> That's always been my own feeling on the subject: but
> Storm Tribe tells us that they can have children, and
> do. And that such children have not yet been proved to
> be undead :) As a result of that, and earlier sources,
> there are plenty of children of Humakti lurking in
> players backstories, so we can't make it a
> prohibition. Shame, but there you go.
Are you Gregging Greg, Jane?
OTOH, I wonder whether making Humakti infertile does make sense, in fact. Humakt had a son, and he was Arkat. If Humakt cannot have children, how could he father Arkat? Or perhaps Arkat was a son of Humath, not Humakt, like many have already argued, and this whole story of severed kinship (and infertiliy) was introduced when Humath became Humakt.
> Hmm, maybe it's a contest between the Death affinity
> of the Humakti and the fertility magic used to create
> the child....?
Makes sense. Maybe the fertility magic involves the creation of a temporary bond of kinship with the mother's (or father's) clan or tribe.
> and what happens to a Humakti attacked by broo?
Broos use a twisted form of fertilty to give birth, so I do not think a Humakti is safe from being "sexually" abused by a broo. I wonder how the broo can manage to take him _alive_, though. Vingans and Babeester Gori are infertile, too, but this does not protect them from broos - I remember that you clearly stated, in your description of the (in)famous Droop spell, that it does work on broos, which makes me think there should be a reason for Vingans to use it on them.
Powered by hypermail