I think he claims that, yes. And various other deities also seem to stake a claim - Ty Kora Tek, frex?
But ruling the dead is not the same as ruling/owning/being Death.
In a random bit of my subconscious, a Humakti PC instructs me to point out that being Death is not the same as being Dead. And that all the benefits of being Dead are yet another thing that Humakt gave up so that others could have them. I'm not entirely sure what she's getting at here, but no doubt, like with the Separation thing, someone will point out whatever blindingly obvious connection I've missed.
> > 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.
Though I believe Carmanian Humakt does not?
> (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?)
I'd completely missed the Umath connection - thanks.
> 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.
It *is* evident in all cultures, isn't it? Not just Gloranthan, but RW. At least, all those I know of. I wonder why? Why this instinctive link between death and impartiality?
> > 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?
In that particular paragraph, I don't think I did. Humakt, who may or may not be a pan-pantheon deity, lost and regained control of Death. (And it's possible that he was called Humath at the time).
But on that pan-pantheon idea - never mind pantheons, how about Otherworlds? He seems to make an appearance as a Saint as well? Does Humakt actually appear in all three (?) Otherworlds? Death is, after all, everywhere...
> 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.
So Humath, son of Umath, "has" Separation and Storm. And other sons of Umath, it seems, only have Storm. (Now.) Humath becomes Humakt (no Storm powers) when he uses Separation to sever from his kin, right? (Which was probably an Arkati ret-con.)
So the next question to my mind is why the other sons of Umath don't have Separation powers? And the only answer I can come up with is that Humakt nicked them. Yes, his kin-severing was because theft between kin is bad, but the reason has been slightly mis-represented... And his acquisition of Truth/Honour came *later*. Yes, it's a radical idea that I'm not sure if I believe myself.
While we're being radical, let me air an idea here that I've mentioned on the Swords list (us, twitter about Humakti philosophy?)
There is a myth or two about how Humakt loses or deliberately cuts off various bits of himself so as to make himself more "pure". His fertility, his emotions, any tendency to cowardice, all colours except black, etc, etc. He held on to things like courage, self-control, never deceiving yourself, and so on. What happened to the discarded bits? My theory is that they gathered together to form another (also incomplete) being. Humakt's Other. Trickster. So when we say that Trickster stole Death, yes, he did. Well, his original parts did. Only they were part of Humath at the time...
Yes, it's another of those perhaps overly-radical ideas. But as far as I can see, Humakt and Trickster are *exact* opposites in every possible way. And that can't be coincidence.
End of Glorantha Digest, Vol 11, Issue 92
Powered by hypermail