Two Questions on Resurrection

From: Andrew Larsen <aelarsen_at_mac.com>
Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2005 10:45:04 -0600


I've got two questions about how resurrection interacts with Heortling law. This might have been discussed on the list before, but I don't remember, so sorry if I'm dredging up something old.
  1. A and B are both Heortlings from different clans (and to keep it simple, let's say they're both Orlanthi). They fight, and A kills B. Normally, this would allow B's relatives to demand compensation or start a blood feud. But then C resurrects B. Leaving aside complications like possible Relife sickness, loss of abilities, and whatnot, how does the resurrection affect the legal situation that A is in? Has C's resurrection eliminated the claim of B's family to compensation? Has the damage been downgraded from death to injury? Or does C's family still have a right to pursue a feud with A and his family? Does B himself have the right to demand compensation or start a feud?
  2. N and M are brothers, or cousins, or otherwise close relatives. N is an Uroxi, while M is (for covenience) an Orlanthi. They fight some bad people/things, and N frenzies during the fight. At the end of the fight, M tries to calm M down, but N attacks and kills M. N has committed kinslaying, and has presumably acquired significant ritual stain. But C intervenes and resurrects M. How does the resurrection affect N's legal and religious status? Is N still guilty of kinslaying, is he still stained, and is the community still wounded by the unresolvable crime? Or has C's action healed the situation? Is this a 'near miss' for everyone involved (an incident to be learned from but without lasting repercussions), or is there still a problem within the family and the community?

Andrew E. Larsen

--__--__--

Powered by hypermail