In message <20070419125410.19489.qmail_at_4X_R3FQrvHYORwQf7OL7HduKQYg1oxglPcTcC4QU1K0RQlLjUChNTovrEm0ym7huRLEeRkr9LZ5UbiJdWOeO3F8E2OpMlE6ChDXDJOmzHbsmSK_WRTa8.yahoo.invalid> Peter Metcalfe writes:
>At 01:16 a.m. 20/04/2007, you wrote:
>>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.
>
>But we do have an objective definition of chaos - a chaotic
>feature is pretty much definitive.
Yet you haven't defined what a chaos feature is. Given the argument you were making recently that Krasht isn't chaotic because he isn't associated with the chaos rune there seems to be a lot of disagreement about what chaos is.
> Chaos is not a subjective
>phenomenon (and heaven help us if the sobjectivist
>debate breaks out again).
>> >Except that this issue [of Chaos spreading] has been
>> >addressed in the Cults of Terror.
>>
>>Which is of course a completely objective document, like
>>everything else published about Glorantha.
>
>And the problem with the Cults of Terror treatment is what?
Every cult is written as a theistic cult when we now know that most of them are animist and Vivamort is sorcerous. If something is that inaccurate on a major issue then it becomes unreliable on other points.
-- Donald Oddy http://www.grove.demon.co.uk/Received on Fri 20 Apr 2007 - 10:31:43 EEST
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Fri 04 Jan 2008 - 22:48:53 EET