>At 10:36 PM +1300 3/3/04, Peter Metcalfe wrote:
> >At 09:26 AM 3/3/04 +0000, you wrote:
> >
> >>Where do we stand re Humakti and weregild? Storm Tribe says that if
> >>they kill someone, then the clan of that person have to take it up
> >>with the humakti?
> >
> >If the Humakti is part of the clan (i.e. resheathed) then his clan
> >is responsible. If he isn't resheathed, then the Humakti is
> >potentially responsible. I say potentially because a Humakti
> >by himself isn't the type of person to be paying wereguilds.
>I would be leery of pushing this too far -- I expect even
>"scary Humakti" realize that they cannot easily live alone
>(especially since a really pumped Humakti might have trouble getting
>food -- it's not like the providing daimones will particularly
>helpful).
Scary Humakti could always do what soldiers have done since time immemorial - menace people into feeding them.
>I expect that, while clanspeople understand the importance
>of Humakt and believe that his worshippers are holy when they kill, a
>Humakti who makes a habit of killing indiscriminantly is going to be
>on the sharp end of the clan (or tribal) warbands in fairly short
>order.
That's nice but the question was about responsibility for weregild for an unsheathed Humakti, not the ethics and consequences of being a rogue killer.
>Especially since, without a clan, the Humakti can only enter a
>tula as a guest, and breaking the laws of hospitality is very
>serious.
Like weregild, these laws of hospitality are Orlanthi laws and an unsheathed Humakti is not obliged to follow them.
--Peter Metcalfe
Powered by hypermail