From: Simon Hibbs (simonh@msi-uk.com)
Date: Thu 23 Apr 1998 - 14:00:20 EEST
Richard Develyn :
>I wondered why Humakti did not oppose resurrection in others. Then I
>found I couldn't figure out whether they opposed undead and why?
>
>Sure, they don't want to become undead, or resurrected, but why do they
>care what happens to other people?
Humakt is not simply a war god; Humakt _is_ death, the severer that
seperates this world from the next. Ressurection and undeath are
violations of the rule of death, and so are inimical to Humakt. The act
of ressurecting the dead and creating undead both weaken the power of
death in the world, and so weaken Humakt. Death is essential to the
ballance of life in Glorantha, weakening death weakens the binding
forces which keep glorantha together and ultimately could come to
threaten the integrity of the cosmos.
Humakti worship Humakt directly. Thir magic and power come from the
power and imminence of death in the world, so they take an extreme view.
To them both ressurection and undeath are blasphemies that can weaken
their magic and threaten to destroy the world.
Humakti oppose ressurection for the same kinds of reasons that some
>So I think Gods sacrifice their free will in order simplify, and
people oppose nuclear power - It's usefull in the short term, but just
look what happened at Chernobyl!
>therefore broaden, their appeal. If Humakt answered a DI call to
>resurrect someone (and word got out) then it would severely shake
>Humakti faith. So he ain't gonna do it - even if he could.
This view is cynical beyond belief. What do you think it means for a god
to personify a rune-truth about the nature of the world? If Humakt _is_
death, what does that tell you about Humakt's freedom of action?
The gloranthan answers to these questions would depend on whether you
asked a Malkioni, a pantheist, or a Shaman. here, I have given the
pantheist view.
David Dunham says :
>In any case, the Compromise is but one way of explaining why gods don't
>walk the earth any more. I'm sure non-Theyalans all have different
>explanations for why this is so. (We know the Dara Happans have no
>Compromise myths.)
True, but they have other ways of explaining the same effect. I'm giving
the theyalan view because it is directly relevent to the Humakt example
which is also beign discussed. I'd be just as happy arguing a Malkioni
viewpoint about the nature of the gods, but in the context of the Humakt
debate, it would be less helpfull.
Simon Hibbs
------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 13 Jun 2003 - 23:14:36 EEST