Re:Outlawry = death

From: Todd Gardiner <todd.gardiner_at_Zn_Yk2kH_JxxpinBoqWAa9gw2Udlezh9G273eOYG6YrO5-HqsCi8LbzMlR7x3I>
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 09:00:28 -0800

Stepping back a little bit the the start of contention...

On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 12:03 PM, Jeff Richard <> wrote:
> > Unless you've got Greg to the contrary, I'd say Full Outlawry (not just
> > banishment) would absolve the clan of the misdeeds of the offender -
> as long
> > as they haven't already been brought to court and a settlement arranged.
> Keep in mind that at the time of the injury, your outlaw WAS a member
> of your clan. The Orlanthi believe in community liability, not
> individual. When Killer Varanil kills five Grey Dogs, your entire clan
> is entirely liable. Outlawing him is a good idea and might serve as
> partial compensation, but your clan is still on the hook.
> YGMV, but that's how I see it (as a lawyer who has spent a lot of time
> looking at various historical legal systems and has wasted much time
> pondering the ramifications of community liability).
> Jeff

 I don't see a call to bring justice to the matter of the five Greydogs until someone issues a complaint. How would Killer Varanil get outlawed before the Greydogs issued their complaint? Legal cases start one of two ways: Either someone steps forward, taking responsibility for their actions and offering compensation, or no one does anything until the Greydogs come up and demand assistance in replacing the lost value of the five clansmen.

Banishment and outlawry are neither punishment, which the Orlanthi do not believe it, nor is it compensation. It is a means of preventing someone that is harmful to the social structure from continuing that harm. That it also works as a disincentive helps in keeping malcontent to a minimum.

One possible reason that Killer Varanil was outlawed before the Greydogs complained of five of their men found dead on Killer's clan tula: Perhaps he was disobeying the orders of the chief.

If he had been warned, after killing his first Greydog, "Stay away from Greydog lands. Do not talk to Greydogs and if you encounter any while hunting, walk away." Once it becomes clear that he killed five more Greydogs on his own tula, the chief may want to outlaw him because he cannot check his misbehavior.

It has nothing to do with the killing of the Greydogs. Orlanthi react to the results, not the action. Violence is neither good nor evil, but the free choice to do other than the chief asks has repercussions.

And once this trouble is settled, justice still requires that the clan make compensation to the Greydogs to help with the healing of that clan following the loss of five men. It's not because one of their (former) clansmen killed the Greydogs. No, the result that needs to be remedied is the five dead Greydog's on this clan's tula; blame is not the issue. Perhaps Killer did not even kill them. He still disobeyed the chief and earned his outlawry and the clan is still responsible for the compensation; at least until a different responsible party is found.


Powered by hypermail