>>Jeff Richard writes:
>> For what it is worth I actually think the prime actor in separating
>> the Humath cult from the storm gods was Arkat himself. Separating
>> Humath from the Storm seems to me to have been one way to prevent it
>> from falling under the influence of the High Storm.
>Doh! So *blindingly* obvious, when he puts it like that! Jeff, you are
>a genius. Now tell this to Greg and Make It So. (I shan't bother with
>a Stevie disclaimer; apparently it upsets the man)
I asked Greg about this theory in a long discussion about death last October/Novermber so these were his thoughts then, though they may have changed since! :)
Me>I meant that the cult of course existed but
>wa sinfluenced by Arkat. The theory goes that Humath was the cult of
>Death/Storm within Orlanthi society and Lokomayadon controlled the cult
>through his control of the initiation and other rituals. Arkat managed =
to
>seize control of the cult by proving that Humath had severed his kin tie=
s
>during the Storm Age and then created or "found" a whole new set of
rituals
>to empower the cult. So Humath + Arkat =3D HumathArkat =3D Humakt. =
>
>Thats the theory anyway - you must have heard this before?
(Greg) Hmmm, I have heard parts of it, and also an earlier version. =
I don't think it is so, at least in my ongoing Harmast experience. =
>So Humakt is more universal =
G. Universal among the Orlanthi.
>than we've given him credit for of late? Interesting. This brings up t=
he
question of >how he has maintained such coherance over such distance and
time - I think the
>wandering Humakti idea has a lot of merit in that regard. I wonder if
>there are other reasons? =
G. I dont think it brings up that question! Humakt is a relatively simple deity, with pretty simple requirements. It doesn't take much to keep stripping the cult back to Death and Killing. =
Its core is established by the actions of Humakt in the God Time.
>But how can a person who is alive follow Humakt and conquer death? IMO
the
>gifts and geases, the stricutres, the kin severing are all important. =
Even
>here I don't think a warrior of Humakt can truly conquer death like Huma=
kt
>himself did without achieving immortality like a god. Frex the story I
>wrote about Sir Death was meant to caputre this problem - the main
>character follows war everywhere, is incredibly skilled at fighting,
>doesn't sleep, eat, have intercourse, socialise etc, all he does is figh=
t
>and seek the greater challenge yet he still hasn't conquered death becau=
se
>he is alive! So how can a Humakti join Humakt in his perfection? IMO
>this can only be done by actually dying. =
G. Yes, absolutely. I agree. The object of the cult, then, is to die
PROPERLY. =
>Now from what you've been saying, it seems feasible that the Humakti ARE=
>actually dead and we've just not know this. This brings up the question=
of
>what is death and what does it look like? Has death actually changed
>during the godtime and dawn?
G. I think you are right. They ARE dead, and their initiation rites are probably funeral rites. But they are the dead in life -- hence their hatred of the wrong type of living dead, the undead.
>a living
>dead man who has no fear of death or inflicitng it on others is going to=
be
>pretty scary. Therefore they have access or should have access to very
>strong death magics. =
>Conversely they also are disconnected from the life around them. =
G. Originally I had that the Humakti were not only unable to be
resurrected,
but that they could not get ANY healing magic EXCEPT from a Chalana Arroy=
initiate. =
>To be honest, this sounds right to me - is/was there any reason to chang=
e
>it? =
G. It was for game reasons because people didn't want it in their RQ characters. =
>I'm surprised that a Chalan Arroy initiate could even touch a death
>worshipper without feeling a severe chill. Still she can heal anything =
- -
>almost.
G. She has to do it. Death =3D Life.
>Which
>would mean that they would have a poor link to life and its positive
>effects - they might heal more slowly than a normal man, have a lower
>chance of childbirth, be very, very bad farmers, be unappreciative of
>beauty in the natural world and be poor at socialisation, being
unnaturally
>grim and "awkward" to those still connected to life. =
G. These are all true. =
Martin Laurie
Powered by hypermail