Re: Murdering raiders

From: Greg Stafford <Greg_at_5qmz8YRyKS6SyszIcjNuRd4vumIePrZHVeGfkBG80DPC9sCVSNl-6L1q11bQc7HXf7-c85K>
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 14:37:03 -0700


YGWV There's been a lot of interesting response to this so far. I will throw my two obols into the pot, too. I'll be taking some of those responses into account.

 Gouki wrote:

>
> I was wondering whether it was punishable or not to kill while
defending one's
> tula against raiders from another Orlanthi clan.

Yes, absolutely. They are in your lands (without permission) and they are taking your stuff, and your children might starve to death because they took that cow. So of course you can defend, even unto killing them.

That said, I can also imagine where there are clans that have friendly relationships and the raids have been toned down somewhat, for the sake of family and friendship, to be the ritualized affairs that some people have postulated.

> In this case, does wergild apply or not?

"Apply" is the wrong word. The kin of the dead men have to take it to court--some authority that both clans obey. Likely to be the king they are both under. Then judges are appointed to weigh the evidence, the evidence is given by both parties, and the judges determine if weregeld is due.

So weregeld can always be asked for to avoid further violence. It is never obligatory to accept it when it is offered, and never obligatory to offer it.

> The defender was a humakti gest who was fighting alone against six people
> (including a weaponthane).

Ha! And the six are complaining? Well, asking for weregeld is what we would expect of such weaklings and cowards who transgressed, and then could not overcome one brave man doing his duty.

The demand for weregeld would have to go against the Humakti temple, under normal conditions. Unless that Sword Lord was one of the wierdos who lost his edge and "resheathed."

But I can't really imagine anyone trying to bring weregeld against a Humakt temple, because:

  1. He wasn't doing anything wrong. He was defending the stead.
  2. He was one attacked by six. If I were defending the Humakti I'd say that the weregeld for this ought to be just 1/6 of normal, or even less, because of this (i.e.- try to shame the clan ringing the suit)
  3. MOST IMPORTANT, even if a court found the case in favor of the clan of those cowardly six, the Humakti temple would very likely refuse to pay voluntarily, and publicly invite the clan to come and take the payment from them, by force (a very common result! There is nothing in the code that says it is unjust to refuse to pay.)

Finally, even if he was resheathed, a court very well might not find the case in the favor of the complaintants, due to #1 and 2.

 --Greg Stafford

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]            

Powered by hypermail