The honor affinity is an important part of Humakt's identity, and sets him apart from other violence-mongers like Urox, Orlanth, Gagarth, Vadrus, or Urain. But at the same time he can't be too well behaved or else no one would fear him. After all, even golden boy Elmali are quite expert at inflicting death, and most Orlanthi warriors would be considered suicidally brave by today's standards. Humakti may be more determined, more skilled, and absolutely fearless, but that does not seem scary enough to make "children run screaming, women lock doors, and ordinary farmers look away." Or am I underestimating the impact of their death affinity? Is it the fact that Humakti can't be farmers or cattle-tenders that unnerves their clanmates?
What are the boundaries of what is acceptable and what isn't for Humakti? It is easiest to start with what are probably the most extreme violations of Humakti honor, the equivalent of mortal sins, punishable by excommunication and death:
Note that most of these mortal sins are chaotic, making Humakt a greater enemy of chaos than is generally acknowledged.
However, there are several behaviors that aren't so easily classified
as right or wrong:
1. Use of poison. Presumably use of poison is distasteful because it
lends itself to secret murder. Does that mean it is OK to use it as
long as it isn't secret? What about using iron against trolls? Also,
since the prohibition against poison is a geas, doesn't that imply
that if a Humakti doesn't have the geas it is OK to use poison?
2. Ambushing. This can be considered a variation of secret murder.
But what exactly is an ambush, and what constitutes participation in
an ambush? Surely it can't be wrong to attack an enemy by surprise;
surprise is one of the most fundamental tools of war, and any war god
who disdains it would soon find himself out of work. Would a preannounced
ambush be acceptable? (e.g., posting a sign on the tula
saying the equivalent of "Beware of the Humakti.")
3. Killing indiscriminately. Presumably Humakti think that killing
itself is not evil, or even tragic: all life goes to Humakt in the
end. But death and life are both sacred. Because they are sacred, the
living should not be put to death willy-nilly, and the dead should
not be brought back to life, except in exceptional cases. So no
indiscriminate killing. What about the examples of death disciples
given in Storm Tribe p. 97, then?
4. Lying. Again, since there is a geas against this, it must be
acceptable most of the time.
5. Taking trophies (body parts) from dead enemies. Presumably this is
not normally considered acceptable, but since the Babeesti do it is
at least borderline. The rule of thumb I am tempted to use is that it
is acceptable to take trophies only against those who have committed
mortal sins. It would not dishonor the corpse because the corpse has
no honor to begin with.
Powered by hypermail