "do what I want" enough) and so "Love is the Law, love under will" was added, and all the while pretty much forced members to transgress taboos they may not have felt comfortable about.  So even in the real world equivalent of a chaos cult you run into strictures of inclusion, if not omission. Surely we must develop a sense of humor about this amusing human propensity to demand the imposition of strictures on them as part of their worship?

The point here is role playing.  Having unreasonable strictures imposed on your character is a good deal of the fun of the situation.  They provide a sense of gravity and direction. You learn to orient your character according to the strictures, and they become an essential part of the character and therefore the story.  If you can just do anything you want, there are no limits, and so no sense of achievement when you overcome challenges with effectively one hand tied behind your back.  You need conflict and adversity to make a story, and cult strictures should be as much an adversary as the Lunar Empire, something you need to accommodate even if it is often very uncomfortable.  And yes, if a Chalana Arroy is incautious and squashes a bug, there should be a penalty, it is, after all, a better story for it.  The point here is, how much of a penalty should apply for any given transgression, and what indeed constitutes a transgression and what doesn't.  So Jon, I urge you to develop a sense of humor about religious dogma and incorporate more religious dogma into your Glorantha.  I have never known a game to be poorer for it, and it might surprise you how much richer the world feels for including it.

too long too dense

 

[g33k]

43 minutes ago, Jon Hunter said:

too long too dense

YGMV  

 

[MOB]

On 2017-6-27 at 9:23 AM, TRose said:

Might mention I don't see most Gods in Glorantha being rules lawyer when it come to the behavior of their followers( Well Solar deities maybe)

The Brithini. Lack of adherence, even inadvertent breaking of the rules, is punished by aging. 

[Joerg]

11 hours ago, Darius West said:

By saying there is a separation between living and dead religion you are, I think unintentionally, engaging in a form of prejudice.  You seem to be assuming that religious legalism is somehow not a valid form of spirituality, which is odd given that Law is so important to so many religions in Glorantha and one of the central mythic narratives is the conflict between the deities of Law and those of Chaos.  

I think you are getting this wrong. Most of the rabid anti-Chaos gods are anything but deities of Law, and in several cases have as little regard for Law as they have for Chaos.

Gloranthan "Law" is tied to logic, as per the Malkioni definition.

The Cosmic Compromise is not an alliance against Chaos, it is a mutual agreement to avoid cataclysmic conflicts on a world that is held together by thin strands of spider silk and good will.

 

Yes, the cults have rules and demand certain behavior. This goes for the cults of Chaos, too, and for those of disorder as well. As such, your "Law vs. Chaos" view that dominates the Moorcock multiverse doesn't fit the relationship in Glorantha.

[Darius West]

2 hours ago, Joerg said:

I think you are getting this wrong. Most of the rabid anti-Chaos gods are anything but deities of Law, and in several cases have as little regard for Law as they have for Chaos.

Gloranthan "Law" is tied to logic, as per the Malkioni definition.

The Cosmic Compromise is not an alliance against Chaos, it is a mutual agreement to avoid cataclysmic conflicts on a world that is held together by thin strands of spider silk and good will.

 

Yes, the cults have rules and demand certain behavior. This goes for the cults of Chaos, too, and for those of disorder as well. As such, your "Law vs. Chaos" view that dominates the Moorcock multiverse doesn't fit the relationship in Glorantha.

Okay, but when Stormbull is more than half dead and calls out to the cosmos for a weapon to slay Wakboth, Glorantha reaches out and hands him a block of chocolate?  No, that doesn't sound right either.  I agree that the issue of Law vs. Chaos is not as monolithic and beat-you-over-the-head "clear cut" as Moorcock's multiverse, but it is unavoidably a major theme in the Gloranthan mythologies. Just because disorder deities are fairly competent at going berserk and fighting chaos doesn't invalidate this point.  Personally I think a well spelled up Hrestoli Cataphract is way more effective than a berserker.  It all comes down to the fact that berserking is an infantry game; you can't go berserk on a mount, ergo no 7d6 damage bonus +15 Damage Boost to your 1d10 lance.  Even Cacodemon has trouble with a good lance attack.

This also has little to do with the core argument I was putting forward, which is that taking a somewhat legalistic approach to cult restrictions actually enhances the game because it represents a very interesting roleplaying opportunity and adds colour to the world, even if that colour is a bit annoying.

[Darius West]

11 hours ago, Jon Hunter said:

too long too dense

 

Too terse, too flippant.

[Darius West]

6 hours ago, MOB said:

The Brithini. Lack of adherence, even inadvertent breaking of the rules, is punished by aging. 

Not only the Brithini, but also the Vadeli, if you get to it.  They both have the same problem, and I suspect the Vadeli are sneakier at rules lawyering.  Then there are the ossified Solar Pantheon and the similarly static and deeply legalistic Kralori with their magistrate culture.  Even the Orlanthi who say they favor change and the mobility rune have produced a very conservative and ossified society that has changed little in 1600 years.

On 6/28/2017 at 3:53 PM, kaydet said:

I think that speaks to @Jon Hunter's point, right? That the healers are concerned with the moral and spiritual interpretation of their rule, rather than a dogmatic adherence to one doctrine or another.

Okay, but the notion of things being spiritual in Glorantha is redundant, as everything is spiritual in a magical world, and that leaves the issue of what is moral which is inevitably a matter of dogmatic adherence because different cults consider different things to be moral and place different emphasis on even the morals they agree on.  Ergo, the moral arbiter of the individual's behavior is their cult dogma.

Edited June 30, 2017 by Darius West

[MOB]

1 hour ago, Darius West said:

Not only the Brithini, but also the Vadeli, if you get to it.  They both have the same problem, and I suspect the Vadeli are sneakier at rules lawyering.  

I think that is the fundamental difference between the Brithini and the Vadeli. Both races are effectively immortal if they continue to abide within their rules and strictures, but while the Brithini live it to the letter, the Vadeli shamelessly exploit every possible loophole. Even though they concoct absurdly elaborate explanations to explain what they are doing is within the rules, they almost always seem to get away with it unscathed. Not so the Brithini.

[Joerg]

33 minutes ago, Darius West said:

Okay, but when Stormbull is more than half dead and calls out to the cosmos for a weapon to slay Wakboth, Glorantha reaches out and hands him a block of chocolate?  No, that doesn't sound right either.

 

It is a piece of Truestone. Embodied Stasis.

33 minutes ago, Darius West said:

I agree that the issue of Law vs. Chaos is not as monolithic and beat-you-over-the-head "clear cut" as Moorcock's multiverse, but it is unavoidably a major theme in the Gloranthan mythologies.

Where is Zzabur - the Sorcerer who wields Law - active against Chaos? He is fighting the Vadeli for different reasons, and instrumental in destroying the Spike, thereby enabling the Void to enter.

It is not Law vs. Chaos. It is Creation vs. annihilation.

33 minutes ago, Darius West said:

Just because disorder deities are fairly competent at going berserk and fighting chaos doesn't invalidate this point.  Personally I think a well spelled up Hrestoli Cataphract is way more effective than a berserker.

Fighting chaos on a steed better had that steed bereft of its own will, or under the influence of the Storm Bull (as awakened steeds of Storm Bull berserks can be).

33 minutes ago, Darius West said:

 It all comes down to the fact that berserking is an infantry game; you can't go berserk on a mount, ergo no 7d6 damage bonus +15 Damage Boost to your 1d10 lance.  Even Cacodemon has trouble with a good lance attack.

Oh, out-munchkining Chaos creatures. Well, put the berserk on the bison or rhino, and make that lance attack before you heft your axe.

33 minutes ago, Darius West said:

This also has little to do with the core argument I was putting forward, which is that taking a somewhat legalistic approach to cult restrictions actually enhances the game because it represents a very interesting roleplaying opportunity and adds colour to the world, even if that colour is a bit annoying.

I usually avoid this as a general rule.  My old Heortland game had widely different Lunar occupation officers, noble and terrorist rebels or rebel symps. Nobody was evil or good because of political, cultic or ethnic affiliation (except perhaps for the Dara Happan Solars, who didn't really offer any Orlanthi-compatible noble opposition, but mostly vicious revanchism), and before the Lunars a similar array of Rokari affiliates.

Here's my take on stereotypical cultists:

http://www,sartar,de/glorantha/oldsite/npc-hrut.html

Practically all of my organsations have their dogmatic pains in the posterior and other members with their unexpected quirks which may make them loveable or execrable.

 

[M Helsdon]

9 hours ago, Darius West said:

Even the Orlanthi who say they favor change and the mobility rune have produced a very conservative and ossified society that has changed little in 1600 years.

Just some changes such as the World Council, the Second Council and the Broken Council (leading to the Bright Empire of Nysalor) and the EWF. Modern Orlanthi are conservative to what they believe are the 'old ways' because of the catastrophes those led to, but the Hero Wars will set those of central Genertela on the road to Empire, again. A few groups on the periphery may not have changed very much, but as a whole, there's been ongoing Change.

[soltakss]

On 6/20/2017 at 1:26 PM, Darius West said:

According to Cults of Prax when you join Chalana Arroy as a lay member you swear an oath to "never harm a living creature and to aid all within the limits of your ability".  At the same time you swear never to learn any combat abilities.  For the latter it is fine if you knew how to fight before you joined Chalana Arroy, but you must put such things behind you.

So the question is, how do Chalana Arroy cultists cope with their radical pacifist agenda when it entirely collapses into paradox?  For example:

 

The below answers are all in my opinion and may be wrong, but this is how we played Chalana Arroy cultists in the past.

The Chalana Aroy principle is that members of Chalana Arroy cannot harm a living being by choice.

1) The Broo Baby conundrum.  A victim of broo rape is going to die unless the broo baby inside them is removed, and it can only be removed by killing the broo baby.  Thus do you allow chaos to live and the victim to die?

Yes, that is what Orlanthi are for, to kill chaos. The healer can try to heal the pregnant person afterwards, but cannot harm the broo baby. 

I think that Cure Chaos Wound can be used to cure a gestating broo, but that might have been a house rule.

Hero Wars had a spell that forced broobirth to spontaneously abort, but I am not sure if this was retained. If it still exists then that could be used as the broo larva is not harmed by the CA cultist and they can still let it die or get an orlanthi to kill it.

 

2) Diseases are technically alive, and curing them is effectively killing the disease, which is harming a living creature and therefore against Chalana Arroy's requirements.  And if diseases aren't alive, why not?  Are they more or less alive than a whirlvish or an elemental?  Where exactly is the line drawn?

 

Diseases are not alive. They are caused by disease spirits or by magic but are not themselves alive. Spirits are not living beings and can be harmed with impunity.

 

3) You can grow healing herbs but you cannot pick them because that will harm a living creature.  Or don't plants count?  If plants don't count as living creatures, how do Aldryami feel about that?

Plants don't count. Animate plants might count and intelligent plants count, but picking a fruit is the same as pulling out a hair, so is probably OK.

4) You cannot perform surgery because that involves cutting people with a knife, and that is technically harming a living creature and using a weapon to do so.

Yes, that is correct.

Chalana Arroy cultists do not perform surgery, at least that is what we played.

 

5)  Do the undead count as living creatures for the purposes of harming them, or can Chalana Arroy cultists cut loose on the undead with their childhood weapon skills provided they don't increase their skills subsequently?

Undead don't count as they are perversions of life. Chala Arroy Cultists can quite safely bash undead to their hearts content. In fact, we had a Chalana Arroy Healer NPC who was armed with two shields that she used to bludgeon undead, she was a Jack o'Bear as well ...

 

6) If a living shaman attacks a Chalana Arroy cultist in spirit combat, are Chalana Arroy cultists unable to fight back in spirit combat because it will potentially harm the shaman?

Yes, a Chalana Arroy cultist can engae in Spirit Combat against a spirit, as spirtis are not living beings. Discorporate shamans are spirits, so don't count. 

 

7) Can a Chalana Arroy use a shield to defend the fallen?  Or is a shield a weapon?  You can certainly use a shield as a weapon, and there is the chance that the attacker will fumble as a result of being parried and cut their own leg off (for example).  Will that constitute a breaking of the oath?  What about dodging?  It is certainly a combat skill, but does that mean that a Chalana Arroy is not allowed to step out of the way of a charging Rhino?

Shields are fine and can be used to defend the CA cultist and to bash undead, see above. Bashing her own leg is fine, as the restriction applies to other beings. Fumbling and bashing nearest friend probably breaks a vow, so don;t stand to close to a shield-wielding CA cultist.

Dodging is fine as it is not offensive. I would nguess that CA cultists are not trained in dodging, though.

 

8) Is a Chalana Arroy thrown out of the cult if they stub their toe or burn themselves cooking?  Technically their little accident has caused them to harm a living creature, i.e. themselves.  What about accidental malpractice?

No, hurting oneself is fine, they just cannot harm anyone else.

Accidental malpratice probaly results in a temporary suspension of cult powers, in the same way as becoming inactive, but a short HeroQuest should sort that out.

9) To what extent does the "harm no living creature" issue impact on a Chalana Arroy's diet?  Are they all "fallists" (fruit only), "breatheairians" (sylph eaters), egg eaters (provided the eggs aren't fertilized), or can they eat meat and veg if someone else did the killing?  At what point are they required to take moral responsibility for a death so they can eat?  This is a minor issue compared to some of the others.

Chalana Arroy cannot themselves harm another being. So, they couldn't kill a sheep and then cook it. However, they can happily watch a sheep being butchered and eat its meat.

Some are vegetarians, as they don't believe in killing others.

 

10) Are you permanently banned from Chalana Arroy for absent-mindedly sitting on a bug and squashing it?

No.

If you want to be harsh then tyhis might cause the cultist to become inactive for a while, perhaps until the next cult ceremony.

11) Given that riding a horse can cause saddle chafing even with a blanket, are Chalana Arroy cultists unable to ride a mount?  Does riding constitute a combat skill?

No, this is fine.

Riding is not a combat skill.

Ordering a warhorse to attack someone would probably count as breaking cult vows. Sitting on a horse that then attacks someone of its own accord is fine.

Hint) Be very careful that your answers don't create fresh paradoxes.

Thanks for telling me how to answer your questions.

 

So, as you can hopefully see, there need to be some points of clarification on these issues.  To what degree are Chalana Arroys subject to regional variance in the interpretation of their cult oaths too?  For example, is an Aldrayami Chalana Arroy more or less squeamish about killing plants for food and medicine? Also, how rigorously is the oath enforced?  Is breaching the oath an instant and permanent dismissal from the cult, which may constitute harming the individual worshipper by destroying their livelihood, or is the oath breaker merely required to atone?

The cult has no regional variation in its vows. 

Aldryami are fine with killing plants as they can use Food Song to send the spriti back to Aldrya. They wouldn't kill intelligent or animate plants anyway.

Praxian Chalana Arroys would not use Peaceful Cut to send a slaughtered anmial's spirit back to Eiritha as that involves killing an animal, which is not allwoed.

Is that an inconsistency? Maybe, but it is fine as plants are not living beings in the Chalana Arroy sense.

The closest real life alternative to the Chalana Arroy oath would be the Jains, and their philosophy is so rigorously anti-harm that some Jain holy folk walk naked so the insects may feed on them freely, and wear only a huge broom-skirt that sweeps the path ahead of them of bugs (of course they completely ignore the billions of micro-organisms their body destroys every day just by breathing in and out).  Increasing the the poor Jains become masochistic prisoners of their own compassion, and in many ways Chalana Arroys have the distinct potential to go the same way.  In short, it is very difficult to be a Chalana Arroy unless you are also an illuminate.

 

Sure, play it that way if you want, but I don't think it is intended that way.

Chalana Arroys are fine with Orlanthi or Storm Bullers doing their killing for them, for example, so they are not like Jains in that respect.

[scott-martin]

On 6/30/2017 at 8:00 AM, Joerg said:

Where is Zzabur - the Sorcerer who wields Law - active against Chaos? He is fighting the Vadeli for different reasons, and instrumental in destroying the Spike, thereby enabling the Void to enter.

 

It's almost as though the blue man were blind to what we post-Arkat people would consider "chaos" despite all his fine talk of Law, even through his ambitions (malkion the sacrifice) greased the road through which it entered creation!

But back to Chalana, I'm fuzzy on the mythological nature of poison, which might be a useful tangent to explore here. Poison feels completely mundane in the RQ materials, generally best treated (and brewed) with secular skills instead of spells. On the other hand, poison will affect a lycanthrope while broo are specifically immune to poison along with disease. And of course iron "poisons" some people and not others. Is there a chaos god of poison? Does its use damage the world? Or is this a secret of Gloranthan "alchemy?"

Edited July 2, 2017 by scott-martin
iron

[Darius West]

On 7/1/2017 at 4:46 AM, M Helsdon said:

Just some changes such as the World Council, the Second Council and the Broken Council (leading to the Bright Empire of Nysalor) and the EWF. Modern Orlanthi are conservative to what they believe are the 'old ways' because of the catastrophes those led to, but the Hero Wars will set those of central Genertela on the road to Empire, again. A few groups on the periphery may not have changed very much, but as a whole, there's been ongoing Change.

While I can agree with part of this, I think it is more equivocal than you suggest.  I would totally agree that the EWF represents an attempt to completely and dramatically remodel Orlanthi society, but as you say, it failed and so while things changed for a while, they also returned to homeostasis and everyone involved in the change died and everything that was achieved is almost forgotten.  Orlanthi seem to have a capacity to centralize a little, creating kingdoms, but really the Vinkotlings had kingdoms, and it is hard to point to anything remarkably different about Orlanthi society since the time of the Vinkotlings.  I mean on close inspection the members of Orlanthi society that have changed the most as the Lhankor Mhys, who have learned sorcery from the God Learners, and have developed books and universities from what started as marks on bark, yet somewhat ironically the Lhankor Mhys are a stasis rune cult.  I am having a lot of trouble pointing to a single major technical or social innovation that markedly separates first age Orlanthi from third age Orlanthi, clearly the history changed, but the way of life seems as static as the gods. To be fair, there are a few new hero subcults of Orlanth.  Perhaps the change is more about individual freedom and social mobility in an otherwise pretty static culture?  I agree that Argrath does change a lot, but the inference is that the destruction of literacy returns Orlanthi society to homeostasis yet again, based on KoDP.  Perhaps we should view each 600 years as a Gloranthan meta-year with meta-seasons of 100 years culminating with the return of the Devil and the presumed survival of the world and a return to homeostasis via deus ex machina at the closing of the age and reassertion of the compromise?  Do you ever get the feeling that Mastakos might understand "speed and movement" but the whole "change" thing has sort of eluded him?  I mean, let's compare how much the Pelorians have changed over the same time period when compared to the Orlanthi Barbarian Belt, and we know the Dara Happans hate change.  I suppose that perhaps we can point to the incursion of the West into Hendrikiland and the subsequent creation of Orlanthi feudalism and the Church of Saint Aeolus might be an example of something new, but it feels more like something imposed from without and subsequently adopted grudgingly.  Anyhow, if you can think of any really solid and specific examples you can point to that support the notion that the Orlanthi are actually progressing I would be genuinely relieved to hear it. 

[Darius West]

On 7/3/2017 at 8:49 AM, soltakss said:

The below answers are all in my opinion and may be wrong, but this is how we played Chalana Arroy cultists in the past.

 

This is more about stimulating debate than about being right and wrong.  I am genuinely interested in how people have interpreted CAs.

On 7/3/2017 at 8:49 AM, soltakss said:

Yes, that is what Orlanthi are for, to kill chaos. The healer can try to heal the pregnant person afterwards, but cannot harm the broo baby. 

2

This is how we played it too.  There was a Storm Bull nearby who would stomp the broo baby.  Of course we also had a Tarshite idealist CA who thought that "Chaos are people too" who ultimately came to a sticky end.

On 7/3/2017 at 8:49 AM, soltakss said:

Diseases are not alive. They are caused by disease spirits or by magic but are not themselves alive. Spirits are not living beings and can be harmed with impunity.

 

An interesting interpretation of the "do not harm the world" stricture.  I am not sure saying that you can do violence to spirits with impugnity is the right answer either.  Wouldn't it just be so much simpler if Malia officially had a chaos rune instead of being a "darkness deity with an association to chaos".  I mean FFS she is part of the Unholy Trio.

On 7/3/2017 at 8:49 AM, soltakss said:

I think that Cure Chaos Wound can be used to cure a gestating broo, but that might have been a house rule.

Hero Wars had a spell that forced broobirth to spontaneously abort, but I am not sure if this was retained. If it still exists then that could be used as the broo larva is not harmed by the CA cultist and they can still let it die or get an orlanthi to kill it.

4

That is a decent house rule.  We used to get a shaman to sense the spirit of the broo baby inside the victim and disruption it as a cheaper option.

On 7/3/2017 at 8:49 AM, soltakss said:

Aldryami are fine with killing plants as they can use Food Song to send the spirit back to Aldrya. They wouldn't kill intelligent or animate plants anyway.

Praxian Chalana Arroys would not use Peaceful Cut to send a slaughtered animals spirit back to Eiritha as that involves killing an animal, which is not allowed.

Is that an inconsistency? Maybe, but it is fine as plants are not living beings in the Chalana Arroy sense.

3

Personally, I think this is an area of the CA write-up that really needs clarification.  We don't even know if CAs have religious dietary restrictions based on the interpretation of their vows.  This would be my primary pick for an area of regional variation within the cult based on diet in real religions.  For example Buddhist monks are vegetarians, except in Japan where fish is a vegetable, and in Tibet where you can't survive without animal protein in your diet.  I can imagine lots of intense passive aggressive arguments in CA temples about the subject.  It might be that Aldryami CAs wind up being the most pragmatic on this issue, despite being plants.

On 7/3/2017 at 8:49 AM, soltakss said:

Undead don't count as they are perversions of life. Chala Arroy Cultists can quite safely bash undead to their hearts content. In fact, we had a Chalana Arroy Healer NPC who was armed with two shields that she used to bludgeon undead, she was a Jack o'Bear as well ...

2

A Chalana Arroy Jack O'Bear? That has got to be one hell of a character back story     As to violence towards the undead, yes, we opted for that interpretation too, but the CA in the party became very distressed after losing an argument with a vampire who insisted that his lifestyle was less harmful than the CAs.  It was an amusing crisis of conscience and fun to watch.  Most of us decided we liked that vampire, so we let him live, and in return he would drop us tips about what local chaotics were up to.  Obviously we had no Stormbulls or Humakti in the party.

On 7/3/2017 at 8:49 AM, soltakss said:

No, hurting oneself is fine, they just cannot harm anyone else.

 

I have to disagree with you on this point.  Accidents are fine, self mutilation is not, as the worshipper is part of the world and has sworn not to damage the world.  At least that is how we played it.

On 7/3/2017 at 8:49 AM, soltakss said:

Shields are fine and can be used to defend the CA cultist and to bash undead, see above. Bashing her own leg is fine, as the restriction applies to other beings. Fumbling and bashing nearest friend probably breaks a vow, so don't stand to close to a shield-wielding CA cultist.

Dodging is fine as it is not offensive. I would guess that CA cultists are not trained in dodging, though.

1

Strangely I have seen little consistency between GMs on this point.  Some say shields are fine, some say they are weapon skills.  I personally have no problem with a CA protecting anyone from violence via a physical shield.  Do the CA characters in Rune Masters use shields?

On 7/3/2017 at 8:49 AM, soltakss said:

If you want to be harsh then this might cause the cultist to become inactive for a while, perhaps until the next cult ceremony.

 

Agreed.  You can't help squashing a bug sometimes; they can be quite suicidal.  The GM who tried this one out on us was just being a duck.  In fact the CA write-up doesn't say that you are ejected from the cult for committing cold-blooded premeditated murder, merely that you suffer the cult spirit of retribution (infection), and need to perform acts of genuine contrition for atonement.

On 7/3/2017 at 8:49 AM, soltakss said:

Riding is not a combat skill.

Ordering a warhorse to attack someone would probably count as breaking cult vows. Sitting on a horse that then attacks someone of its own accord is fine.

 

I personally agree with you, but I once saw a RQ player who was a vegan argue that you can't ride an animal without injuring it with surprising persuasiveness, by way of explaining why his CA couldn't ride in Prax.  I could also argue that this might be a matter of regional interpretation.  Obviously good saddle blankets and beast friendly saddles help.

On 7/3/2017 at 8:49 AM, soltakss said:

Sure, play it that way if you want, but I don't think it is intended that way.

Chalana Arroys are fine with Orlanthi or Storm Bullers doing their killing for them, for example, so they are not like Jains in that respect.

1

Agreed again.  But based on the way the cult is written you might easily make the comparison.  This is part of why I posted this topic in the first place.  Chalana Arroy cultists are not Jains, but without a series of solid qualifications about certain issues of cult doctrine and strictures, you might make the mistake of suggesting they were, much like my aforementioned vegan friend's character, who was an awful nuisance but a very good Chalana Arroy indeed.

[scott-martin]

1 minute ago, Darius West said:

Aldryami CAs

You got my attention. First thought there was "I know they have that weird 'special relationship' with Arroin, but what do they get out of the full Chalana that they can't get at home?"

Aldrya can Find Healing Plants through her independent Arroin connection -- dryads adore the wounded healer, which is probably a long Frazerian screed on the horizon in itself -- and is the source of Heal Body, which competes with CA (and Lunar) medicine in some ways. The tree goddess apparently also has independent access to Preserve Herbs, although the text is a little vague on this point. Sunripen prevents mold, rust and other "plant disease spirits" while discouraging vermin. (Naturally I imagine Miracle-Gro sells the secret now in extract form.)

So what does a well-rooted plant person _need_ from the white goddess? Plant disease spirits are a little controversial so maybe Sunripen only works in some circumstances, forcing an infected elf to seek alternative medicine. Maybe this is a kind of "war cult" for hygiene-driven types who hate vermin so much that they delve deep into the mysteries of cleansing . . . these would be militant "sweepers," driving all the bugs they don't like to the nearest troll territory in order to promote a healthier garden. Maybe new plant disease spirits are emerging that the old system can't deal with As The Hero Wars Begin.

And just maybe these people come into our hospitals offering friendship and weird plants as part of a long and sinister agenda to destabilize human healing institutions. (Yes, I did read a little Castaneda as a child and have relatives in Colorado to this day.)

Trivia: Heal Body is shared pretty widely among ("grain") goddesses but doesn't reach Eiritha until Pavis Himself spills the magic beans. This is of course a big deal in the pacts allowing the City to persist within Prax.

P.S. Arroin are happy to work with Humakt, especially when it comes to poison therapy. Even if that's just the Swords making sure the hospital stays open, there seems to be room there on the healers' side for pragmatic compromise.