Humakti, Yanafal Tarnils, and Illumination

From: Brett Evill (
Date: Tue 21 May 1996 - 18:27:02 EEST

PAUL POFANDT <> wrote:
>Hasni Mubarak wote:
>>HUMAKT: Ok, when a death-boy becomes a Sword, he can get another gift
>>and geas. In fact, that's purty much the ONLY way to get additional
>>gifts. However, how can a sword give 180% of his income? (By taking
>>multiple enhance stat gifts...?)
>Since the Humakti tithe a percentage of what they have with them on their
>HHD, tithes of over 100% (or greater) could be handled by tithing HALF the
>percentage, TWICE per year. Once on their HHD and again on some other
>significant date. ie. 180% tithe is two 90% tithes anually.

Or by borrowing the extra money due.

Nils Weinander <> wrote:
(re michael's Lankor Mhy cult writeup)

>Does an initiate gain anything by taking geases? If so, what?

When I am playing a Humakti (no uncommon thing) I usually obey most of the
geasa, even though I get nothing for them.

Andrew Joelson wrote:
>>Yanafal Tarnils is the normal spelling, (although Tar'nils is
>>sometimes used).
>Nice guy that, with such a name: Tar'NILS.

Around here we spell it "Neanderthal's Toenails".

D M McNamara <> wrote:

>Hello Brett Evill (is that your real name?)

G'day. Yes, I'm afraid it is, and it has caused me a lot of trouble. But
'Evill' is a fine old English name with a Humakti tradition going back to
the middle ages. Mock it if you dare!

>Hence 'fighting' illumination by asserting
>essentialist dogmas is as bad as being gbaji.

I (in my Sartarite personae) do not fight illumination because of any sort
of dogmas. I fight it because it makes people tolerant of chaos, and hence
of infection, suffering, and the destruction of Glorantha. Very concrete

> Instead, Nietzsche argues that we should create a 'will to power,'

I think that my various Humakti characters would find Nietzsche as effete
as I find him vacuous.

> which is why illumination must
>be taken away from chaos, which ultimately has quite unfortunate aims ie.
>destroying glorantha. Which although cannot be dismissed on the basis of
>'this is wrong,' i feel most would agree that it is preferable to keep
>glorantha going than wreck it.

Illumination might not be a tool that we can turn to our use. It seems to
me more like a sort of intellectual infection.

> (and don't give me any of that new age campbell 'god with thousand
>faces' crap, because it just isn't supported by archaeological or
>anthropological evidence in ANY way, trust me)

Don't worry, I won't quote Campbell (or even Jung, or even the Sakyamuni)
at you. I don't think that RW archaeology, anthropology, or psychology is
conclusively relevant to Glorantha in any case.

Brett Evill

"Decay is inherent in all composite things.
Work strenuously for your own salvation."
(Sakya Siddhartha Gautama: last words)


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 13 Jun 2003 - 16:31:37 EEST