Sir_Godspeed

There's all sorts of reasons why outlawry is a thing, sure, such as the unfeasability of keeping someone a prisoner at all in a decentralized subsistence context, although enslavement as a punishment is clearly something Orlanthi will do if there's an incentive for it (Esrolia being a heavy outlier, although more for debt than violent crimes). My point is more that outlawry can be a convenient way to end an internal conflict without agitating and involving social obligations. A bloodline that has a member executed might carry a grudge for who knows how long (enough to destabilize a clan, maybe?). A bloodline that has a member outlawed might, conceivably, care less. It's dishonoring, but less public and dramatic. I'm speculating, obvs.

Might be less of a "capture them and execute them after deliberation"-situation, and more of a "no quarters given"-kind of deal. Immediate killing wherever is most convenient, at first opportunity, as it were.

To some degree this is based not so much on conceptual guilt of action ("the person who condemned them is as guilty of killing as the person who executed them"), but rather of ritual purity ("it is the literal act of killing that is polluting"). We see ideas like this repeating in lots of different cultures worldwide, not just with people but with animals (hereditary Tibetan, Japanese and Indian butchers and leatherworkers come to mind, as does the taboo of ancient Hebrew kohenim from touching deceased people, etc.) as well, which perhaps shouldn't surprise us, given that it shields the wealthy and powerful. Now, whether this applies to the Orlanthi, I have no idea. But it might be a reason why outlawry is so common, perhaps it's mainly a way to get around having to kill kinsmen in particular.

I remember reading about the development of the executioner position in Denmark-Norway. They attempted to "professionalize" the position by, among other things, giving them a new title and standardizing a salary. However, it remained a socially dubious position that few people would accept.

A bit of a tangent, but if that was what was planned to come from Pamaltela to Genertela, what was planned the other way? Harrek isn't Chaotic... Vadeli?

Yeah, embrace the paradoxes. That's the stuff of myths.

I'd imagine outright executions on a clan level are very rare. These are mostly family and neighbors, mind you, so it has to take a lot of either centralized power or social pressure to have that kind of thing happen. The equivalent of an "execution" between clans might simply be a retaliatory raid. An eye for an eye, for example. It doesn't matter, in principle, if you get the actual guy you wanted dead, so long as you get something of roughly equal value. Some kind of kinsman. Ask the Icelanders or the Albanians. Keep in mind, the Orlanthi justice system, much like many historical societies, is group-based, not really individual (except when it is, lol). If you manage to capture someone who belongs to a party your party has sufficient grievances with, killing them is probably pretty accepted. It's not profitable, as you can't ransom them, and you might be forced, eventually, to pay weregild, but that depends entirely on if the opposing party manages to press the issue well enough, and whether any internal factors oppose the killing (maybe there are in-laws). I'm not sure I would get too hung up on the "unarmed" bit. It sounds too idealized to me. If he was armed when he committed the misdeed maybe that counts well enough. Point is, if the powers that be want someone dead, they're going to make it happen. There are all sorts of (legal/moral) mechanisms by which executions can happen, and all sorts of (legal/moral) ways to legitimize them.

Well, Arkat was Nysalor's Other, so there's a certain kind of symmetry to it. Granted, Arkat (or whoever came out of the rubble) lived many years after that, establishing an Empire and seemingly doing the whole Cincinnatus thing, so it seems they fared a lot better being an Other than, say, Sheng did.

Overly convoluted theory for why Brithini and Mostali do not believe in an existence after death: The reason why the Brithini ands Mostali reject notions of an afterlife is not because they are somehow ignorant of afterlives, but because they regard those as empirically limited as well. As far as they view it, fully "sentient" ancestor spirits requires some form of remembrance (typically sacrifice and ritual contacting) by the living, meaning that theistic and animist afterlives are effectively subject to some kind of half-life (as they are inevitably forgotten as generations of the living pass on), where they almost inevitably turn into faceless, amnesiac, generic spirits as time passes on, a component voice of the overall collective choir of "ancestors". The other option to retain individuality forever is to fully submit and partially be absorbed into the identity of a god (ie. herodom), which is also not desireable to them. The question is exactly when they got this impression, presumably after Death was brought to the Surface World, but given that the afterlives were still not entirely separated until the Compromise, it might have been hard to suss out the exact mechanics of it.

Well, the only thing I can say is that the Guide mentions them quickly under the "True Elves" heading, along with the Fire Elf and Moon Elf headings.

Could very well be Aldrya and Halamalo, but afaik they ARE Aldryami, unlike the Blue and Black Elves.

Worth noting that while White Elves were Aldryami (descendants of Aldrya, "true elves"), the Blue Elves are not, they get their name because they are roughly analogous Plant Rune/Flamal being, but they descend from Triolina. I'm mentioning this because this might influence how they play into the whole Reforestation thing. Or maybe not, idk.

There's a concept in Orthodox Christianity called "Foolishness for Christ", which, put simply, is the idea that certain behaviours we today might consider as mentall illness or irrational, are actually due to certain people being closer in contact with the divine, and more radically choosing to live their life according to the influence of that. Now, it's no equivalent, but the way I see Joy is more this kind of lasting, profound mental change that alters one's perception of oneself and one's relation to the All, and this manifests in what others might perceive as euphoria, but perhaps just as importantly a strong sense of motivation, drivenness and, eh, eudaimonia, for lack of a better term. For the uninitiated they might also come off as utterly bonkers. Maybe this is a completely wrong take on it.

It also has a meta-narrative of unreliable narrators. Keep in mind, canonically, The Lord of the Rings was translated from Westron by Tolkien, who based it on copies of the Red Book of Westmarch, made over thousands of years, originally written by Bilbo, and added to by Frodo and Sam, who based their Elder Days accounts on those of the Elves at Rivendell. There's stuff between the lines there, but it's obviously nowhere near as explicit as the tangled nature of Glorantha - where plural myths and narratives is, if anything, the central theme.

Is it though? Kinda seems like trade is going to go the way of the dodo once the veritable apocalypse starts. At least for a while.

MORE makes a lot of sense, sure, but I think it's misleading to portray it as TRUER, if that makes sense.

I'm pretty sure these would basically be identical. The gods appear as the worshippers imagine they will. The gods have no "true" form, as such.

Is it possible to separate those?

That sorta makes sense. Mountains valleys versus the heavily agrarian flatlands of Seshnela/Ralios on the one side, and Peloria on the other, makes for a more lucrative slave trade, one would imagine.

I'm not sure if we have an easy and convenient shorthand for it, but the idea of a conquering military elite turning the conquered population into a serf class does seem to be something that pops up fairly often in RW history, although I admit with a lot of variety and a tendency to collapse after a while. The main difference might be that in this case the "conquered" were the immigrants, and the "conquerors" were the natives.

I was referring to it in the "general". Obviously not everyone does it, but the point is that it is objectively verifiable. Sacred Time rites are very strongly supernatural to basically everyone, for example.

lolwat

I'm not trying to argue the institution of human sacrifice, I'm just saying Orlanthi can literally pop on over to the afterlife, have a chat with great-great-grandpa, scope out the place, and come back, and vice versa on holy days. It's not a theoretical thing, it literally happens. That creates a very different context for human sacrifice. Are they going to be using people who would rather live? Probably. War captives and the like are easy to lose, no one relevant will miss them.

Orlanthi "Animal Mother"-style goddesses seem to be limited to herd mammals, with Isbarn being an interesting outlier/compromise of sorts. Perhaps simply because the goose is sacred in Esrolia/Nochet. Presumably there are mythic entities for other domestic animals, but they might not have anything resembling an organized worship, or established mythos.

My headcanon is that they love pats and scritches and are very gentle around Rhino Rider children (if somewhat dangerously clumsy/nearsighted).