Back HumaktiMyths

Choice

If everyone dies, the question is really how and when. Most deaths aren't so nice; what does that tell us about Humakt? Is he not nice, or just not all-powerful when it comes to death? Which is worse?

Aha! Got it! (Badly, I hear you say).

There's a third option, and I think it answers a few other questions as well, at least in part.

He is all-powerful, but chooses not to use his power.

Yes, everyone is going to die. But how they die is their choice. If you're dying of some nasty disease, you can always slit your wrists instead. Or pick up a sword and stagger into battle. (Humakt will give you strength to do so, if you pray hard enough).

And Humakt insists that it remains your choice. Not his, no matter how much he might disapprove. And not anyone else's either.

If you've chosen to die in battle, fine. No matter how hopeless or misguided the cause, that's your choice. But if you've been thrust into battle, and one where you have no chance of defending yourself - a victim, attacked by thugs - then you've been deprived of that
choice. And he, or one of his tools (that's us!), will object.

Mercy killings get covered, too. If you're dying horribly and aren't physically capable of suicide, assistance is available. Either from a Sword, or just by prayer (I think even for a non-initiate, a DI to Humakt that goes "please kill me" should have an extra chance of success!)

That deals with rescuing helpless victims. We have to give them a choice of how to die.

And, I think, it also gives a reason to be against really extreme slavery! If the slave no longer has a choice about how they die, if they can't even suicide on their own terms, then Humakt objects. But it would have to be that extreme. And I can only think of three ways it can happen:
1) slave killed, no choice about method (Even "strangled or stabbed?" would be a choice).
2) slave made Undead, not allowed to die
3) slave deprived of wits so as to be unable to make a choice if one was available.

This may cause problems with people being killed by Humakti: are we giving them a choice?
Well, if it's a fair fight, then yes.
If they started the fight, fair or not, then yes.
If we give them the option of surrender, and they don't take it, then yes.
And if we're executing them for some crime, then
a) they had the choice of not committing it in the first place!
b) they can have a choice of methods of execution.

If I can explain this to Dori, she may be able to handle killing her friends a lot better.

How about subordinates Dori's ordering into lethal situations? I suppose they have the choice of disobedience? But that's oath-breaking... no, they chose to agree to obey her in the first place.

Mercy to small fluffy creatures? yes, covered. They aren't capable of expressing a choice, but it can be assumed that they would prefer to avoid suffering, given a choice to make. The same assumption does not hold true for sentient beings. They need to express their choice: Humakt knows very well that avoiding pain may not be their top priority.

Come to think of it, this is the ultimate Storm Deity expression of freedom. Absolute insistence on every being having choice. The only limitation is in the area of choice, as it were. "Chocolate or strawberry" isn't covered.
There are no comments on this page.
Valid XHTML :: Valid CSS: :: Powered by WikkaWiki