>>Whenever I hear this interpretation, I am reminded of Nick Brooke's
>>comment about rolling 1d10 to see which of the ten commandments
>>one keeps.
>Not an appriopiate analagy for the Humakt religion. If you have >decided
>all Humakti must follow all the Geas listed then there really isn't a Geas
>system no is there.
But I didn't say "must". I think "should" is the way to go.
> >There should be IMO a conflict between the uncompromising Humakti
> >dedication to Death and the cultural norms of the Orlanthi. The
> >myth of Humakt the Champion is predicated on this. Thus although
>There frequently is. Death to Humakti is a "ready, willing and able" deed,
>where as Orlanthi culture has normal restraint on the >matter.
I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about actions such as ambush that you presume are okay for humakti if they don't have the geas forbidding it.
>It is part of what make
>Humakti general "personae non grata" espically within 30 feet of the High
>Ernalda priestess during sacred time.
I don't see why.
> >a Humakti might be free to ambush someone if he does not have
> >sense assassin, his actions would be unworthy for someone of his
> >status.
>The geas is clear. Those with that geas yes. Those without no.
>The Humakti has not broken his word by ambushing and he hasn't done
>anything dishonorable for a culture where cattle rustling is a religious
>event.
Acting up to the standards of your god involves much more than simply giving your word that you will not do something.
--Peter Metcalfe
Powered by hypermail