>I wondered why Humakti did not oppose resurrection in others. Then I
>found I couldn't figure out whether they opposed undead and why?
>
>Sure, they don't want to become undead, or resurrected, but why do they
>care what happens to other people?
Humakt is not simply a war god; Humakt _is_ death, the severer that seperates this world from the next. Ressurection and undeath are violations of the rule of death, and so are inimical to Humakt. The act of ressurecting the dead and creating undead both weaken the power of death in the world, and so weaken Humakt. Death is essential to the ballance of life in Glorantha, weakening death weakens the binding forces which keep glorantha together and ultimately could come to threaten the integrity of the cosmos.
Humakti worship Humakt directly. Thir magic and power come from the power and imminence of death in the world, so they take an extreme view. To them both ressurection and undeath are blasphemies that can weaken their magic and threaten to destroy the world.
Humakti oppose ressurection for the same kinds of reasons that some people oppose nuclear power - It's usefull in the short term, but just look what happened at Chernobyl!
>So I think Gods sacrifice their free will in order simplify, and
>therefore broaden, their appeal. If Humakt answered a DI call to
>resurrect someone (and word got out) then it would severely shake
>Humakti faith. So he ain't gonna do it - even if he could.
This view is cynical beyond belief. What do you think it means for a god to personify a rune-truth about the nature of the world? If Humakt _is_ death, what does that tell you about Humakt's freedom of action?
The gloranthan answers to these questions would depend on whether you asked a Malkioni, a pantheist, or a Shaman. here, I have given the pantheist view.
David Dunham says :
>In any case, the Compromise is but one way of explaining why gods don't
>walk the earth any more. I'm sure non-Theyalans all have different
>explanations for why this is so. (We know the Dara Happans have no
>Compromise myths.)
True, but they have other ways of explaining the same effect. I'm giving the theyalan view because it is directly relevent to the Humakt example which is also beign discussed. I'd be just as happy arguing a Malkioni viewpoint about the nature of the gods, but in the context of the Humakt debate, it would be less helpfull.
Simon Hibbs
Powered by hypermail