Humakt, ressurection and healing

From: Sergio Mascarenhas (sermasalmeida@mail.telepac.pt)
Date: Wed 18 Feb 1998 - 15:02:54 EET


I've been thinking about Martin Laurie's description about Greg's thoughts
on Humakt and death. It raises me some questions I would like to share
basic on the important bits:

> G. [skip] The object of the cult, then, is to die PROPERLY.

> G. [skip] They ARE dead, and their initiation rites are probably funeral
rites.
> But they are the dead in life -- hence their hatred of the wrong type of
living
> dead, the undead.

Question no 1: The proper way of dying for an Humakt follower is / seems to
be by the sword. Since there are other ways of dying (from age, by poison,
by sickness), I would assume these are not proper ways of dying. Humakt is
not a war cult but a cult of death. To Humakt what is important is not to
die, but to die properly. So, I would like to know more about why and how
the different forms of dying affect the after-life.

Question no 2: I would also assume that this could justify a strong
opposition to cults that are connected with other forms of death or death
agents, like Malia.

Question no 3: Most things that cause death cause pain (both before death,
and probabily after death since I would assume that an unproper death
becomes like a sickeness to the spirit of the dead). Humakt is not a cult
of pain but of death. Using the sword to inflict pain should be anatema to
Humakti. They perfect their sword skills to ensure that each attack is
aimed to kill, not to wound. So, Humakti would be completely opposed to
cults that aim to cause pain, specially if they use blades. I'm thinking
about Ikadz here.

Question no 4: Even if a sword blow doesn't kill, I suppose it would be a
proper blow if it maimed deffinitely (for instance, cutting an arm or a
leg). It was contributing to the sepation of spirit and body. But it should
be a neat blow if possible.

> G. Originally I had that the Humakti were not only unable to be
resurrected,
> but that they could not get ANY healing magic EXCEPT from a Chalana
> Arroy initiate.

Given all I just mentioned, I would assume that this limitations should not
be so extensive. They would not apply if the Humakti died improperly (from
poisoning or from sickness). The Humakti could be ressurected in this
instances. That way he would have a chance to die properly latter.
Maybe the ressurection would not be permanent: the dead Death Lord, victim
of a broo sickness could be ressurected to revenge himself from the broo or

the Malian priest, and the moment his sword killed the chaotic enemy the
soul of the Death Lord would depart also in peace to his after-life.

The same reasoning applies to healing: damage done by poison, sickness, or
painfull wounds that cannot result in death could be healed.

I know this contradicts Greg's statements, but IMO it seems consistent with
the profille of Humakti and the Humakt cult.

Comments?

Sergio

------------------------------


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 13 Jun 2003 - 23:10:05 EEST