I might fear this was Deacon Blue reference, but knowing John, mac Erc or someone might seem more likely...
> Bit more than that. A google search on 'borderline' isn't going to get you
> much useful stuff, but one on 'liminality' will lead you to heaps of
> material on ritual, initiation and myth. Liminality is a core concept in
> understanding all three, and, as myth creators, it deserves at least a
> fleeting recognition as part of our toolkit.
And these associations are relevant here how? Sorry, but this still seems to obscure more than it reveals here. Are you saying Humakti are more sacred than any other initiates? More mythic? More ritualised? (OK, I might give you the third, to an extent...) Your core point, if I understood it at all, was that they were in a borderline category as legal persons, no?
> > I don't have ST to hand, alas, but I would not play this as
> > an absolutely immunity to all attempts at legal sanction for
> > any and all killing. Rather I would allow that "that was a
> > sacred killing" was an 'affirmative defence' against such a
> > suit.
>
> It worth reading ST 63 on this.
It doubtless is, and I would, but it _still_ isn't to hand. In any case, I'm if push come to shove more concerned why my game, and my sense of logic, than (this week's) Canon.
> Your suggestion is doubtless within the range of clan variation.
Gee thanks. So's yours -- just about. ;-)
> In which case, 'resheafing' would be more about
> 'who pays' - kin rather than cult. I think the discussion has emphasised
> that its not necessarily law suits that's going to get you results with a
> humakti anyway. Appeals to honour will gain admission of killings, and may
> oalso produce spontaneous offers of weregild.
And I agree with those thoughts. I'm not saying it's any of a) likely, b) wise or c) easy to sue a Humakti for wergeld, merely that it is not an on-its-face _impossible_ act, as you claim.
> And as a narrator, bastard
> that I am, I might suggest through the head of the local sword temple that
> sometimes a humakti murder will be asked to kill themselves to prove the
> purity of their killing and to preserve social harmony. Being a humakti
> should be tough, even for a pc. :)
Well, just to be picky, if the Humakti had committed _murder_ this would be a necessity, not a quaintly extreme option... But yeah, I agree. Humakti don't kill themselves nearly often enough, as Greg alluded to in his anecdote about the uptake rate on his Humakti HQ ("... I guarantee you'll meet him!") Suicide's the answer... what was the question again?
> > (Over and above the pragmatics already mentioned.) As
> > an off the top of my head, I'd suggest that "divine necessity"
> > was a possible defence for persons of any initiatory status,
> > in the right circumstances. (Yinkin/Orlanth/Wakboth made me
> > do it, guv.)
>
> Hmmm. Heortling law is not really about cause or motivation
... neither of which I was appealing to. I'm talking about a difference in the act. Was it a sacred killing, or was it not? (Not necessarily an overt or easy to prove or disprove difference, mind you...)
> In most other cults, such arguments *might* reduce
> the compensation payments, but I don't see them holding that much weight in
> the majority of circumstances. Is every Niskisi free to commit adultery and
> unbounded sex , cause 'the daemon made me do it'?
Every Niskisi is free to plead sacredness of his act, when his court case comes up, yes. The juror/king is equally free to disagree...
> I think in general terms, precedents at law are less useful than a close
> examination of the particular circumstances, politics and power relations
> surrounding a given crime. Outcomes can be extremely flexible, depending on
> the social power of the conflicted parties.
Those two aren't in contradiction. Our clan's catchphrase could well be "the precedents are unclear" (/mixed/will cost extra, guv).
Cheers,
A.
Powered by hypermail