Re: Two Questions on Resurrection

From: (nil)
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 07:33:23 +0000

>Paul Andrew King wrote:
>
>>I don't think that the resurrector has any direct legal claim on
>>either family unless there is a promise of payment.
>
>That wouldn't work in my game. Although there is indeed no legal claim,
>a bloodline that received such a gift (the resurection of their family
>member) without giving a gift of similar value would have a reputation
>for lack of generosity that would make it much less likely to have
>people deal with them as friends in the future.

I agree - but there's no legal basis for such a claim that I am aware of.

> Now of course, they
>would then have a claim against the person who killed their kin, for at
>least the value of the gifts to the healer.

I think that this is where the law is up for grabs. Yes they would likely argue that. But the opposing side could argue that they have no responsibility for the amount given, and that it was a gift not a cost or a hardship (even if it is all but mandatory by the unwritten rules of society and really was a genuine hardship).

-- 
--
"The T'ang emperors were strong believers in the pills of
immortality.  More emperors died of poisoning from ingesting minerals
in the T'ang than in any other dynasty" - Eva Wong _The Shambhala
Guide to Taoism_

Paul K.



--__--__--

End of Glorantha Digest