This would be my interpretation as well.
While the outlawry of the killer might assuage some of the grievances (Greydog emissary: "Which way did you say he left your tula?"), there is still the weregild to think about. The idea that you can quickly outlaw someone and avoid compensation claims seems really exploitable (Sneaky Chieftain: "Oh him, *so sorry* we outlawed him!") especially if there is no way for the Greyddogs to discern if the outlawry is genuine... surely you'd lie to an enemy to protect kin so why not claim that the wrong-doer was outlawed and let these Dogs go begging? (Greedy Carls: "What do we owe them afterall?!").
This sort of attitude and approach does create drama, and I can see it happening in society (and in games!) but I don't think it is What Orlanth Would Do; I think Orlanth would tell the Greydogs: "We have sent the malefactor you seek away, he is not one of us; here take these cups and cows and give them to the kin of those slain - noone can walk the world alone. Oh and he left to the east - violence is always an option."
That the reality of mortals and the exigencies of politics might alter this is allowable, but I just don't see the clan's liability for the deaths of other being discharged so lightly in iterms of dealistic Orlanthi Justice.
OFF TOPIC-ISH:
FWIW I don't see Dara Happans as being very ruleslawyering! I used to,
when I thought they were legalistic and had a written code, but it
seems the Yelm's Justice is a sort of gnostic insight experienced by
the worthy (Gold People ala Plato perhaps?) rather than something
"killed" and put on stone or paper. The Carmanians might be our
tedious lawyering culture but I am afraid I don't know much about them
other than the fact they have cataphracts.
--
John Machin
"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
- Athanasius Kircher, 'The Great Art of Knowledge'.
Powered by hypermail