>Jeff very handily clarifies the nature, and legal situation of the
>Orlanthi bloodline. I understand, though, that there are such things as
>"permanent bloodlines" (for the want of a better term); is that what's
>now better described as a "subclan"? Or have I just abused that term,
>too?
"Bloodline" is an easily abused word - especially because the Orlanthi give it multiple meanings. Orlanthi are obsessive geneologists since a distant family connection gives one a possible legal relationship (or at least a claim to such a relationship). This applies not just to men, but often to heroes and gods as well. Having a geneological connection to Sartar gives one a claim to his assistance. Of course, it is possible for an Orlanthi to "prove" such a relationship through heroquesting - the Sairdite hero Verenmars "proved" he was descended from Vingkot. Worse yet, bloodline does not necessarily mean "blood kin" - non-biological members of a household are often considered part of the bloodline. Confusing? Of course it is. Why else would Lhankhor Mhy be a major cult amongst the Orlanthi - it takes the god of knowledge and law to keep track of this relationships.
>> Orlanthi law places strong incentives
>> for a bloodline to police its own - the transgressions of any member
opens
>> up the possibility of reprisals against any other member of the
bloodline,
>> usually the weakest members.
>Much the same applies in any level of "legal entity" in Orlanthi
>society, of course: clan chiefs and rings settle intra-clan disputes,
>the tribal king settles those between different component clans, etc,
>etc. So in that respect, I think, as I think Jeff implies, KoS may
>somewhat mislead as to the extent that the bloodline is the "legal
>atom" of Orlanthi law -- depending on the context, legal sanctions
>(or quasi-legal ones, such as Peter's Beating the Shit Out Of) can
>be applied to an individual, a bloodline, a clan, etc, etc.
Yes - however a trespass by a member of a clan can be redressed against any other member of that same clan. This is important to understand. If Garagorian the Loner, a member of the Bear clan, kills Oddo the Stumbler, a member of the Ram clan, Oddo's brother, Wultham the Loud, can seek redress against any member of the Garagorian's bloodline or even clan!
>Hrm, this is a tricky point. I imagine that a bloodline doesn't
>_formally_ have the power to outlaw someone from their clan; OTOH,
>if you're kicked out by your closest kin, you're in pretty deep shit.
That is my point - if your closest kin refuses to protect and shelter you, you are as nearly as good as outlawed and it is time to either create a family of your own (ie. get retainers, clients, etc.) or more probably, time to join another family as a client or retainer.
>I suppose that in the majority of such cases, either the clan makes
>the outlawry "official", or in a few cases, the person is able to
>stay within the clan, but in a different bloodline (by becoming an
>"adoptee", or founding his own, those would seem to be the options),
>but that seems kinda tricky to pull off.
Actually one very possible option would be to enter a client relationship with another bloodline and get their protection and shelter. Of course, this would mean being at the very bottom of the social ladder - a landless cottar most likely.
>> Some clans might have generations of ritualized raiding that takes the
>> form of sport rather than warfare
>Which is only fair, since as many a hapless spectator has observed,
>Orlanthi "sport" is not unlike open warfare.
Yes. :)
>Clans and
>tribes have _de jure_ leaders, not simply _de facto_ ones. I think
>bloodlines have a "leadership" that's more informal by far, and also
>more fluid.
Yes, Alex has this down exactly. Clans and tribes have very formal de jure leaders - complete with legalistic ritual "tests" for the leaders.
>If you're the "founder", or the "named" individual of a bloodline,
>then presumably you might actually be such a leader; but in most cases,
>person [X] of the [X] bloodline is actually some ways since deceased,
>and leadership of the bloodline is effectively in the hands of whichever
>of his sons or grandsons have the most money, huscarls, grain, favours,
>or Plot Points, depending on the whatever pressing matter is at hand.
Or daughters, daughters-in-law, etc. with the most money, strongest personality, clearest sagacity, favours, or Plot Points.
Powered by hypermail