Re: Re: Fog of War

From: Roderick and Ellen Robertson <rjremr_at_...>
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2002 09:41:29 -0800

> >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...).
> The point here is that Iphara is the Murder Fog, and that its presence
> implies (secret) murder is present, intended or done.

If this were an Icelandic saga, the kin could sue Iphara herself, for aiding and abetting a murder. (Collecting wergild from such a spirit might be problematical, of course...)

By the way, the Saxons had two terms for homocide: "Morther" is the intentional killing of someone and includes by stealth, by poison, by magic, or other extenuating circumstances. The other is "Manslieht/manslege" - Manslaughter - implying that someone died, but it wasn't a murder, it happened in the course of doing your duty. A Humakti using his "Glance of Death" while acting as a bodyguard and defending his patron isn't guilty of "Murder by magic", he's guilty of "Manslaughter", even though the deceased died from direct magical attack (some would say he died from his own stupidity...)

RR