> From: Paul Andrew King <paul_at_morat.demon.co.uk>
> Humakt might be the only God that fully personifies Death. But there
> are other Death Gods and Goddesses - Mahaquata is the Dara Happan
> Death Goddess according to GRoY. "Gods and Goddesses of the Lunar
> Empire" (Enclosure 1) lists Deshlotralas (Old Carmania) and Jagajappa
> (Saird, Jillaro) - Greg Stafford wrote the article so while it could
> have been "Gregged" I would believe that over the idea that Humakt is
> the only Death God.
Ahh, there's some fun info. And as seen below, there are some other
ways of looking at
this reality. I think that your idea of Humakt being "Death", while
there are other gods of
Death and the Dead, makes some sense. (After all, isn't Yelm lord of
the dead due to his
sojourn in the Underworld? Or am I misremembering something.)
> I suspect that the idea about the Truth Rune is that without it
> Humakt would not be Humakt (although it is possible that Humath did
> not have it).
That's true. All forms of Humakt (not necessarily all forms of death
in this view) have to
have the Truth rune. (Don't know about Humath. Why would Death be a storm god?
That would make no sense except for the lovely idea of Jane below,
that Death is a
special case of Separation, and Umath caused Separation, no?)
> From: Ian Cunningham <cappadocius_at_gmail.com>
> I think this is a case of one of those rare, weird "objective" facts
> of Glorantha; some time during the Gods War SOMEONE, one particular
> someone, discovered and used Death for the First Time. That one entity
> is therefore responsible for ALL DEATH, even if some other entity
> stole Death and was the direct bringer of the first death to a
> Culture. That kind of world-wide change is a surefire way to get into
> pantheons and belief systems world-wide.
This view would argue for the idea that Humakt is Death, while others
are wielders of
death or gods of the dead. And that Death is implacable and impartial
is evident in all
cultures, and so Death is always True.
> From: "Jane Williams" <janewilliams20_at_yahoo.co.uk>
> Isn't there some fairly basic bit of Humakti mythology where, after
> Death had been stolen from him and used all over, he went round
> collecting all the bits and putting it back together again? (Possibly
> learning some important lessons on the way?)
Yes there is. I'm sure I remember that.
> In the beginning, there was one owner of Death. And after a brief and
> unfortunate hiatus*, there was still only one owner of Death, because
> Humakt made very sure of it!
So this may be one of the only cases where when you say "death" you
mean Humakt,
regardless of pantheon? (Unlike the Sun, where the Sun is Yelm,
Elmal, Yu-Kagarizant
(I think I mispelled that)
> Though, diving even deeper into Complication, I start to wonder if Death
> is not merely a special case of Separation. And Separation came earlier
> - it was what ended the Green Age, wasn't it? Almost by definition?
As mentioned above, I like this idea. Death really is separation. The
separation of the
living from the dead, etc. He goes around doing this for everyone, if
I recall. Death is
endings and separations. He is as much "severing" as anything else.
And this also,
IIRC, puts him firmly as a son of Umath, IIRC.
> * well, that's how Humakti see it! Yeah, yeah, Yelm, Darkness, I should
> give a toss? Gimme my sword back!
LC
Powered by hypermail