> Humakti often fight to first blood, and most temples
> have rules requiring that.
has been Gregged;
> Unless someone is aiming for vital locations, the fight usually
> ends in incapacitation or surrender. It would be extremely dirty
> fighting to kill an incapacitated foe or one who surrenders.
> There is a word for that: murder.
seems to go against the intuitionistic definition of "fight to the death". I think that attempting to convince o juror of murder in any duel, much less a duel to the death, is going to be tough, other than by proving the duel itself was unlawful;
> Few men ever fight to the death.
> Even a fight "to the death" does not usually end in death.
is true, but not for the reasons given. Death would only occur if the loser were unwilling to concede, or the victor was determined to kill him anyway (get a Cruel check, but no legal liability, IMO);
> In a fight to a winner, the winner must pay weregild if the loser dies.
would be most curious in making the challenged party liable for killing in "self defence". I suspect that in most formalised duels, all such claims are waived, though I agree that
> Courts and allthings often make exceptions.
especially when treachery or double-dealing of any sort is suspected;
> The winner gains whatever the basis of the conflict was.
is probably only true when part of a (formal) legal dispute. Though in practice, the loser may not feel like arguing about it too much in any event;
> In addition, he can demand a forfeit by the loser.
strikes me as a very arbitary custom to be very widely accepted, certainly the idea of an open-ended forfeit. Local custom might be that the loser must pay some proportion of his wergild, or accept a geas or stricture from the winner, say. And in particular,
> The loser is the winner's prisoner
> until he or his friends raise the forfeiture. If the loser
> cannot raise the money within a season, the winner can sell the
> loser into slavery.
seems egregiously offensive to Orlanthi respect for freedom. If this were caused by the stated and agreed purpose of the duel, then yes, but over a pecuniary incidental, it seems unlikely. Consult your friendly neighbourhood juror.
Maybe the reason Humakti duels are so rarely to the death is that having accepting such terms, the combatants would be reluctant to either yield or show mercy, lest they display lesse-divinity by failing to take them literally. Hence, if challenged to a fight to the death, even if you're daft enough to consider accepting, ponder the merits of checking if your foe is a Humakti...
Alex.
End of Glorantha Digest V1 #103
Powered by hypermail