Re:Outlawry = death

From: Richard Hayes <richard_hayes29_at_NJca0HUrRMl_U_NHBc-YoLxXB7p17Hmxuw9Z_VBEMpOUi6HFChfjzs_sOibT>
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 23:30:36 +0000 (GMT)


The question seems to be: does full outlawry (and excommunication) have retrospective effect?  
As I see it, there are four kinds of possible answer :  
Yes -- clans are no longer liable for the acts of outlawed members because full outlawry means not only that the person is not kin but also that they never were kin, even if the members committed those acts before they were outlawed  
No -- clans and tribes remain liable for acts committed by members who are outlawed after the event, as long as they were members at the time of their wrongdoing  
Sometimes -- there is a body of legal principles, probably linked back to the laws of one or more of the Orlanthi lawgiver heroes (Heort, Andrin, etc.) which explains when they are and when they aren't. Moreover these principles may be ambiguous, and/or there may be a conflict between different lawgivers' approaches  
Maybe -- the decisive question is not about the timing of the declaration of full outlawry, so much as the ability of the party demanding recompense to take it by force if they don't get it.

Which answer seems most 'authentic'?  My money would be on the second or fourth options  
Richard Hayes
 

From: John Machin <orichalka_at_RKy-Q8wRGC9tIYxXGShqMxEcUjcTHX9tGIBvCEuapWvHV_RkM3fm5ap_O7qZL3-Mfrhn76tBb00iuQ.yahoo.invalid> Subject: Re:Outlawry = death
To: WorldofGlorantha_at_yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, 5 January, 2009, 10:49 PM

2009/1/6 Stephen Tempest <e-g_at_IKpa1_3qKDuEVQbfxWij1lwMfJ-35DBlvT1lUKqjJ_OpfM4wNK_jACRB13UVSt2UrrFpk58TdvrWU0BPFIAo9NvE.yahoo.invalid>:
> Orlanthi law isn't about narrow blind justice or rules-lawyering - we
> have the Dara Happans for that. II's a pragmatic way of resolving
> disputes, also known as "Either we pay them now, or they'll keep
on
> attacking us and we'll lose far more in the long term."

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'.

------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links






      

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Powered by hypermail