Re: Humakti death

From: Sergio Mascarenhas (
Date: Fri 20 Feb 1998 - 14:57:18 EET

Colin Phillips:

> What sergio wrote about the Humakti being able to ressurrect is, to
> use a phrase from Mr Nick Brooke, "utter tosh".
I was not making a definite statement, I was questioning.

> Just because you use some feeble excuse, like "I was killed the
> wrong way" should not be a reason to be ressurrected.
This is non-sense. If you are writing from the character's POV, he is dead
so he is unliquely to make such a statement. If you are writing from the
POV of a player, it's up to the GM to decide.

> The ideal (please note that word) way for Humakti to die is in the
> service of their god.
Just what I had in mind. Dying from sikness, from poison, or from old age
is not dying in the service of the god IMO.

> If a Humakti is poisoned or dies from disease, the god of death is not
> going to give the soul back, because they died in the wrong way. They
> where just unlucky.
Most of the time yes, I agree. But in some very special situations... Look
at it as an heroquest the other way around: not a living hero adventuring
to the hero's plane, but a dead hero adventuring to the mundane plane to
finish a cult's duty that something unrelated to his cult's strictures

> When this chain of ideas begin, I was very much in support of the dirge
> like humakti wandering at will, giving death freely to all who need it.
> But if you are just thinking of it as a way to opt out of dying, then
> this is where we part company.
I am and was not 'thinking of it as a way to opt out of dying'. I even
suggested that the possibility of ressurection should be restricted and
'one shot'.
Anyway, I think that the cult of Humakt should have at least some sort of
ceremony to ensure a proper death for cult members dying of causes
different from fighting. Something like the catholic ritual performed by
priests moments before death (I don't know its name in English).
Even the greatest Death Lord would die unproperly (and loose his place on
the side of Humakt) if he didn't die fighting a worthy fight.
That makes humakti much more careful: they are always ready to fight, but
they will only do it if it fulfils their cult's ethics. They are always
ready to die and prepare themselves for it (through continuous trainig),
but will only move in extreme situations, because they cannot risk an
improper death. In that sense, they are similar to kamikazes. But, unlike
kamikazes, the moment and the reason to move is not imposed on them by an
external power. They are free to choose (or will move under their leaders'

> Gregs idea that healing was only possible from Chalanna Arroy initiate,
> I thought was great, so any body playing in my games watch out as I
> am going to implement this forthwith.
This explains all your comments: you are thinking from an RPG POV first.
You want to limit your humakti players from accessing healing. Nothing
wrong with it. I just think that there are better ways to do it.
To me, the limitation imposed by Greg seems arbitrary. Why should Humakt's
cult rules only allow access to CA healers? After all, Humakt cut is bonds
to every other cult.
IMHO it should work the other way around: it's not that Humakt forbids
healing (even if he doesn't provide it); it's the other cults that don't
want to heal humakti. CA is the exception because CA heals anything that's
not chaotic.



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 13 Jun 2003 - 23:12:05 EEST