> G. [skip] The object of the cult, then, is to die PROPERLY.
> G. [skip] 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.
Question no 1: The proper way of dying for an Humakt follower is / seems to be by the sword. Since there are other ways of dying (from age, by poison, by sickness), I would assume these are not proper ways of dying. Humakt is not a war cult but a cult of death. To Humakt what is important is not to die, but to die properly. So, I would like to know more about why and how the different forms of dying affect the after-life.
Question no 2: I would also assume that this could justify a strong opposition to cults that are connected with other forms of death or death agents, like Malia.
Question no 3: Most things that cause death cause pain (both before death, and probabily after death since I would assume that an unproper death becomes like a sickeness to the spirit of the dead). Humakt is not a cult of pain but of death. Using the sword to inflict pain should be anatema to Humakti. They perfect their sword skills to ensure that each attack is aimed to kill, not to wound. So, Humakti would be completely opposed to cults that aim to cause pain, specially if they use blades. I'm thinking about Ikadz here.
Question no 4: Even if a sword blow doesn't kill, I suppose it would be a proper blow if it maimed deffinitely (for instance, cutting an arm or a leg). It was contributing to the sepation of spirit and body. But it should be a neat blow if possible.
> 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.
Given all I just mentioned, I would assume that this limitations should not be so extensive. They would not apply if the Humakti died improperly (from poisoning or from sickness). The Humakti could be ressurected in this instances. That way he would have a chance to die properly latter. Maybe the ressurection would not be permanent: the dead Death Lord, victim of a broo sickness could be ressurected to revenge himself from the broo or the Malian priest, and the moment his sword killed the chaotic enemy the soul of the Death Lord would depart also in peace to his after-life.
The same reasoning applies to healing: damage done by poison, sickness, or painfull wounds that cannot result in death could be healed.
I know this contradicts Greg's statements, but IMO it seems consistent with the profille of Humakti and the Humakt cult.
Comments?
Sergio
Powered by hypermail