Re: Orlanthi Guests from Weihe, David on 2001-05-16 (Glorantha Digest Vol 08)

From: Weihe, David <Weihe_at_danet.com>
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 17:29:00 -0400

This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C0DE4F.38B7DBD0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

Jerome Blondel wrote:

> David Weihe wrote
> >Of course, normally you and your family are expected to try to stop
> >Hannibal Uroxi before he kills your guests, not wait until it happens
> >and try to make a profit from the difference in bloodprices.
> 
> Well... I hadn't thought about it but now that you mention 
> it... If i'm a 
> rich widow and my guest is a poor stickpicker, maybe i could 
> make a big profit.

In fact, I was thinking of what a Bad King can do, rather like Alexandre Borgia inviting you to dinner, but I like your "Arsenic and Old Lace" scenario better :-). The flip side, of course, is that it is dangerous to accept as a guest someone much higher than you if you cannot adequately protect him. There is probably an optional form of the Greeting used to grant someone the right to enter and stay for a while but warning him that he must look to his *own* safety, for these cases.

> >If a guest does some wrong, the guilt for his offense is 
> transferred to
> >the host, who is responsible for any fines or weregelds (ignore the
> >redundancy here).  If the host wants to demand repayment of any fine,
> >later, that is a sub-judicial matter between the two people.
> 
> Does it mean that if the guest refuses to repay, the host is 
> no longer obligated to him and may feud with him?

As I said, it is below the level of lawsuit. It is up to them to settle the matter between themselves, just like a bet between two brothers.

If the guest CAN pay, the host may make life miserable for him, but his guest-rights remain. After the guest leaves, if the former host wants to treat it as a matter for a feud, well... Remember, though, guests usually don't carry very many cows on them, so it might be months to arrange repayment at the best of times. Also one normally would rather keep a peaceful relationship that is a bit one-sided (so they owe you a favor) rather than start a feud, especially with someone who doesn't seem to have much means (ie, not enough plundering to make it pay). It may be better to get a reputation for being generous than actually getting repaid, sometimes, and the guest equally doesn't want a reputation as a debt-welcher.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C0DE4F.38B7DBD0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 5.5.2653.12">
<TITLE>Re: Orlanthi Guests</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>

Jerome Blondel wrote:
 > David Weihe wrote
 > >Of course, normally you and your family are expected to try to stop
 > >Hannibal Uroxi before he kills your guests, not wait until it happens
 > >and try to make a profit from the difference in bloodprices.
 > 
 > Well... I hadn't thought about it but now that you mention 
 > it... If i'm a 
 > rich widow and my guest is a poor stickpicker, maybe i could 
 > make a big profit.


In fact, I was thinking of what a Bad King can do, rather like
 Alexandre Borgia inviting you to dinner, but I like your "Arsenic
 and Old Lace" scenario better :-).  The flip side, of course, is
 that it is dangerous to accept as a guest someone much higher than
 you if you cannot adequately protect him.  There is probably an
 optional form of the Greeting used to grant someone the right to
 enter and stay for a while but warning him that he must look to
 his *own* safety, for these cases.


> >If a guest does some wrong, the guilt for his offense is 
 > transferred to
 > >the host, who is responsible for any fines or weregelds (ignore the
 > >redundancy here).  If the host wants to demand repayment of any fine,
 > >later, that is a sub-judicial matter between the two people.
 > 
 > Does it mean that if the guest refuses to repay, the host is 
 > no longer obligated to him and may feud with him?


As I said, it is below the level of lawsuit.  It is up to them to
 settle the matter between themselves, just like a bet between two
 brothers.


If the guest CAN pay, the host may make life miserable for him, but
 his guest-rights remain.  After the guest leaves, if the former
 host wants to treat it as a matter for a feud, well...  Remember,
 though, guests usually don't carry very many cows on them, so it
 might be months to arrange repayment at the best of times.  Also
 one normally would rather keep a peaceful relationship that is a
 bit one-sided (so they owe you a favor) rather than start a feud,
 especially with someone who doesn't seem to have much means (ie,
 not enough plundering to make it pay).  It may be better to get
 a reputation for being generous than actually getting repaid,
 sometimes, and the guest equally doesn't want a reputation as
 a debt-welcher.


</BODY>
</HTML>

- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0DE4F.38B7DBD0--