Re: Questions

From: Peter Larsen <plarsen_at_...>
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 06:16:45 -0500


At 10:36 PM +1300 3/3/04, Peter Metcalfe wrote:
>At 09:26 AM 3/3/04 +0000, you wrote:
>
>>Where do we stand re Humakti and weregild? Storm Tribe says that if
>>they kill someone, then the clan of that person have to take it up
>>with the humakti?
>
>If the Humakti is part of the clan (i.e. resheathed) then his clan
>is responsible. If he isn't resheathed, then the Humakti is
>potentially responsible. I say potentially because a Humakti
>by himself isn't the type of person to be paying wereguilds.

        I would be leery of pushing this too far -- I expect even "scary Humakti" realize that they cannot easily live alone (especially since a really pumped Humakti might have trouble getting food -- it's not like the providing daimones will particularly helpful). I expect that, while clanspeople understand the importance of Humakt and believe that his worshippers are holy when they kill, a Humakti who makes a habit of killing indiscriminantly is going to be on the sharp end of the clan (or tribal) warbands in fairly short order. Especially since, without a clan, the Humakti can only enter a tula as a guest, and breaking the laws of hospitality is very serious. Of course, a clever kill-krazy Humakti probably knows how to get an honorable challenge out of nearly anyone, bending the hospitality laws just far enough (you see this a lot in the sagas), but that's where the story comes in....

Peter Larsen

Powered by hypermail