> Humakti are a classic example of a liminal category - someone or
something
> that doesn't neatly fit into one category or another, sitting on a
shadowy
> area somewhere on the boundary between two things. Liminal beings
always
> excite fear and uncertainty, and are often the subject of our
strongest
> taboos and prejudices.
Fancy term for "borderline". Not very informative without knowing what the categories are, mind you. If you're implying that there's some doubt as to whether Humakti are bound by law, I have to disagree. (Though the application of law to them has, as discussed, numerous complication. But in Heortling law, I've found, the term "numerous complications" is understood in any event...)
> Another example is cyclists who drive on main roads - "Are they
> a vehicle or aren't they? Why don't they follow the rules!".
Around here, non-rule-following road users are known to we liminal cyclists (borderline between pavement and road, and come to that life and death) as "cars"...
> There are certain clear areas where humakti *are* above the law. As
ST 63
> describes, once sundered, humakti are free to perform their sacred
duty
> (killing things) free from legal reprisal.
I don't have ST to hand, alas, but I would not play this as an absolutely immunity to all attempts at legal sanction for any and all killing. Rather I would allow that "that was a sacred killing" was an 'affirmative defence' against such a suit. (Over and above the pragmatics already mentioned.) As an off the top of my head, I'd suggest that "divine necessity" was a possible defence for persons of any initiatory status, in the right circumstances. (Yinkin/Orlanth/Wakboth made me do it, guv.)
> Humakti in a clan are a mixed blessing.
More like a mixed curse, some would say. (Quietly.)
> Death Lords
ahem...
Cheers,
Alex.
Powered by hypermail