You are both right. The violence is not the usual solution to any problem - but the implied threat of violence is always there, and violent solutions are always considered. Most problems will go to a thing or lawspeaker adjudication or similar settlement - but that doesn't mean that they haven't considered violent solution before taking that step. The normal course of resolution is that everyone considers violence, both sides worry about the threat of violence and drum up all the aid they can from chiefs, family, friends and cult, the two sides then consider each other and how disastrous it will be if this matter is not resolved, then the big players on both sides bully them into a settlement. But frequently this process doesn't work, and violence follows.
Note that part of the reason for weregeld is that those who could end up pursueing a vendetta have a good reason to prefer settlement to continued violence. And most of the time, it works.
>>Normally, non-violent solutions are preferred to violent ones.
>
>Non-violent solutions are preferred? Whadarya? A Wuss?
Yep. Non-violent solutions are preferred. Violence is unpleasant, people die, and weregeld is profitable. No one wants violence except the young, stupid, and insane (of course, there are always plenty of these around). Stormbullies come under 'insane'. Sensible, respectable folk know that there is always another way - and it generally results in far less unpleasantness for everybody. Violent solutions represent a failure of the various social mechanisms for preventing violence - which means violence does break out quite often, but most disputes are resolved without violence (or without further violence, if violence was the cause of the dispute in the first place). Of course, 'most' is very different to 'all', even Orlanthi all.
Powered by hypermail