Re: Trial by Combat

From: Donald R. Oddy <donald_at_grove.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 23:37:22 GMT


In message <qhpk01t8akgjsb5ld2ppkfioc6prnnclku_at_4ax.com> Stephen Tempest writes:

>In the real world, a Trial by Combat between a professional full-time
>warrior and an ordinary Joe would, barring freak accidents, always
>result in a guilty verdict against the ordinary person.

Yes.

>In the idealised mediaeval concept of Divine Justice, if the ordinary
>person was innocent then God would intervene by a miracle and allow
>him to win the combat... perhaps he would be inspired to fight far
>beyond his normal capabilities while the professional warrior was
>plagued by self-doubt and despair, or perhaps there would be a more
>direct intervention - the warrior's sword shatters, or whatever.
>
>So how does this work in Glorantha? Do Heortlings believe that
>Orlanth, or Humakt, or whoever will actually intervene in a trial by
>combat to augment the innocent party or curse the guilty? Are there
>any extant myths about this happening? Game rules?=20

The gods do lend their magic to mortals to reflect their concerns, that's what the magical augments are all about. So a Humatki who knowingly fights for a lie will have a negative augment for his truth affinity instead of a positive one. If he then rolls a fumble a perfectly reasonable narration would be that his sword shattered with all the social consequences that would cause to a Humatki.

>Or is the trial not about guilt and innocence at all, but nothing more
>than a way to establish which party to the dispute has the best
>warriors? 'Might makes right' not as an unfortunate consequence of the
>way the world works, but an actual moral principle in its own right?

Few Heortling legal cases are about guilt and innocence, most are about damage, responsibility and restitution. Think English civil law not criminal law. There is an element of the individual having the might to stand up for themselves but at the same time the rich man who hires a professional killer in a dispute with a poor man will tend to lose face with the clan.

I suspect a lot of these cases are actually resolved by the wealthy person giving the poor one a gift without accepting responsibility. Enhances the giver's reputation for generosity rather than damaging their reputation.

-- 
Donald Oddy
http://www.grove.demon.co.uk/


--__--__--

Powered by hypermail