>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?
IMO yes. People fear Humakti because they are followers of a Death God. When one look sat the deeds of their disciples (slaughter villagers, randomly kill women and children etc), their claims to follow a code of honor sounds less than reassuring.
>What are the boundaries of what is acceptable and what isn't for
>Humakti?
Killing people in the wrong way (Poison etc) is forbidden. Killing people in the right way is praisworthy. On all other matters, Humakt is silent.
>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:
>1. Rape. Ragnaglar's sin.
This is an Orlanthi crime and is not against Humakt's code (unless the Humakti was a bare blade - then he would not feel the urge). That it's a chaotic thing to do is irrelevant as Humakt permits chaotic worshippers. The vast majority of Humakti worshippers will find it repugnant and the offender deserving of death but it is nothing to do with how to die and so Humakt is silent.
>2. Secret murder. Presumably a perversion of death?
Secret Murder is an Orlanthi crime. It is possible for a Humakti to keep silent about whom he has killed without breaking faith to Humakt.
>5. Being or creating undead. Vivamort's sin.
Also done by Zorak Zoran and a number of other gods.
>Note that most of these mortal sins are chaotic, making Humakt a
>greater enemy of chaos than is generally acknowledged.
Spreading disease, torture and creation of undead are not chaotic acts (Ikadz and Malia aren't chaotic). They are repugnant to a lot of people including most Heortling Humakti.
>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?
I suppose that it falls in the same category as the reason why disease and torture are condemned (that they cause the wrong form of death). But swift-killing poisons might be acceptable, slow agonizing poisons certainly would not be, but what about poisons that don't kill (such as alcohol)? Or for that matter, if a Humakti deliberately spreads non-lethal diseases, is he still true to Humakt?
>2. Ambushing. This can be considered a variation of secret murder.
It's not. It's only prohibited by Makla Mann's geas who is otherwise known for loyalty (and thus by extension, honor). Thus it is a dishonorable form of warfare (permissible but still bad).
>But what exactly is an ambush, and what constitutes participation in
>an ambush?
Attacking someone from secret or from hiding. Firing a crossbow from a hidden location would be forbidden. Jumping out of the bushes in front of your foe before cutting him down would be lawful. Jumping out of the bushes behind your foe and cutting him down while he is not aware of your presence would be forbidden.
>3. Killing indiscriminately.
Humakti disciples do this without losing faith in their god (Storm Tribe p97). Hence it's not an offence against Humakt. For most Humakti, their humanity prevents them from doing this.
>4. Lying. Again, since there is a geas against this, it must be
>acceptable most of the time.
No. Humakt is a god of truth and so lying would be antithetical to him.
>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.
Whether the Babeesti do it has nothing to do with whether it is wrong in Humakt's eyes. If the local Orlanthi see head-taking as a defense against secret murder (i.e. placing the head of a defeated enemy on a pole outside your house so that everybody knows you killed him), then Humakti are obliged to take heads. For this reason, it isn't necessarily a breach of Humakt's honor.
But if you were dishonoring the corpse, then you would be in breach.
--Peter Metcalfe
Powered by hypermail