I have to admit I was assuming this to be the case - killings within the clan are getting uncomfortably close to kin-slaying and would probably be arbitrated by the clan chieftain
>if the
>chief can find a way round that they might want to ponder the blatant
>bias of the person running the court taking sides with the litigant -
>and how offended the Humakti's warband might be (cut-price rates to
>hostile clans when raiding you next perhaps)
nothing wrong with bias if dealing with a group outside of the clan e.g. a Humakti warband.. yes there may well be practical reasons for your chief not to support your case but if on the other hand this makes the chief look week and unwilling to help his own against untoward outside aggression...
>If you get the clan chief involved it will most likely be as a juror,
>not as a supporter
In frex Icelandic Sagas, jurors are not there to decide guilt etc, they are simply there to verify the fact as known (e.g. that the killing was declared to them soon after the fact and is therefore not "murder") to them and to ensure (with the help of the lawspeaker) that proceedings are above board.). Bias is not an issue. An (hopefully) unbiased arbitrator can be agreed on by both parties (typically in Heortland a clan chief known for his honour and wisdom), whose judgment both parties agree to accept.
>appealing to the honour of the Humakti is more
>likely to work and is a damn sight safer.
of course, but I am rebelling against the concept of Humakti being SUCH terrible adversaries and I believe that there are mechanisms to keep them in check (or that could be used anyway) rather than simply having to rely on their sense of honour (which might well be different and un-understandable to ordinary Orlanthi anyway)..
Cheers,
Dougie
"Do you want to make it impossible for anyone to oppress his fellow-man? Then make sure that no one shall possess power." [The Political Philosophy of Bakunin, p. 271]
Powered by hypermail