[Glorantha] Beliefs about chaos

[Lightcastle]

Wow. So behind. (And it is only going to get worse over the next week.)

I am mostly going to skip through the various sides of the chaos debate, and 
focus on something recent that caught my eye.

First, a note. This entire discussion is sort of based on the idea that Chaos 
is Important. In otherwords, that it almost destroyed the world, and may 
again almost destroy the world if people let it.

I don't know if that's true. It certainly isn't true in my Glorantha, because 
it is really boring. Chaos is fundamentally, objectively wrong, and so the 
answer is always to kill it isn't nearly as fun as the "clash of cultures 
where no one is obviously the right answer".

> From: "Phil Hibbs" <snarks at gmail.com>

> I think you're the only one that is saying that belief is primary, and
> that is the straw man of which you were accused. Graham was talking
> about breaking a cultural taboo that is based on the actions of the
> founders of the Heortling culture in the Great Darkness, i.e.
> deviating from an established relationship with the otherworld that is
> fundamental to that culture's contribution to the fight against chaos.
> Not just belief in a mundane sense.

I think that's very interesting. This would imply that every culture has a 
fundamental connection with the otherworld, one based in the founder's 
solution for how to survive the Great Darkness. 

Various versions of this, implying that Chaos comes from the weakening of the 
social structures, and since social structures are fundamental to how a 
culture interacts with the otherworld, weakening social structures weakens 
the very fabric of Glorantha itself, have been proposed.

RR gives us one:

> From: "Roderick and Ellen Robertson" <rjremr at sierratel.com>

> Those beliefs are part of the "cultural consciousness". Break the laws of
> the culture, and you reduce the cohesiveness of the culture as a whole.

I can see the attraction, since it has a nice flow of a personal moral 
connection to the maintenance of the cosmos.

> Kinstrife is important to the "Orlanthi" culture. 

Just a nit to pick -- is it? OR is Kinstrife important to "Heortling" culture? 
(The two not being synonymous, as I believe Greg even mentioned.)

> However, every culture
> has some crimes that will "let chaos in" *for that culture*. The Orlanthi
> revel in their rebellion from authority - "No-one can make you do
> anything". The Dara Happans hold rebellion to be the worst thing you could
> ever do, and will lead to the breakdown of society.

So here's the thing. Dara Happens and Orlanthi are living together in the 
city. The Dara Happens watch the Orlanthi rebel. Is that enough to cause 
Chaos?

> They *are* actually true, for that person and culture. The culture's values
> are derived from the culture's [god-like beings]. If you break the taboo of
> your culture, you weaken your gods. Weaken your gods, and you weaken your
> culture's ability to resist chaos.

Now that's the part that is probably the most compelling aspect of the 
argument. But does the lack of belief really weaken the gods? If the gods 
were there before, and belief doesn't make a god a god, then does this theory 
hold?

> How are the beliefs of  the culture "wrong"? They are handed down from the
> gods! (ignoring radical culture-breaking heroes and the like). 

So all radical culture-breaking heroes cause Chaos? Isn't that where this 
leads? Every slight deviation from the founder's culture and the old ways is 
risking letting Chaos in. (I love that traditionalists would have this 
belief, I'm just not sure I would actually want it in my campaign.)

Now, given that the Heortlings are obsessed with chaos and the end of the 
world and that if they slip up even the slightest bit then the world could 
unravel and they have to fix it to save it. (Indeed, they do this every 
sacred time) I can see them actually thinking along these lines. Since no one 
can live exactly like the old ways, and since every contact with new people 
means new ideas and the culture changing, then the very act of living is 
almost bound to cause chaos, which is why Glorantha is so dangerous and 
difficult to live in most of the time. (Eschatonian cultures are always kind 
of creepy that way.)

Graham and Malk both opine that it is the magnitude of violence being thrown 
around by powerful gods in the Storm Age that breaks the world, not the 
particular nature of the violence.

(I lean to this interpretation myself.)

Graham also brings up this point:

> Also, the idea of existing chaos exploiting a weakness doesn't really seem
> to explain the extreme effects shown in scenarios like Year of Chaos or
> Last Days of Skullpoint.

I don't have BA, so can't comment on Year of Chaos, but Skullpoint absolutely 
implies that there if taboos are broken, Chaos can happen. You might argue 
that the Ogres cast a spell taking advantage of the situation in the case of 
the public marriage, but the scenario is written so that if the incest 
happens (secretly, and without the two people involved knowing it is incest) 
then they are immediately struck with Chaos features.

> From: Claude Manzato <manzato at club-internet.fr>
> Subject: [Glorantha] Re:  Re: Chaos continued

> Somehow, I alway tought that the main relation between acts and chaos
> was intention.

I like this, but Skullpoint (at least) seems to imply that isn't true.
I'd probably ignore that aspect of Skullpoint in my Glorantha, and go with 
something like this intention idea. On some way, breaking the laws of your 
society, its deepest taboos, is "knowing" that you are inviting Chaos. And 
Chaos is thus invited in. 

In most of the myths I've seen involving the Great Darkness, someone - 
somewhere -somewhen eventually *invites* the Chaos in. Sure, the social 
disruption helps get to that state, but someone eventually decides to go 
"elsewhere" to get some power. 

> Now, this makes me think that any *act* can be done with a chaotic intend.
> I can imagine someone create a music as an act of dedication to chaos.
> Or a building, or a painting...
> As these are not normaly associated with chaos the risks are less, but
> the intend is here so they are not null.

I think that is how (since this is obviously a major, major point of YGWV) 
MGWV. :)

> This fit well my Glorantha, but maybe it is too subjective...

Mine too.

> From: donald at grove.demon.co.uk (Donald R. Oddy)
> Subject: Re: [Glorantha] Beliefs about chaos

> This is part of the reason why the Lunars are seen as chaotic.
> They introduce laws and practices which don't fit the Orlanthi
> social model and disrupt the society. 

But then, so did Sartar disrupt society. (Mind you, I don't think he ever 
tried to alter the idea of kinstrife as central.)

LC