From: cpearce@nemesis.acs.unt.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Chalanna Arroy Strictures
Date: 26 Jan 93 22:18:15 GMT
Article-I.D.: mercury.1993Jan26.221815.492
Organization: University of North Texas

Andrew Bell corrected my misperception of the cult vows. I reread them, and
I believe that they go something like "cannot harm an intelligent being"
and "cannot needlessly cause pain to any living creature." In the second
stricture, the problem is that of interpretation. The situations under
which it needful to cause pain to a living creature seem to be left up
to individual interpreation, aided of course by the predominant cult belief.

(I'll not treat the problem in the first, which is "when is a being considered
intelligent?" Though perhaps non-fixed INT is a good game system judgement?)

George Harris said that Naiya had SEVERELY violated her cult vows in striking
a small Gorp with a lit torch. I don't know whether I agree, but certainly
some CA priestesses might. First, Gorp are near mindless, so it is possible
for a CA initiate to safely harm them. But, was it appropriate for Naiya
to burn (cause pain) to the creature? As the creature was involved in
consuming the leg of another intelligent being (ie, Bloodletter, Storm
Bull of the Desert Wind) perhaps causing pain the to creature was
warranted. Certainly it is okay to humanely kill animals so that the medicine
created from the byproducts may aid many others (higher up in the
"hierarchy" no less), so is it okay to cause pain to a creature that is,
by its actions, destroying another one higher in the "hierarchy?"

I like George's interpretation of the strictures -- they resolve many of the
apparent inconsistencies of the CA viewpoint. CA does not maintain that her
ethics are a viewpoint that all humans should adopt. Rather, CA maintains that
her viewpoint is one that is an integral PART of a culture. The duties
of her followers are to heal the wounds of Chaos, not fight it (to 
grossly paraphrase something George said).

Of course, I think that with that viewpoint in mind, Befuddle and Sleep are
somewhat of an end run around the strictures. Though they cause no pain to
the targets, Sleeping a chaotic creature just so your best friend the
Storm Bull can cleave it borders closely on a non-passive viewpoint.

Which allows me to segue into a comment made by Pat Sugent, who said that
none of his tough guys were willing to forego CA healing by attacking
a creature subdued with a Befuddle or Sleep spell and who feared that,
since chaotic foes were exempt from the CA priestesses protection, that
the I-sleep-him-you-cleave-him attitude might get out of hand. (Whew!)

To him, I reply that a CA healer *always* has discretion on who to heal and
with what magic. CA healers are never *required* to heal anything, but
are inclined by nature to do so. If a CA healer thought her magic was
being discounted or used in an incorrect manner, he/she could always
refuse healing to the offenders (though blackballing them is likely not
going to happen).

Oh well, in the interests of being pious, Naiya will likely discuss her
actions with the healers in Pavis. I think she hasn't broken her strictures,
but she might have bent them a little bit.

I have really enjoyed everyone's commentary, and look forward to continued
discussion on the matter.

Chris Pearce, cpearce@nemesis.acs.unt.edu