I don't actually recall seeing any "official" statement that wergild is even an Orlanthi custom. However, going by nordic precedent, it probably occurs, not to mention the fact that everyone seems to think it does. This just opens up the question under what circumstances, and on what basis, is it paid. Is it law, or just a customary practice? Is it (almost) always paid, or only for certain types of killings?
When Anders Foosson kills fellow Orlanthi, Bran O'Bar, henceforth A and B respectively, a number of outcomes are possible.
These aren't precisely exclusive of each other, since at a push, a clan could obtain both the death of the slayer, and monies from his relatives, if they were aggrieved (and powerful) enough to extort it under such circumstances.
Which happens when? For one thing, it depends on circumstance. 1), and to some extent 3) can only really happen where A and B are in clans which share similar enough legal "frames of reference" for them to be feasible. Such as the clans being in the same tribe, or friendly(ish) tribes, or the same kingdom, if the king has enough legal clout to make inter-tribe law "stick".
If 2) happens, this doesn't exactly settle the issue. Repeat whole process for A's killer, (you guessed) C. 1) is now unlikely, though there may be some ad hoc legal procedure wherein A is declared to have been a murderer, and his death thereby justified, after the fact. Another round of 2) is altogether too likely, whereupon we have a nice little blood feud warming up. 2b). In extreme cases, this gets to the point where A's clan are willing to kill _anyone_ of B's clan, and vice versa, whereupon we get 2c), war.
Option 3) is likely to occur out of fear of 2) (or even of 1), as much as because it has to be. Even when it is paid (or offered and refused), recourse to other options may still occur. 4) is (tautologically) what happens when for whatever reason, all the others fall through. Obvious circumstances would be when the slaying was self-evidently "correct", or if B's family is too weak to press any other course.
But the "legal" position is probably that the person should be tried, and a determination made whether the killing was a) Righteous, b) Justified, or c) Murderous. (Improvements on terminology welcomed). Whereupon A is a) scot free; b) obliged to pay a wergild; or c) taken outside and strung up. I'm not sure how each is "defined", but they're probably pretty woolly categories. Killing in secret, or of an evidently defenceless person, or in a egregiously wanton way are generally thought of as Murderous, though your milage may vary, depending on local tradition, and the views of the jurors concerned.
If A is manifestly the wronged party (killing in self defence, or the challenged party in a duel, or "righting" some blatent wrong inflicted by B, then its probably "righteous".
These leaves a somewhat (even more) ill-defined middle, where there's at least an expectation, if not a requirement, that a wergild will be paid to the victim's family (bloodline, chief, clan, whatever). If wergild is part of local law, then the judge and jurors are obliged to help enforce its payment. If it's only customary, then it's up to the injured party to collect on it.
If A and B are of the same bloodline, then only 2) or 4) can happen. While 2) could get pretty nasty, it can't result in a "formal" blood feud, unless the kinstrife gets so bad that one "side" quoth "Shove this", and become a separate lineage, or even clan. Whereupon they can get _really_ serious about it.
In "primitive" areas paying of wergild is probably common, but purely customary, to avoid the otherwise likely blood feud. In Hendrikiland, I bet that it's a formal legal requirement to pay it, unless your lord's court decrees that you needn't, or you're powerful enough to just not bother. In other areas, it may not be a part of the laws as such, but a chieftain, lawspeaker, or juror may declare whether one "ought" to be paid.
Alex.
End of Glorantha Digest V1 #222
Powered by hypermail