Alison Place here,
I haven't caught up with my reading yet, but I have some words to say about
some things, anyway.
Triceratops for plowing:
I don't think so! The triceratops, lovely stuffed animal though it may be for
a kiddy, is also about three to five tons of self-willed animal. Although there
might be strains rather like an Indian elephant for docility and trainability, I
rather think that they are rather more like rhinos for temperament. Also,
though elephants could probably be trained to pull a plough, I have never heard
of anyone who thought it worth their while to let such a valuable animal waste
its time doing this. Stump-pulling is more likely to be the occupation of such
a strong animal.
Rich Staats (171) agrees with me on Humakti getting out of a hopeless
situation,
"if you have soldiers ... not having enough common sense to retreat when
confronted with a superior foe then you won't have a fighting capable force for
very long";
while Sandy (172) does not, "given that the Humakti's friends cannot get away,
he should not abandon them."
Due to my conception of Humakt, I still think that this is a
situation-dependent call. We still know only four facts about this situation,
namely that:
- there were overwhelming odds against the fighters,
- the foe was undead,
- one Humakti chose to call for divine help from an associated cult, and
- was answered by being teleported to safety.
We don't know if there was a duly appointed or chosen superior officer, if so
what orders had been given, in what terms the survivor asked for help, in what
state of mind help was summoned, or for what reason the group was now facing
certain death. All of these may provide mitigating circumstances.
It would be wrong to leave if it means a) disobeying a superior's order, b)
cowardice, or c) causing a mission to fail. It would also be wrong to leave if
these Humakti think that the best death one can have is dying amidst huge
numbers of undead. However, I do not think that it is necessary to require a
Humakti to die, even when death takes his colleagues. Death will always be
there, but as long as he or she does not flinch from it when necessary, a
sensible retreat does not spell dishonour. It was merely not his time to go.
An implied geas to avenge his or her colleagues is a perfectly reasonable
outcome in such a situation, though.
Most contributors have decided that all Humakti should live or die together.
However, it is obvious that on any battlefield, some of your comrades will die.
If you must retreat (and even Humakti have to occasionally!), it is likely that
you will have to leave behind fallen comrades who are not yet dead. This is
regrettable, but is it impermissible? No, not in any normal unit. It happens
all the time. I believe Humakti to be normal in this way, not counting elite or
extremist units. Since this conduct is acceptable, then Alex's fellow player
has the unfortunate fate to be the only survivor of such a situation. (Another
question might be, if they weren't trying to make such a retreat, why weren't
they?)
There may be elite units who do not accept retreat, and who are known to fight
to the last soul. These will be honoured and feared wherever they fight. They
are not likely to be the rule among Humakti or any other cult. They will be la
creme de la creme, such as the Royal Bodyguard of the Spartan king who fell at
Thermopylae, or the Sacred Band of Thebes. The regular soldiers do not have to
live or die by such a code.
This discussion rotates on the runes of Humakt, Truth and Death. Can a Humakti
only remain True to his comrades by refusing to escape their imminent Death? Is
Death is to be welcomed and even sought on such an occasion, no matter what the
circumstances may be? IMO, no. The Truth rune means both knowledge and
self-discipline. The Humakti should be a thinking soldier, not one who reacts
mindlessly to stimuli like a Storm Bull. A Humakti should respond thoughtfully
and logically, not emotionally, when a crisis occurs. Units should have
accepted procedures for various situations. Thus, one should know when a cause
is hopeless, and retreat necessary. The Death rune signifies the dual
responsibilities of a soldier; to kill when necessary, and to pay for the
attempt to complete a mission with one's own life if necessary. It should
enable a Humakti to perform acts of great courage, because he knows that death
is at the end of every life, and it is the way that you die that matters.
Humakti should strive to emulate Humakt. Humakt himself killed others, and was
willing to die. He did not seek a suicidal death himself.
There will be pain, grief and guilt for leaving friends behind. This is
normal. It does not lessen the correctness of the act.
Rich goes on to say, "From Humakt's perspective, the initiate has the potential
to destroy **many more** undead over the course of a lifetime than he will in
his last few moments of glory."
I do disagree with Rich's assessment that leaving one's comrades can be
justified by a cost-benefit analysis of how much death you will deal elsewhere
with the years of life you have saved by escaping. Humakti should decide what
to do on the basis of what is the right action to take now, not what can I do in
the future if I bend the rules here and now. I do believe that dying gloriously
is the goal of a Humakti, but I believe that Humakt prefers a gloriously useful
death.
Sandy also says, "a really good Humakti would probably have stayed regardless
of his Sword's orders in such a case."
This should not be acceptable. This is direct disobedience of a superior
officer. This should get you big penalties after death. What else can you be
trusted to do, if you won't obey your own officer?
End of Glorantha Digest V1 #193