Re: Two Questions on Resurrection

From: Peter Larsen <plarsen_at_uri.edu>
Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2005 12:54:44 -0500


At 11:45 AM 2/7/2005, Andrew Larsen wrote:
>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) [snip] Has C's resurrection eliminated the claim
>of B's family to compensation?

          I think that a big part of compensation is to "fix the injury." If B is restored to "normal," then restitution has been made, assuming that there are no other reasons to begin or escalate a feud (and A (or whoever) has probably paid a fair amount for the magic anyway, so it's not like they "got off" for the killing). If B suffers complications from the experience, some sort of compensation is called for, depending on the severity (is turning a bold Destor initiate into a Chalana Arroy devotee equal to killing them? cutting off an arm? I suppose it depends on the clan involved). Now, resurrection is pretty rare (certainly more so in HQ than RQ), so all of this may have to be argued out in court rather than looked up in a table....

>2) 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?

          Trickier. I suspect that it's a "near miss," but it might depend on what happens to the killed guy (if he becomes a Humakti, he's still kind of 'dead,' right?). Most clans will probably outlaw the killer as a prophylactic (and because who wants someone who goes so berserk as to kill kin?).

Peter Larsen

--__--__--

Powered by hypermail