> Humakt believed that kinship was a poor excuse for a crime, and that is why
> he severed his kinship ties with Orlanth.
He also severed his ties because he knew that the terrible deeds which would be wrought through Death would be balmed on himself and he would spare his kinfolk the shame. Severing these ties meant that all blame fell squarely on Humakt's shoulders.
I see no need for a Humakti to sever ties with his kin, unless he intended to perform some heinous deeds or unless his kinfolk had offended him in some way. If every Humakti severed themselves from kin they would be very isolated in the clan/tribal structure of Orlanthi society - severing from kin makes you an outlaw in most respects, or an outcast at the very least.
On geases, Joseph seems of the view that Humakt is very tolerant and does not mind if his worshippers transgress because, after all, they are only human. I take the opposite view - if a Humakti breaks a geas, for whatever reason, his sword will shatter into a million shards as will any sword he takes as his own. (One of the PCs in my campaign tried to use this fact by grabbing opponents' swords so that they would shatter - don't you love rules-merchants?). Of course, any Humakti who could not bear a sword would be excommunicated sharpish.
An Illuminate would not have this problem (take a look at Ralzakark's Broo Humakti and see how many of them keep their geases). However, any Humakti found to be breaking a geas would be excommunicated, Illuminate or not. If you play that illuminates cannot be excommunicated, there is nothing to stop them being hunted down.
On resurrection:
We play that Humakti can be resurrected, otherwise nobody would play them. On the other hand, nobody is now a member of Humakt in the campaign, so it is a moot point.
Ideally, I would play that Humakti are opposed to being resurrected themselves and would hunt down those who brought them back, would kill them and then would either commit suicide or would go on the biggest Berserker rampage you ever saw - slaying undead/trolls left, right and centre.
Humakti do not generally oppose the resurrection of others, but some might, depending on the individuals concerened.
It is a nice myth that Humakti cannot be made into undead. Even though it is in the cult write-up, I do not believe it is true. Zorak Zorani can raise the body as a Zombie, others can summon Humakti spirits back as ghouls etc. I would say that Humakt would take the spirit back to his Halls but from there it can be summoned again.
There is a story in Cults of Prax, I think, where some Humakti go into Sogs Ruins, I think, and a Rune Lord is made into a wraith or other undead, I think. (I must be thinking a lot - probably because I can't remember the exact tale). This shows that Humakti can be made into the Walking Dead.
In my campaign, Humakti swords shine magically, even when they don't want them to. PCs' interpretation of geases range from:
Never Ambush - sneaking up behind someone and coughing loudly while swinging a Greatsword.
Never Lie - putting every statement through the semantologists to determine that it was not actually a lie.
Challenge (Opponent) - They are very good at playing chess.
Use only cult weapons - bummer.
Never accept Healing - It was forced on me, I was unconcious and had no choice, anyway I did not accept it, I have forgotten the spell, even though my allied spirit has not.
Pam Carlson asks about Aelwrin:
> I think Aelwin's cult has got to be Lodril. Aelwin was a lowly slave,
> after all, who got really steamed and rebelled. Besides, we need more
> Lodrilli heroes!
Nice idea, but he is from Pent, taken when the nomads invaded the Empire after their long rest. If the Pentians are anything like the Grazelanders (probable since the Grazers were originally a Pentian tribe) then Lodril would be a Vendref cult and hence unlikely to have taken part in a concerted attack on the Empire. (I can't believe that Aelwrin would be one of the Vendref - too lowly for a mighty hero).
Maybe he could have joined Lodril later on - a kitchen slave needs some heat for his pots and pans. Anyway, after he rebelled, conquered Aggar and was defeated and captured by the Lunars, he became a follower of Jar-Eel and probably became a MoonSword (Jar-Eel and Yanafal Tarnils cults). This would be the ideal stepping stone to hero status.
Scott Knowles (after a long break) brings up RunePower again.
I find the idea of RunePower as being far too gross and I won;t play it, except in a limited form when using personal MPs to fuel them when casting Heroic Magic on a HeroQuest or by HeroQuestors. Otherwise they are open to abuse far too much. When I last pointed this out, someone (I can't remember who, but you know who you are) expressed amazement, in no uncertain terms, that I thought it was too gross bearing in mind the direction my campaign had gone - delaying the Hero Wars, killing Harrek and Argrath, and so on.
At the time, I could not reply as my email account had gone under for a while. However, now I am back. Nobody should need to criticise the style of another person's campaign. If the campaign gives enjoyment to players and GM then it is a good thing. I have been playing in this campaign for 12 years and we are still enjoying it, when we can play. How many other people can say the same thing? Surely, we must be doing something right? The fact that our style of play is not right for someone else does not invalidate the way we play.
Consider this - if I think a rule is too gross, what sane, right-minded person would use it?
Peter Metcalfe on the Monomyth:
> Sure people will need to know what the cults refer to: like in
> Ralios, Ehilm is the Sun God whereas Galanini is the God of Horses.
Agreed.
> But this is _not_ the monomyth by a long shot. The monomyther
> would say that the Sun is actually the God Yelm and not the false
> and inferior god Ehilm by which name the Galaninae know him.
No, no, no. The Jrusteli fanatics might say this, but this is not what sensible folk mean by the Monomyth. I am against saying that Ehilm is Yelm or that Humct is Humakt or that Shargash is Yelm. The Monomyth is *NOT* about equating all sun gods or all storm gods or all death gods. It is about identifying the common myths of the gods.
If in Sartar a Storm God was born on a mountain and blew his brother out of the cave where he lived when he was young and in Tarsh there was a Storm God who was born on a mountain and blew his brother out of a cave when he was young, and the same myth was present in Esrolia, it would make perfect sense to say "Hang on a minute, perhaps these myths refer to the same two deities. Why don't we look at the other myths involving those deities and see if we can spot some similarities?" When the similarities were seen, why not say "These gods have very similar myths in fairly close areas, perhaps they are the same deities." Quite reasonable in my view.
V.S. Greene:
>There is one sun in the sky of Glorantha. "Yelm" in one place _is_ the
>same entity as the sun god of some other place in Genertela; he might
>have different aspects due to differences in his worship, but it is
>valid to assume that they are the same being.
No, Yelm is the Sun, the firery orb. This does not mean that he is the only Sun God. He created Sun Hawk, another Sun God. Antirius came from Yelm, another Sun God. The Pentians worship Kargzant, Yelm's Steed - another Sun God. Ralians worship Ehilm who holds the Purifying Fire of the Sun. These are not the same deity.
The Monomyth, in its purest form, is the detailing of the events that happened in the GodTime in a concise, unbiased way. It may be the events that impacted on the trolls, as in Trollpack, or general events, as in Cults of Terror, or even those cult-specific events, as in the cult write-ups. The Monomyth can even be applied to Dara happan mythos - if you wade through the complexities of the GRoY, Fortunate Succession or the Pelandan book, whose name escapes me, you can pick out those areas which relate to the outside areas - valind crushing dara Happa under an Ice Sheet, the Invasion of the Waters (Great Floods of Pelanda/Dara Happa) and so on. With a little effort, these confusing myths can be straightened out into an easily-readable version of the Monomyth. This can only be a good thing, in my view.
Well, that'll do for now as I am too tired to type.
Simon
If it has stats it can be killed.
If it is in the rules it can be abused.
If it is mentioned it can be targetted.
People can change the world and screw up the Timeline.
Restrictions are for NPCs, not for PCs.
Taking Power Gaming to new extremes (in a sensitive, role-playing way, of course)
End of Glorantha Digest V4 #204
WWW material at http://hops.wharton.upenn.edu/~loren/rolegame.html
Powered by hypermail