> I was brainstorming adventure ideas recently, and stumbled on a combination of some bits from "High Pressure Front," and a dream I had recently which prompt this question. How far do feuding clans tend to take things?
In general, without a mediator stepping in, feuding clans may go way too far even for robust barbarian sentiments.
A feud usually starts with a slight, which then turns into economic damage, escalating to bodily harm or manslaughter, going on to forms of warfare including steadburning, and may result in complete annihilation of both clans, and possibly some allied clans as well.
King of Sartar presents the case of the two Colymar clans Jenstali and Karandoli, forcing the Karandoli into a magical hiding place (or extinction, depending on your view of this), and eradicating the Jenstali a few years later.
In the King of Dragon Pass game it is next to impossible to annihilate a clan other than your own (unless you used a certain mercenary force to do the job). I managed to carry the feud far enough that the enemy clan was completely driven out of its lands, its riches, and its magics a number of times. None of these was profitable, even if the clan prospered, and took more neighboring tulas than the entire Colymar clan occupied.
> My basic notion was for the heroes to get involved when a cottar of their clan, nobody important, was apparently seized from his stead by a few weaponthanes during a raid.
This is a common stage of a feud. If you look at Njal's Saga, the classic Icelandic tragedy of two feuding houses (whose leaders are best friends, too), the wives' argument soon led to the slaying of a thrall, a franklin (cottar) in revenge, stepping up to a kinsperson from the chieftain's bloodline, and finally steadburnings and distant kin taking revenge on the surviving contestant.
> I imagined that he might be guilty of the crime of, say, speaking to a child from the feuding clan whilst out tending his sheep, something inconceivable to our modern sensibilities.
That could have been the slight, but usually even Orlanthi require some more heated exchange before applying violence. They rarely forego the chance to stage a cattle raid in those stages of the conflict, too.
> How far do the Orlanthi views on children preclude this from being a possibility? Is it absurd that a feuding neighbor would take it that far?
Was there a pre-existing feud/enmity between the clans, or was this talking to the child the trigger for the enmity? (And is "talking to the child" an euphemism for a problem Catholic priests are infamous for?)
If there already was bad blood, even innocent events may trigger violence. Non-innocent events are almost certain to trigger either violence or extremyl heavily fineable accusations at tribal or even kingdom level law suits, which tend to turn into feuds when the fines get high.
> I'm still not sure what the ultimate explanation behind it might be, but figured something like that would at least be viewed as contrary to Orlanthi notions of honor, if nothing else.
Grazing rights and violations thereof are a common cause for quarrels between clans.
Improper behaviour or insults by official representants of the clan can be a fineable crime, too.
Whatever the crime or the revenge taken, all participants should be prepared to pay the fine, whether in blood or in cattle, when escalating things. The mentality of "we can get away with this, so let's do it" is quite prevalent, though, diminishing the weregeld as a deterrent.
Powered by hypermail