Second, I'm very puzzled and intrigued by Bryan's comments on "icky" Humakti. I find they're the only characters (at the moment) that I can play with passion and conviction. Their choices are very stark, but simple to understand. The Truth/Death rune set is a rich area to explore mythically, and the dedication to honor requires constant redefinition of what is honorable and why in different situations. Often it's not the obvious choice, and has unpleasant social consequences.
When I try to play devotees of other gods, I get confused. They just seem arbitrary and wishy-washy. Particularly Orlanth! =) Now Chalana Arroy, on the other hand; there's a goddess who's clear about her priorities!
Bryan, can you expand on how you think Humakti end up becoming the center of gravity of a campaign?
While I've got the soapbox, I'll say that Humakti combat powers are probably over-rated. First of all, the Narrator will balance out the opposition anyway. Second, a clever tactician playing a Vingan with all her movement powers and much more broadly defined affinities is probably more dangerous. Humakt's combat powers are much narrower. Anyway, the desire to be a combat wombat is a poor reason to choose Humakt - just not very interesting to mediate all social relations through the point of a sword.
And finally, your point about geases being more important than the gifts is very interesting. Guy Jobbins wrote a myth in which Humakt loses a part of himself every time he finds an additional piece of death. Could this be related? And how about the idea that only by finding all of Death and losing the "self" completely can Humakt become completely himself again?
Powered by hypermail