Humakti, Yanafal Tarnils, and Illumination

From: Brett Evill <b.evill_at_tyndale.apana.org.au>
Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 01:27:02 +1000

PAUL POFANDT <ppofandt_at_ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>Hasni Mubarak wote:
>
>>HUMAKT: Ok, when a death-boy becomes a Sword, he can get another gift
>>and geas. In fact, that's purty much the ONLY way to get additional
>>gifts. However, how can a sword give 180% of his income? (By taking
>>multiple enhance stat gifts...?)
>
>Since the Humakti tithe a percentage of what they have with them on their
>HHD, tithes of over 100% (or greater) could be handled by tithing HALF the
>percentage, TWICE per year. Once on their HHD and again on some other
>significant date. ie. 180% tithe is two 90% tithes anually.

Or by borrowing the extra money due.

Nils Weinander <niwe_at_ein.ericsson.se> wrote: (re michael's Lankor Mhy cult writeup)

>Does an initiate gain anything by taking geases? If so, what?

When I am playing a Humakti (no uncommon thing) I usually obey most of the geasa, even though I get nothing for them.

Andrew Joelson wrote:
>>Yanafal Tarnils is the normal spelling, (although Tar'nils is
>>sometimes used).
>
>Nice guy that, with such a name: Tar'NILS.

Around here we spell it "Neanderthal's Toenails".

D M McNamara <D.M.McNamara_at_durham.ac.uk> wrote:

>Hello Brett Evill (is that your real name?)

G'day. Yes, I'm afraid it is, and it has caused me a lot of trouble. But 'Evill' is a fine old English name with a Humakti tradition going back to the middle ages. Mock it if you dare!

>Hence 'fighting' illumination by asserting
>essentialist dogmas is as bad as being gbaji.

I (in my Sartarite personae) do not fight illumination because of any sort of dogmas. I fight it because it makes people tolerant of chaos, and hence of infection, suffering, and the destruction of Glorantha. Very concrete reasons.

> Instead, Nietzsche argues that we should create a 'will to power,'

I think that my various Humakti characters would find Nietzsche as effete as I find him vacuous.

> which is why illumination must
>be taken away from chaos, which ultimately has quite unfortunate aims ie.
>destroying glorantha. Which although cannot be dismissed on the basis of
>'this is wrong,' i feel most would agree that it is preferable to keep
>glorantha going than wreck it.

Illumination might not be a tool that we can turn to our use. It seems to me more like a sort of intellectual infection.

> (and don't give me any of that new age campbell 'god with thousand
>faces' crap, because it just isn't supported by archaeological or
>anthropological evidence in ANY way, trust me)

Don't worry, I won't quote Campbell (or even Jung, or even the Sakyamuni) at you. I don't think that RW archaeology, anthropology, or psychology is conclusively relevant to Glorantha in any case.

Brett Evill
<b.evill_at_tyndale.apana.org.au>

"Decay is inherent in all composite things. Work strenuously for your own salvation." (Sakya Siddhartha Gautama: last words)

---