> Given the importance of cult ties that could make a lot of difference,
> a right not to be abused by their owner could well be championed by
> a clan member of the same cult whereas if there isn't such a right
> there can be no legal challenge.
I think the Orlanthi legal system isn't as pernickity about what your definable "rights" in this sort of sense as this implies. If an associate of the thrall wants to speak up for them in the moot, then it's more a matter of how glib he is with the precedents and how much clout he has in general than whether his case is "in order".
> I rather think no one would take any notice unless it was brought
> to their attention in a way that they couldn't avoid. Of course
> someone might wish to make a scandal of it for political reasons
> and no doubt various preceedents could be used to prove either
> way. Of course it is possible that the accuser also does the same
> given the opportunity.
Again, there is no "accuser". My thought was, if you have sex with a still-enthralled thrall, doesn't it "have the appearance" of coersion or intimidation? (The type of "seduction" you'd go to hell for in the middle ages, if I recall my cod theology right.) And if you have sex with a thrall you've just freed, doesn't it look like "bribery"? Hence my comment about "fear or favour".
> >> There is also the issue of who thralls breed with, since an Orlanthi
> >> all thralls will be female.
> >
> >Really?
>
> Think about it, the two ways of obtaining thralls are capturing
> them in raids and taking in people who are unable to protect
> themselves. Now there aren't many Orlanthi men who will be captured
> in raids, most will fight back and either die or escape. A clan
> which is unable to protect itself will usually have lost most of the
> menfolk. Orlanthi attitudes don't fit with becoming thralls, whereas
> Ernalda can accept it as the best of a bad job.
I'm not at all convinced. The easiest way to be made a captive I think is probably _being_ a raider, and getting captured. (And everyone raids everyone else, so it's just a matter of ransom and return, or "he's a keeper".) Nor can I see any difficulty with capturing male children, even if you think that every half-trained fyrdman farmer is a "give me freedom or give me death" merchant.
> Even with a second
> generation where you would expect an equal mix there will be a fair
> number of young men who decide to escape and there seems to be some
> dispute about whether children can be born thralls.
Indeed, I'd certainly dispute this. Tipping over into "slavery". I certainly think that "all" Orlanthi thralls are 1st-gen, at least.
> Personally I don't see how a clan could maintain a population of
> thralls simply by raiding neighbours.
Depends what sort of "population" you have in mind. I doubt the numbers are ever exactly impressive. An especially hard-case clan might like to make a point of always having thralls (maybe literally >=2) but I doubt it's ever economically significant. (I think I once saw a suggestion that the Sambari were into the "slave trade" but this may be an anomaly related to their proximity to Prax (or post invasion, to them being Lunar-loving scum...) KoDP will have a range of numbers of cite here (however canonically or not)...
> >Tricky, since to allow them to worship on that basis would be
> >mythicly equating _oneself_, as the clan chief in particular with
> >the Evil Emperor. (Pretty much wearing an "Insert Death here" t-shirt.)
>
> Not really, the decision about who and how Ernalda worship is carried
> on is a matter for her priestesses not Orlanthi chiefs. Perhaps it is
> something the women just don't tell the men about. The mythic ambiguity
> will be one of the reasons thralls are uncommon in Heortling clans.
Possibly. I know _our_ earth mother for one is sneakier than a truckload of coyotes... This seems to me to be a fairly "dodgy" practice: a bit like making golden effigies of the chief and having a husband protector come slice its head off. (But if the women (or more especially the priestesses) are _opposed_ to the thrall taking (or indeed to the chief!), it would make a good deal of sense.)
Powered by hypermail