> Okay, help me a little with this. Humakti don't ambush,
right? "Don't
> ambush" geas, "sense ambush" skill, all of that. I *assume* the
reason
> they don't ambush is because it's not "honorable" to attack a
> defenseless foe. So... wouldn't that apply all the more to a
prisoner?
IMHO : Humakti also act as executioners. Their aversion to ambushing is because they believe that everyone* should have the opportunity to face death. An surprised foe has little opportunity to show any bravery or honour in the way they enter combat and 'meet their doom'. Prisoners and the condemned do have the opportunity to face their impending death and show what stuff they're made of.
> I could see a Humakti fighting every battle to the death. But if he
> *did* take a prisoner, if he accepted an enemy's surrender, I'd
think
> his honor would compel him to protect the prisoner, not kill him. If
> nothing else, I'd think accepting a prisoner's surrender is
(implicitly)
> making a promise not to kill him--and Humakt doesn't much like
> oathbreakers.
I don't think any such promise is implicit, although I imagine Humakti would tend not to accept surrender in the first place. In fact I would be shocked and dismayed at any Humakti who ever made a promise not to kill. It strikes me as being highly blasphemous.
Humakti honour is not the honour of gentlemanly conduct. It is the honour of streight talking, facing doom, and not much else.
Simon Hibbs
Powered by hypermail