Re: Raiding question

From: Peter Larsen <plarsen_at_...>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 10:55:34 -0500


Ian Cooper says:

>Peter Larsen wrote:
>> -- lawsuits and/or feuds begin when someone is killed or maimed<
>
>Compensation compicates this. A lot of the time when there is
>an 'accident' you can redress the balance by paying compensation. You
>don't have to go to court for this, it is handled by the jurors or by
>the offender offering self-judgement to the wronged party .

        I agree with this, but I think it still goes to a formal lawsuit -- the ring gets together, the lawspeakers are called, jurors are collected. Any claim for compensation should be made before the whole clan -- for one thing, it lets the ring and everyone else know what's going on. If the clan has to cough up 10 cows because Braggi maimed another Black Oak, if Braggi's bloodline doesn't cover the whole cost, other bloodlines will want to know about it.

>Of course by your actions you may have established a bit of a
>reputation as a hothead, everyone will be wathching you and if you
>continue to inflict damage compensation may be come harder as the

        Agreed, and a good source for short adventures -- how do you keep the Chief's son, Braggi the Rash, out of trouble on the way to Swenstown and back? The bloodlines are getting tired of paying compensation for the idiot, but his Mother is the best Chief we've had in 50 years....

>When you raid a hostile clan, your already at a bad point. The cattle
>raid is a chance to show them up, but it also likely to lead to
>inceased violence and deaths.This time the deaths won't be
>compensated with anything othert than blood. And blood leads to blood.

        Again, agreed; you don't have to make a claim for compensation, after all -- you can just start the killing (which will be counted against you by the jurors and lawspeakers should you try to settle the feud by compensation later on, but that's feuding for you).

>Though like all raiders there is a cost-reward equation. [snip]

>Also remember that one aspect of a feud is attrition.

        Agreed to both of these. The sagas show a definite pattern of stronger families (or families with an exceptionally strong warrior (e.g. Hrut and Gunner in Njal's Saga) ) accepting a ruling against them but not paying because the weaker side can't enforce the ruling. No reason why this can't work in Sartar.

Peter Larsen

-- 

Powered by hypermail