Re: Murdering raiders

From: bryan_thx <bethexton_at_YIPloj-adRJS-s24QnnklFD4fjP7lmZYvI0xQIhSteJVNTyRtCIaYkuN4DwIWyIJ3f>
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 15:09:14 -0000

>
>
> However their kin could have a claim both against the host and the
> Humatki personally. I suppose there might be political reasons why
> the host would pay wergeld but I'd expect the Humatki to respond
> by challenging the other clan to put up a champion to fight a duel
> to resolve the claim. As the Orlanthi saying goes "Violence is always
> an option".
>
> In general killing during raids is discouraged but it happens and
> the politics of the clan relationships determine the compensation
> paid. There's no punishment as such.
>

I agree that killing during raids--on both sides--would normally be discouraged. What goes around comes around and all of that.

But I can't imagine that an attacking clan would have a claim for deaths that occurred on the defending clan's tula. It someone enters your tula and does not ask for hospitality, my impression was that legally you were basically free to do with them as you wll.

Now, if the humakti chased them off the lands of his hosts, or met them off the clan lands, in some sort of neutral territory, then I think the legalities would be entirely different.

I'm sure there are exceptions to all rules. If the humakti was not well liked by his hosts, the attacker's law speakers might claim that the attackers were not really raiding, it was all a mis-understanding, but that he struck before talking, striking down innocent men, or something like that. Without witnesses willing to swear otherwise, it might stick—but then again, the word of a humakti counts for a lot, even without witnesses.

-Bryan