Re: Re: Re: Humakt

From: Benedict Adamson <badamson_at_...>
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 17:51:48 +0000


Thom Baguley wrote:
...
> >Is a Humakti's 'honour' related to having a social conscience?
>
> Not necessarily.
>
> >Would it be true to say that members of ANY cult could be
> >psychopaths?
>
> Definitely. Even Chalana Arroy, IMO.

...
> P.S. Jeff thought this was getting off topic, but I'm not sure.
...

Jeff, I agree this topic could veer too far. I think Jeff hit the nail on the head when he suggested we needed to use the term 'sociopath'. Portraying Humakti as anti-social death monks is one of my pet dislikes, which is why I contributed to this thread.

Certainly, Humakti are accepted by and accept society in a way that Gargarthi are not and do not. If many Humakti were psychopaths/ sociopaths, I don't see how this would be possible. I guess we agree that Gargarthi and Uroxi tend to be sociopaths or psychopaths? If so, for Humakti NOT to have this tendency, I think, makes Humakti more interesting. Otherwise we have an array of rather similar anti-social cultists.

I dislike the equation of killing with anti-social activity. I think that is importing an inappropriate modern notion into Heortling culture. Orlanth is a murderer (and a thief, too); violence is always an option. If Orlanth is happy to murder, and indeed is archetypically normal, why should a death specialist (Humakt) be twisted?

Powered by hypermail