feudin'

From: David Cake <davidc_at_cyllene.uwa.edu.au>
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 1997 17:23:42 +0800

>Assuming your wergild rules are similar to the old Icelandic ones (the
>only ones I'm comfortable discussing), then her _legal_ choices are:
>take the money and forget the bloodfeud, or refuse the money and carry
>on bloodfeud against those who killed her husband, and _only_ them.

        I agree, though I suspect the legal niceties of who is a valid target is not so important - these things have a habit of escalating, once you had killed all the murderers, the entire other clan probably would have a blood feud against you, and the war would carry on until one clan capitulated or ceased to exist.

        The Eurmal path would be to take the weregeld and carry on the feud anyway. Its murderous, dishonourable, and would probably at best be grounds to be treated as a rogue Eurmal - ie outside the clan and the law, with no legal penalty for your death, and no defender. More likely it would mean both clans turned against you and being hunted down. Of course, convincing people by subterfuge and persuasion to kill your enemies is not a crime, but it won't be popular. I don't think it needs to be mythically justified particularly, either.

        So refusing the weregeld is the only honourable way to continue the fight. But it certainly lets them know that you are planning to carry on the feud, which gives them grounds to kill you in self-defence. Which is bad if you don't have the backup.

        David

---