In message <20070418222255.21784.qmail_at_2s4Ap4r_HQtUvMYo93vOYp0aS14wBTeyCuvvDvQGlcKR5ZCgGEgAotx-9mQkYOUnWfyJuF91a1W-2tpUAgQixQTsKgBjyYyGRv341cHeiLlKtVY.yahoo.invalid> Peter Metcalfe writes:
>At 12:32 a.m. 19/04/2007, you wrote:
>>In message <20070418031739.21507.qmail_at_YS9EiynoMsPYr-5X9PnCHqUq5n56a-23Fk_qLgivkXeUw2ohoqAEeebZW7StA4DDK94fr0n-LvXHzRRIhyxqcWCLh2OB0pzSRAwjLe6ytE6mq2Fh.yahoo.invalid> Peter
>>Metcalfe writes:
>> >At 01:41 a.m. 18/04/2007, you wrote:
>> >
>> >>I don't think we have an objective explanation of chaos in
>> >>Glorantha.
>> >
>> >Having a chaotic feature is pretty much an objective
>> >test of being a chaotic.
>>
>>Certainly. However not all chaotic beings have chaotic features
>>and what is a chaotic feature? A tentacle instead of an arm is
>>clear enough, but how about an extra finger?
>
>Saying that the borders are blurred does not imply there
>is no objective test for chaos in glorantha. By the same
>reasoning, one could argue that because some cancers
>are hard to detect, cancer is not an objective concept.
Doctors in the RW have a clear definition of cancer which, with training, anyone can apply. If we, or more importantly Gloranthans, haven't a definition of what a chaos feature is then that isn't an objective test for chaos. And I'm pretty sure there isn't even general argreement among different societies as to what chaos is.
>>Nor does this address the issue of how and why chaos spreads.
>
>Except that this issue has been addressed in the Cults of
>Terror.
Which is of course a completely objective document, like everything else published about Glorantha.
-- Donald Oddy http://www.grove.demon.co.uk/Received on Thu 19 Apr 2007 - 05:49:00 EEST
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Fri 04 Jan 2008 - 22:48:52 EET