Thanks Simon and Julian, for addressing the substance of my question(s). Since Julian has moved this topic to the digest and this seems more about Glorantha than HW, I'll reply here. I will paraphrase your arguments and attempt to build on them from there. Please alert me, of course, if my restatements are inaccurate.
I'll just accept 1) as true. But that still begs a few questions, like: What is Humakti honor among Orlanthi? Also, just how much can Humakti honor vary in different parts of Glorantha without changing the god's basic nature? Here's a description I like, taken from Guy Jobbins's myth Humakt's Oath:
"Why do we say Humakt is honourable? If you ask a farmer, he will say Humakt is honourable because he never takes more than his due. If you ask a Lawspeaker, he will tell you the God is honourable because he is impartial and fair in his judgment. A king will say his honour comes from loyalty and faithfulness. A priest will say it is because he wields Death wisely and cautiously. A weaponthane will say that honour is the path of the true warrior, for on its path a terrible power can serve the good of the community.
Our stories say that Humakt is honourable because when Eurmal took Death and spread it in the world, Humakt tracked it down and tamed it. Then he severed his kinship, so that he would never be able to wield this power with partiality. In this way he took responsibility for his actions, for Humakt unleashed Death and he recognised that he should take up its burden. Later Orlanth recognised the same thing, and that is when he went on the Lightbringer Quest."
I guess I'd add that Humakti honor has a lot to do with keeping death pure (which mostly means preventing its use in ways propagated by other gods, like Mallia, Ikadz, Zorak Zoran, etc.). This is implied above but not completely explicit.
As for which parts of honor are not optional extras,
I'd argue the following:
--Keeping promises, being loyal and faithful (oaths,
again the truth rune connection)
--No wanton slaughter; "not taking more than his due"
(that's ZZ's behavior, and therefor a perversion of
death)
--Keeping death out of the hands of the irresponsible
(i.e., other gods)
--Keeping death strong and sharp (not flinching from
killing, and not mixing in life or fertility)
--Impartiality, as long as you don't violate any of
the above.
As Simon points out, these restrictions are mostly about how and not about why or for whom. But once you start keeping promises and being against oath breakers, you automatically acquire some enemies: the rivals of those you've sworn loyalty to, for example, and also gods like Vivamort who got their start with betrayal (he's already an enemy because of the undeath thing, of course). Similarly, a restriction against wanton slaughter is going to make it more likely that you ally with some and not with others - e.g. you're probably not going to be in the Crimson Bat Fan Club. Humakti are likely to be careful who they make promises to, and so make implicit choices about which side is more righteous. So it's a slippery slope from keeping promises and fulfilling Humakti honor to notions of rightness and justice. Of course, different Humakti may still have varying conclusions about what's right; I'm just trying to say that they are not completely neutral on the concept.
The text in Storm Tribe on Humakti disciples slaying whole villages appears to contradict the restriction against wanton slaughter. But maybe not: maybe these disciples felt they had a good reason to kill as they did (justified vs. wanton massacre). One at least was preventing people from dying by disease and so "gave" them a "good death." Or maybe the descriptions, like so many Gloranthan texts, are written in character (by an prejudiced non-Humakti). I admit though, that I find the descriptions pretty hard to swallow as anything other than wanton.
Anyway, this is what I think is core to Humakti honor. There's clearly room for argument. Thoughts?
Powered by hypermail