Sandy sticks to his black'n'white guns:
> I don't think that Humakt encourages his warriors to think in
> terms of cost-effectiveness.
Absolutely. Staying and fighting against undead, to certainly die, wouldn't seem like a "useless" death to a devout Sword. He'd look on it as doing his duty, to his cult and faith (by killing some of the undead); to his comrades (by standing and dying with them), and to himself, by not disgracing himself as a coward. Yup, he'll die. But what about the drawbacks?
Of course, many Humakti aren't as devout, or if you prefer, as stupid. I think it's clear which is the Correct behaviour, though, by the standards of most of the Humakti we're familiar with.
> I was once ragged by a person because of the way I played Humakt. He
> argued, "Who would join Humakt's cult if he wasn't willing to bend
> the rules a little, if he wasn't willing to be a nice guy. [...]" I
> responded that Humakt was not an evangelical sect. YOU had to qualify
> for Humakt, not the other way round.
I don't think getting into Humakt is very difficult, it's a matter of the standards that are expected of you once you are. And the penalties if you don't. These high standards are probably why people are crazy enough to even _want_ to join, appealling to the power-and-glory-seeking intincts that cause so many _players_ to go for these guys. On the other hand, it must be that many people will indeed fail to live up to them. Not every Humnakti is a Clint Eastwood, some are drink-sotten Lee Marvins. (And maybe YT is Clint in _Heartbreak Ridge_?)
Lewis J. argues that Humakt can afford to be fussy about his intake:
> 1) Even if he had NO worshippers he would still be a major player.
This argument keeps coming up, and it keeps going nowhere (useful). In what sense would Humakt still be a major player, sans cult? He'd still keep granting powerful gifts and divine magic, effective DI, and inflicting fearsome geasa and retribution to every one of his NO WORSHIPPERS? (Sorry, Lewis seems to have me shouting, now.)
The question isn't so much: Does Humakt want more worshippers?; as: does Humakt's _cult_ want more initiates? Probably on the whole not. They're proud of their exacting standards and elite status, and don't want it diluted by a bunch of semi-enthusiastic backsliders and less than competent newbies. I'm sure they're keen to get suitable people to join, but they don't have conversion of the lucklustre masses as an objective.
It's true that the cult could be _wrong_ in its prescription for what it needs to thrive. For example, Yelm cultists would tell you that hunting up fresh recruits is not merely unnecessary, it would be wicked and wrong. This attitude is, in the context of Lunar counter-conversion, slowly crippling the Yelm cult in Peloria. If this were to continue as per the status quo for a few centuries, Yelm might have all the temporal importance of that other well-known and popular Greater God, Dayzatar. Though arguably a different attitude could have worse results yet.
Donald Walli pouts at YT getting too much attention:
> In the extended YT discussion, some folk seem to be painting Humakt as
> a kinda bland, faceless cult that has a couple of neat Rune spells and
> is otherwise just a useful cult to be used as one of many for a PC.
I don't think this is true at all. Who has said this? We perhaps haven't said much about the details of Humakt's cult, but that'd be because we've been talking about YT, and to some extent contrasting it with the (relatively) well-known Humakti.
> Humakt [...] severed all ties with his clan when he took "official"
> possession of Death. That leads me to believe that when you choose
> to follow (e.g., become an Initiate of) this most final of all gods, you
> relinquish all ties to all other cults:
I don't think it _always_ means this, but I agree it is sometimes, maybe often, interpreted this way. (Like Nick's example of the Orlanthi in political do-do who "died" to his clan when he because a Sword (or a Humakt initiate, I forget the details. <g>)
> - -> Being Humakti != playing Lawful Stupid. How is Humakt so narrow-minded?
> They (the cult/culture of Humakti) believe in the final separation of
> body and spirit. Thus, they don't do resurrection. What else do they
> balk at so much that YT (or any other war diety) does not?
Humakt apparently has stricter geasa, and some which aren't as "socially enlightened" as all YT's are. Such as Mistrust [species], etc. A given temple of Humakt will have fairly exacting standards of Honour, Duty, Bravery that it expects its initiates to follow, the exact details of which differ from place to place, as well as from YT, and others. This is certainly enough for some others to regard them as stiff-necked fanatics. I don't think this amount to Lawful Stupid, but whoever introduced such a thought?
> And there is lots of room for interpretation--depending on how closely you
> follow the Word Of Greg (how's that genuflection go again?).
Like this, Donald. <Greggly Genuflexion>. Happily, the Word Of Greg is that Humakti attitudes _do_ differ, and are open to interpretation (see Tales #5), so I see no conflict. As the Tales staff would say: Happy, happy, happy. Joy!
Alex.
Powered by hypermail