Re: Fog of War

From: t_m_ellis <tim_at_...>
Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2002 14:08:47 -0000

>>I don't think most Heortling courts would consider
>>[possession by Iphara] to imply innocence.
>
> I was under the impression that guilt (except in the cas of secret
>crimes) was not really an issue to Heortlings. It is not a case, if
>Hengst kills Kofti over the price of some eggs of whether Hengist
>is guilty or not, it is a case of finding a settlement that'll stop
>their respective clans butchering each other.
>

I thought the "proper" thing for Hengst to do in this case was to announce to all and sundry that he had killed Kofti (so as not to be accused of Secret Murder, a more serious crime), and then, depending on his wealth, strength and so forth either offer weregild or challenge Kofti's kin to make him pay it ...

I'm not sure where (if) possesion by Iphara fits into this model. If the fog conceals the murder, and the murderer does not "come clean" afterwards then secret murder has been committed, and the community at large needs to find and deal with this person. (The truly sneaky and evil murderer will not only commit secret murder, but ensure that there is an "obvious murderer" to take the fall...).

Alternatively, Hengst could admit to having killed Kofti, but claim posession by Iphara, and claim that both he and Kofti's kin have a claim against whoever is reponsible for summonning Iphara in the first instance...

>
> "Yes, Hengst is an unlikable psycho, but he helped defend us
>against broo that time and remember when he stood over the wounded
>King's fallen body all day during the big battle and single handedly
>fought all comers.. And his clan lent us some of their dairy cows
>when ours had swollen udders,

Which is why even Uroxi Beserkers (or maybe especially Uroxi beserkers!) should spend some HP on "Relationship:Clan")