> I think he claims that, yes. And various other deities also seem to
> stake a claim - Ty Kora Tek, frex?
Hell, doesn't even Shargash have some dead souls or something? And
Issaries guides
the dead. So there are lots who have some control/rulership/etc of the Dead.
> But ruling the dead is not the same as ruling/owning/being Death.
Exactly.
> 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.
Death is an ac/event/moment. The Dead are a people. The Dead are the
ancestors and
ghosts and kin and enemies and history and all that is separate from
life and yet was
once life. Death is the line that separates them.
> Though I believe Carmanian Humakt does not?
I don't know. Peter has said that Humakt without it is Gloranthically
impossible. What
Carmanian Humakt doesn't have is an Honor affinity at his core. So it
seems that what
we have here is an Aspect difference of Humakt. Orlanth Thunderous is
the only aspect
of Orlanth that has affinities having to do with wind, but would we
argue that Orlanth
Adventurous doesn't have the Air rune? Probably not. So the Carmanian Aspect of
Humakt appears to be more focused on being a soldier/warrior than the
one seen in
Sartar. But presumably he still has the Truth rune.
> 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?
"You might be a king or a little street sweeper, but sooner or later
you dance with the
Reaper."
> 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...
Indeed. But perhaps Death is NOT a god in Glorantha and cannot be?
Death seems to
show up as a weapon, as a tool, is found and lost as you say above.
So maybe Death
doesn't get to be a god, since Death transcends all the otherworlds?
> 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.
I kind of like it, actually. It certainly works. (Although IIRC,
there are myths that Orlanth
invented swords because to cleave is part of his power of separation.
This separate
from the finding of Death.)
> 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...
Now THERE's an interesting idea. To be honest, it reminds me of
something written by
Peter Michaels
(http://members.aol.com/pmichaels/glorantha/darahaptrick.html), about
the Dara Happan trickster god. And how unlike in the Orlanthi
pantheon, where they
have accepted the Trickster and found an accomodation, Dara Happan
sense of order
prevents that. So they have three very dangerous trickster's floating
around their
pantheon.
> 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.
I'm certainly keeping this link in mind for a possibility.
LC
Powered by hypermail