Apologies to Sandy if it's his and not Greg's, but I have heard Greg refer to it.
I don't know how important it is mythicaly. The fact that it's banned means that on the one hand it's not a vital part of the religion. On the other hand, it must be common enough that they have to go to the trouble of banning it. You only have laws agains things that people actualy want to do. As a humakti, _knowing_ that nothing you kill can be resurected would be a nice advantage to have, especialy against those bastard Yanafali heretics.
> The quest itself doesn't necessarily say anything about Humakt
himself.
>A powerful and skilled individual can "prove" almost anything with a
>successful HQ-path, and establish it for others to follow.
But that's the point - it's been _prooved_. That means it's true.
>
- -......I'm sure there
>can be temples of Humakt with total lack of respect to life, and those
>that believe death to be an end in itself.
Well, there's going to be a range of attitudes. People have lots of motives, not just religious ones. What we're realy talking about are fairly deep philosophical points. Idealy every humakti would want the power to deal permanent death, but not all of them would be willing to kill a healer for it. Not any healer anyway - there's always that broo up in the Rockwoods. *smile*
>Humakt the God is something different though.
This is hard to swallow. You mean that Humakt, the divine being, can disaprove of a heroquest of his own cult? How can that be possible? A cult heroquest is by definition a a way in which cult heroes can become closer to their god.
"A man is defined by his actions" (appologies to female readers). Heroquests are idealised expressions of this truth.
> Humakt succeeded, and now death is part of the _cycle_ of existence.
I would argue that Humakti believe that resurection isn't part of the cycle. It could be argued the other way, I'm sure the lunars do, but the fact that Humakt bans resurection for his followers implies IMHO that according to Humakt, it isn't so. I think your arguments would be ideal if they were argued from a Yanafali point of view, but fly in the face of orthodox Humakti doctrine in Dragon pass.
>You misunderstood me. Humakt _was_ already responsible, but his kin
>weren't. Through their ties to him they could force him to act against
his
>better judgment. Humakt could not allow his impulsive kin control
Death.
Accepted, both interpretations are IMHO valid and probably equaly true.
Simon Hibbs
Powered by hypermail