wulf said:
> If it was RQ, I'd say that was Dullblade, which I believe was
banned
> for Humakti. However, your explanation sounds pretty plausible for
> HW, I think I'd allow it as an offensive attack generating a
handicap ....
> Wulf
not sure i agree here... true, humakt has authority as the god of swords, but what does it mean to be a devotee of humakt? more than the power one gains as an instrument of death, one must embrace death itself. using the power of the god of death and swords to turn aside a sword stroke strikes me as being... not cowardly, exactly, but certainly unworthy...
in myth humakt severs himself from his kin so that he can work without favoritism - why, then, should he protect even, or especially, his devotees, people who have given themselves to death? i'm far from my sources right now, but i don't recall any (rq) divine protection magic associated with humakt, just the spirit spell...
humakt gives one power to inflict death, but not does defend one from it - for that there is armor, and, more importantly, the skill of the warrior. i'd say that just as this logic banned dullblade, humakt would not be willing to save a loyal servant of death from a true sword stroke.
cheers, guy
Powered by hypermail