> 1 is extremely unlikely, because the real option is 1a) A is tried
> and outlawed.
I think 1) is not only likely, given the right circumstances, it's in fact the only option ordained as Official Fact. Outlawry occurred to me after the fact, but isn't much of a significant difference to be worth hypothesising separately about.
Probably the killer is outlawed rather than killed in cases where immediate execution is problematic (he didn't have the decency to turn up to his trial, or did so with several dozen housecarls in tow), so sparing the jurors the trouble of enforcing the sentence. Or if he isn't guilty of murder per se, but everyone in his clan wants rid of him anyway. Or as a (marginally) more "merciful" option.
> I have decided to base East Ralian wergild on an individual's honor price
> (eineach), even though apparently Irish wergild was fixed at 21 cows
> regardless of the individual.
My understanding was that the nearest equivalent to a wergild _was_ the eineach. While not working in the same way as a nordic or saxon wergild, this is someone's basic "worth" for purposes of legal suit. While this isn't all that variable for a given person, circumstances also affect how much, if anything, is due.
Perhaps a separate notion of "wergild" is a product of a Vikingised (or Normanised?) Ireland of later centuries.
Ed Tonry offers:
> Alex asks about wergilds.
> Well, I'm no Lawspeaker, but here's a quick and rough guide to them,
> Viking style.
The point was that I wasn't asking about Viking wergild, but suggesting how it might (or might not) fit as a general concept into what we already know about Orlanthi law.
> All in all, wergild is a great idea for use within a clan/tribe/kingdom
> setting, but it could cause real problems for adventurers far from home.
> Their best bet would be to run fast and far, because they'd probably only
> be offered the option of blood-feud.
I don't see why this follows. If wergild is an established custom or is a matter of law, why wouldn't Lone PCs be able to obviate any killings (provided they're not murderous) by making an appropriate payment?
Klaus observes that:
> Orlanthi are not Vikings,
and:
> It didn't take much for a Viking to avoid being a murderer.
Both most true. And both well worth bearing in mind while we're frantically analogising.
> In principle, this
> doesn't lead to a feud. Once the bloodlines are even, there is
> no reason to go on. However, should A's bloodline disagree with
> B's on the relative worth of the people killed, they will of
> course have to even out things...
I think a brief examination of Human Nature, and the likely reaction if some git from another clan gleefully kills, say, your brother, and proclaims "That's us quits now" reveals why it often isn't so neat in practice.
Alex.
End of Glorantha Digest V1 #231
WWW material at http://hops.wharton.upenn.edu/~loren/rolegame.html
Powered by hypermail