Re: Interpretations of Kinstrife and taboos against killing kin

From: Benedict Adamson <badamson_at_...>
Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 09:10:34 +0800

mark_adri wrote:
...
> My [Humakti] has taken upon himself the task of killing his
> [outlawed] half brother.
>
> Would my characters killing former brother still be classed as
> kinstrife in the light of the fact that he is a Humakti and his
> brother is an outlaw.

...

I think not.

In an earlier Humakti thread, I pointed out that the Chief could use his Humakti as 'policemen', if the Severing is interpreted as preventing kinstrife or feud. This gives Humakt a useful and particular social role, rather than being just-another-combat-god. I believe that is important for Heortling society to 'make sense' (simulationist!).

Socially and ritually, there has been preparation for the killing. Your brother was, I assume, properly prosecuted for his crimes and declared outlaw by the clan according to the law. And I assume that some time, and raids by the outlaw, have passed since then. And your character (if you played him true to form) presumably clearly and publicly stated that he would take on the task. You might even have explicitly mentioned your status as kin-severed while doing so. Presumably, none of these events were the occasion of Dreadful Omens (TM) such as collapsing looms and wailing alynxes.

I'd say all these preparations put in 'mythic distance' which protects the clan from chaotic consequences.

Oliver Bernuetz wrote:
...
> It's a mistake to view Orlanthi law as
> being that cut and dried. There is always the possibility that someone is
> going to view it as kinstrife whether the relationship has been officially
> severed or not.

...

Kevin Blackburn wrote:
...
> Never mind people - kinstrife offers an opening to chaos, which is
> unlikely to obey Orlanthi legalisms in its choices.
...

Oliver Bernuetz wrote:
...
> it'd certainly be seen as an invitation to chaos, a weakening of the
> social structure and a "bad" which always leads to chaos, but I certainly
> wouldn't always treat it as a straight cause and effect. ("Ooh, now you've
> done it. You've killed the neighbour's boy, here come the broos!)
...

I think this is why the ritual aspects are important. A clan which killed an outlaw more precipitously, or with any kind of legal flaw, is in a weakened position. Perhaps the kinstrife ALWAYS makes an opening for chaos, but a proper social/ritual response closes that opening.