From: martin (102541.3423@CompuServe.COM)
Date: Sat 27 Apr 1996 - 10:23:00 EEST
Pam Carlson noted to my comnent on people sticking to their word etc:
>Um, actually, about 90% of the player characters I've ever seen stand by
>comrades and keep their word. Those are important attributes in almost all
>societies, not just among Humakti. Sure - Humakti make a religious/Oath
>thing out of it, but given the wide variety of intrepation that Humakti seem
>to give to truth and honor, they seem little different than anyone else in
>the loyalty/honor sphere. (Excepting Eurmali, Orlantians, Krashti, etc.)
PCs stick to their word very easily. There are anumber of reasons for this.
Onslaught is an NPC and is fairly unusual in that his own life has no relevance
The prime one is that sticking to your word may cost you your character but
hell, its only a piece of paper in the end. In the real world very few people,
if given time to think about their potential loss would actually stand by you
when the shit hit the fan. Why? Because most people are desperate to save
their own lives/careers or comforts. Think about it. When have you been in
trouble and been saved or supported by somebody when their kneck would be on the
line for doing it? I can count such happenings on two fingers myself. on the
other hand, I can count on all my fingers and toes the times when people didn't
stand up for me or a friend and kept their cowardly mouth shut!
to him as long as he dies in battle. Amongst Gloranthans this is rare. His
lack of ties is rare and his willingnes to die for a cause is also rare. As
rare as a true fanatic can be.
Do the Orlanthi not applaud warriors who stand by their lords no matter what?
I believe that Orlanthi society is no better than any other and oath breaking is
They know the temptation to flee, to betray or to leave in the lurch and respect
those who don't. Human beings are simply that; human and are very prone to
these moments of moral cowardice. If people think this is a cynical view read
some history for betrayal and backstabbing are central to most great and small
events throughout time. If such oath loyalty was not considered rare why then
would the 47 Ronin in Japan be so lauded considering its reputation as an honour
bound society. Why? Because such acts were really rare in reality but we only
hear about them, or the great betrayals. Rarely do we hear all the petty and
minor backstabs that happen all the time in the RW.
something that occurs. Certainly oath tweaking does and in particular oath
ignoring. Lunar society is much worse, more like modern day for a lack of real
honour. If Count Julan _really_ wanted to sort out a lack of honour, he should
go to Glamour but that side of things is ever so conveniently forgotten about
when there are some handy barbarians to blame and to bash!
>I still enjoy the old concept of the Humakti as Paladins, defender of the
>weak. There do seem to be some of those out there in Your Gloranthas - and
>I'm sure they can be distinguished from the frightening remainder by their
>reputations.
Humakti cannot be Paladins and cannot be defenders of the weak. Humakt never
protected the weak, he fought as a loner for much of the God time. His greatest
feats were achieved when alone. He was never shown rescuing the weak, he didn't
even fight for a people like Orlanth did or Storm Bull or even Zorak Zoran.
Humakti honour is based upon the correct application of Death. It is applied
according to Humakts will and tradition. It is not applied randomly (like Zorak
Zoran or Storm Bull) simply for the sake of it but in honourable battle. It is
not applied cruely. Death must be as clean as possible. To cause it via pain
and anguish is to cheapen it and make it impure. Likewise Death caused by
subterfuge is cheapening it. Humakt killed Grandfather mortal from the front,
he saw it coming, though he didn't know its importance. Humakt applied his
principle in this firmly and his foes always saw him coming but this is not out
of sportsmanship or any RW moral code. It is because Humakti must ever steer
clear of the path of assassination and being obvious is the best way to do this.
In Glorantha the Humakti are mercenaries, clanless, rootless warriors who fight
for a lord or a cause or their word in imitation of their God. They are a dour,
dour bunch and it must be asked, where would such Paladins come from in such a
group of men? War dehumanises people. One only has to look at Vietnam to see
dehumanisation happening. It happens with all men who have to kill. Note I
said "have to kill". Humakti _chose_ to kill. That, basically is their
function. Do you make a sword to plough a field? No, its used to kill. A
Humakti who is not in action is a sheathed sword but make no mistakes, he's
sharp and ready to draw blood.
So, you have a group of men who chose to fight, kill and be killed. Not only
Here's an example: I was talking to a soldier who served in Bosnia and he told
that but they worship the God who possesses and used Death. Their ceremonies
are grim in the extreme and must fill a man with a cold sense of detatchement
from the world around him. Imagine the High Holy Day when they see the finding
of Death, feel its touch in their hand and experience the power in weilding it.
This happens to these men yet we expect them to maintain some sense of modern
day morality about what is right and wrong? Before their morality and honour
can be examined you have to look at the forces driving and creating them and
look at RW examples for help.
me about a group of the SAS (Specal Air Service, 1st grade elite British Special
Forces) in a pub in Bosnia. He tried to talk to them. They took his beers but
replied in a monosylabic fashion. He said, and this is a veteran soldier who'd
been under fire speaking, that these men scared him. His closest movie analogy
for them was the "Terminator".
Now to me the SAS are a close parrallel to the Humakti. Men who chose and take
pride in their skills and who train relentlessly to attain perfection. The more
I thought about it the more I realised that my stereotyped view of Humakti had
been flawed and that I had been playing them exactly like a Paladin all those
years. Realising the error I made I created Onslaught to experiment with other
views. It worked in my campaign and fit in well.
Now, given the nature of their faith and given the grimness of their chosen
career, I find it hard ot imagine the Paladin Humakti. To be honest, the more I
think about it the more daffy it seems. Can anyone out their think of a reason
why Humakti should/could be Paladins yet maintain their faith and sanity in the
face of the grimness the must endure? I am coming to believe that most Humakti
are like Onslaught, rather than Arreth not the other way round as I used to
believe.
Martin Laurie
------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 13 Jun 2003 - 16:30:54 EEST