Re:Outlawry = death

From: Roderick and Ellen Robertson <rjremr_at_CyAjQviOMEYTjWUuOg2-iuLJZiwkxY6Bh0EFCZhL2E2CZrNLSv_NRLAozKkbZH0cX3aHr>
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 13:22:21 -0800

> If I were GMing this, I'd give a big difficulty modifier to your
> argument! The basic problem is that under the logic of communal
> liability, it doesn't matter that Killer-Varanil is outlawed or dead
> (same thing really). Your clan "owes" the Grey Dogs because of the
> actions of someone who was a member of your clan at the time.

While he may have been at the time, you missed your chance. Take it up with Killer - if you can catch him. We posted a "we are no longer responsible for his debts" notice with Orlanth when we outlawed him.

There *is* a difference between "outlaw" and "dead" - Dead kinfolk are still kinfolk and will join the Ancestors. We will remember them every time we honor the ancestors. We will honor their obligations because they are still part of the clan - they are just not currently with us. Outlaws have been cut adrift, and we won't accept responsibilty for their actions once we outlaw them. It doesn't matter if its a new action or an old one. If you bring a suit against him with us after he's outlawed, tough. We'll point you in the direction he was heading when he left our lands.

Remember that we probably have been working up to outlawry for Killer fro a while - it's not the kind of decision you usually make up on the spot. I'm sure that the Greydogs are aware that Killer is liable for outlawry - Sartar is a small country, and if you're close enough for him to go killing your clansfolk regularly, your probably close enough to hear all the gossip.

RR
He was born with the gift of laughter and the sense that the world was mad R. Sabatini, Scaramouche