>> Of course--to bring it back to the question that launched this--if
>> the king leans on the temple to pay wergild because a Humakti killed
>> some punk who obviously had it coming, well, that could definitely
>> fall into the category of "putting them in a position where they would
>> have to dishonor themselves"--that is, *would* have to, except they'd
>> just tell the king to piss up a rope.
Why is it dishonourable to pay wergeld? Recognising you made a mistake and paying compensation is honourable behaviour in Orlanthi society. The mistake might be as little as failing to scare the attackers sufficently without killing one.
>Again, it all depends on the circumstances. Usually Orlanthi justice
>involves an awful lot of political pragmatism and kings don't general
>demand much weregeld from powerful allies who killed somebody "who
>obviously needed killing".
>
>On the other hand, if the local Humakti had been making themselves
>disliked by killing folk and then telling folk to come and claim
>vengeance themselves, or had been simply demanding tribute from the
>local clans, or killed everyone they encountered one day because their
>god demanded it, well then the Humakti might have a BIG problem.
Well if it came down to the crunch a tribal warband would usually have enough warriors to take out a Humakti temple. Those Humakti sworn to the king would still fight for him as long as the temple wasn't desecrated. Sending other Humakti to their god wouldn't dishonour anyone. I'm sure it's happened a few times.
-- Donald Oddy http://www.grove.demon.co.uk/
Powered by hypermail