Shargash and Humakt are not at all alike.
Humakt is a microgod, a deity who represents a fraction of his cultures identity and attitudes. Shargash is a macrogod who prepresents a whole culture and the cycle of that culture.
Humakt is Ending, Shagash is Ending, Renewal and life then repeats.
Humakt brings Death and cold finality. Shargash brings death to create life.
It could be argued that Humakt is part of the cycle and this is the case for death is part of the cycle of life but Humakt, as a cult, specifically dwells on death and leaves the rest of the cycle to other gods within his pantheon. Shargash doesn't do this, he is death, renewal and life because Shargash is most of his pantheon and is the central figure of it. Therefore Shargash is a much more complicated god than Humakt and this makes sense given his role in Alkoth, which is that of a greater god, like Yelm, Orlanth or Kyger Litor (Greater God being defined as a deity that is the central focus of a culture, one in which most people in that culture acknowledge as supreme and pay homage too)..
Humakt is very marginal - he cannot stand alone. In a sense he is a parasitic deity that could be removed quite easily from Orlanthi society without it collapsing. His role is fillable by other deities, but the reason for his existance is the same as all speciality gods - he gives comparative advantage over non-specialised gods in his specialist field - in this case it is killing.
Shargash is not marginal at all but given the nature of his ethos, the cult is very warlike, similar to Orlanth in attitude but sacrifical in worship so they appear to be very bloodthirsty and aggressive, just like Humakt. This is a superficial resemblance though because both gods fulfil entirely different functions and it is this that must be looked at when discussing their nature.
In Glorantha a god can be defined and is defined by its cultural role. Find what this is and you can find the powers and nature of any god.
Martin Laurie
Powered by hypermail