>>
>>Andrew Joelson
>- ---------------
>> Attacked? Yanafal was testing himself vs Humakt in a 'first
>>blood' duel. If he had actually attacked Humakt, he would have been
>>killed, as many times as was necessary.
>
>He did attack Humakt. He was killed. He did come back to life.
>Yanafal Tarnils is an evil resurrecting traitor and must be destroyed,
>as must his puppet dupes who do his will on Glorantha. I called them
>traitors before and meant it. Every High Holy Day, these turnswords
>celebrate a ritual in which they join the cult of Humakt, break their
>oaths, ritually attack a Humakt stand-in, are symbolically killed,
>symbolically resurrected, then defeat the Humakt stand-in. Kill them
>all. And remember, a resurrection spell doesn't do you any good if
>your brain's been chopped to pieces and fed to the crows.
I recommend that you read the second line of my statement again, as you evidently didn't understand it the first time.
Please note that Humakt does not forbid resurrection; people don't resurrect Humakti because doing so gets them all riled up. The resurrectee tends to kill the resurrector, as they have been 'robbed of their immortal reward'.
Second note: turnsword is phrase used on former humakti who have left the cult and joined up with Yanafal Tarnils, a relatively small percentage of the cult membership (and then only by humakti and orlanthi). You only weaken your argument with such sweeping & inaccurate generalities.
Third note: no such ritual exists. If you have seen someone perform such a rite, it was certainly staged just for your benefit, just to see the look on your face. You must have annoyed quite a few people a great deal, that they went to so much trouble on your account.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ I Andrew Joelson joelsona_at_cpdmfg.cig.mot.com -+- AKA Rupert von Harl, Seven Mothers/Yanafal Tarnils and Humakt | "Contradiction? No, I always did tend to kill chaos creatures anyway." / ------------------------------
Powered by hypermail