>I'd say that it depends on what he is trying to do. If he intends to
>act with honour and does not slay without good reason, then the
>issue doesn't arise. If he uses the blade wrongly while it
>symbolises Humakt then there are possible consequences.
>IMHO this is the reason why the stories we have are happy to identify
>Humakt with Orlanth's sword for the LightBrigner's Quest but not for
>the slaying of the Evil Emperor (because one act is seen as good and
>the other as a mistake).
All Orlanthi know that Humakt is Orlanth's sword, but in this myth Humakt isn't acting as an independent agent, so his personal identification isn't important. I don't think there would be anything wrong in making that identification though, and I don't think doing so in a heroquest would necesserily pose any problems so long as it's clear that Humakt is not acting as an agent of his own will. It is clear in the myth that Orlanth is responsible for the killing, and any quest that challenges that will face huge problems, but merely identifying the sword as Humakt isn't necesserily a problem.
For example, an Orlanthi questor might take his Humakti follower on quest with him. He makes the Humakti swear an oath of loyalty to do his bidding, and then orders him to cut down the Evil Emperor, which he does. I don't see this as necesserily being a big problem, and I'd allow the quest to be performed in this way in a game of mine. There may be complicating consequences for the Humakti and Orlanthi from performing the quest in this way, but they're side effects and not problems intrinsic to the performance of the quest.
Simon Hibbs
Powered by hypermail