I apologise for weighing in a little late on this debate but - Humakti are usually serial killers in the strict definitionof the term, in that they generally kill people several times throughout their death-in-life, but the vast majority, in most games all of them, are not the sort of person we describe by the term serial killer today. Humakti may be dead men, but they do not hate life. Most of them have a strong code of honour. Generally they abhor secret murder - they commit murder, but do not believe it is wrong or hide it.
I know Greg was not using the term serial killer in this sense, but a more literal reading of the words, one that applies to hardened soldiers. But I wanted to make it clear that people like Bundy, Dahmer, Gacy etc are not the Humakti type.
Serial killers, the real world kind, want to turn people into meat puppets to act out their nasty fantasies of sex turned into power or control. They hide the consequences of their actions, because they know they are wrong and fear the consequences of discovery, They are twisted life (motivated by frustration, desire and anger) that doesn't care for other life.
I have spent far too much time reading serial killer literature, enough that I dislike the serial killer analogy for Humakti because of my informed genuine revulsion for them. To me, the serial killers Gloranthan analogue is those people that fall so deeply into evil behaviour that they become chaotic beings.
Humakti are dead men that do care for life. Well, usually. Humakti are not usually self-centred. After all, they'redead, what do they care. Humakti do not fear the consequences of their actions - after all, they are already dead. Humakti believe their actions are right and holy, even if others might find them frightening or brutal. Humakti do not want those they decide to kill to feel pain or submission or degradation - they just want them to die.
Rather than a serial killer, the suicidal terrorist might be a better analogy. One equally as hateful to current US society, and showing the extreme and frightening nature of the Humakti, but more psychologically true to my mind. Though Humakti tend not to be dedicated to a particular cause (though some are), but to a particular way of behaving. They still have the idea that death or dealing death will not stop them from carrying out that which they know to be right. Really, of course, all analogies will be a little bit off - they are Humakti, which is a frightening archetype of its own.
On a less sombre note, Buffy the Vampire Slayer this season has had a good example of the Death Sickness. When you come back from the dead, you just aren't the same, you touch the fire and freezes you, etc. Unlike Buffy, Humakti can find the company of others who feel the same way and can help them deal with these feelings. Their self-destructive urges are channelled into a grim but honourable path - but they sure aren't the way they were before.
To use another roleplaying game analogy, Humakti in Unknown Armies terms would have many hardened to violence checks. They are not afraid of violence, nor are they shocked by it or by the idea of committing it. Just like in Unknown Armies, this puts them partway to sociopathy. But when it comes to Self checks, its a different story - most Humakti have a code of honour they will be true to, a strong sense of right and wrong and self-control, and most are far from hardened, and will go to great lengths to protect themselves on that front. So in that other way, they are very much human (and very much the opposite of the sociopath).
Cheers David
Powered by hypermail