> 1. In my Glorantha it is not possible for any individual to
> belong to a tribe directly. ...
> 2. ... If I would allow direct membership for Humakti in
> tribes in my Glorantha, that would make it possible for a
> clan to sue the Humakti's tribe.
> 3. You are right that there is the myth "Humakt the
> Champion". And I must confess that I am not sure what
> its meaning is. Orlanth offered Humakt a place in his Storm
> Tribe, not as brother but as champion. Humakt never said
> "Yes, I agree to your terms." So I automatically assumed he
> did not agree. I thought he just gave him the sword
> (i.e. became his sword) to show his honour but never actually
> joined the Storm Tribe.
Maybe an anology would help, though it might conceal more than it reveals.
it seems like a trickster has the same relationship to a clan chief that a champion has to a tribal king. That is, no bloodline will claim the trickster as kin. He stands alone, with only the chief's protection. The Humakti has severed himself from from his kin and clan, so none will claim him either. He stands alone, with only the king to protect him.
I suspect that, in practice, the tribal king's Humakti fall within the protection of the king's clan. But the Humakti would never concur that they are a member of the king's clan. And if you asked the clan members, they would also say that the Humakti are not part of hte clan. They belong to the king. (Who just happens to be the chief, and who will expect his clansmen to stick up for his Huamkti at the moot.)
If a clan wants to sue the king, do they sue the king's clan? Or can kings not be sued? If not, then presumably the king's sword can;t be sued either.
Powered by hypermail