I love America. America has made my fortune.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Jonas

Sounds like a good set of rules to start and perpetuate multi-generational blood feuds. Given such a system I'd assume there would be some way to 'make peace' rather then acts of vengeance as otherwise such a spiraling cycle would only end with the total destruction of all but one of the involved parties.

Well, such systems have been blamed for pretty much that outcome in societies from early Iceland through islands in the Med to the Amazon and the highlands of New Guinea. It's usually harder to make peace than it is to accidentally spark a nasty vendetta over some chest-puffery and other juvenile stupidity.

[fredtheobviouspseudonym]

Originally Posted by Icelander

Well, such systems have been blamed for pretty much that outcome in societies from early Iceland through islands in the Med to the Amazon and the highlands of New Guinea. It's usually harder to make peace than it is to accidentally spark a nasty vendetta over some chest-puffery and other juvenile stupidity.

One book, I'll Die Before I'll Run, looked at such vigilantism and feuds (one often resulted from the other) in Texas at the end of the nineteenth century.

The author's conclusions (which, to me, seemed well-researched and rational) were that such "taking the law into your own hands" led to widespread violence, a breakdown in social order, and in extreme cases measurable impact on the population figures of certain Texas counties.

[BrockNicholson]

I'd give it -15 in any society where justice is expected to come from an agent other than the character. Truly adhering to this code would make the average modern person's life very difficult and very dangerous. As a GM I would be a little hesitant to let someone take such a code unless the game was intended to be extremely violent.

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by Icelander

Well, such systems have been blamed for pretty much that outcome in societies from early Iceland through islands in the Med to the Amazon and the highlands of New Guinea. It's usually harder to make peace than it is to accidentally spark a nasty vendetta over some chest-puffery and other juvenile stupidity.

While very ineffective at creating a stable safe culture, revenge is far too innate a human feature to call juvenile.

[jeff_wilson]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

While very ineffective at creating a stable safe culture, revenge is far too innate a human feature to call juvenile.

I think he is referring to the immature decision-making that leads to offending people sufficiently to motivate revenge, but the inability to let offenses go unrevenged without thought to the consequences is likewise a juvenille behavior.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by Icelander

Well, such systems have been blamed for pretty much that outcome in societies from early Iceland through islands in the Med to the Amazon and the highlands of New Guinea. It's usually harder to make peace than it is to accidentally spark a nasty vendetta over some chest-puffery and other juvenile stupidity.

The almost universal way of preventing feuds is blood-money. Ending them is much harder.

Renaissance Italy used to have formal traditions for ending a vendetta. I don't have all the details what they were but they involved a ritual feast, and a contract marking the offenses to be negotiated.

The most important part of a negotiation ending a feud is to maintain each tribes reputation as vengeance-seekers. There might have to be a rough parity of casualties before negotiations could commence unless victory was so obvious that one tribe has to become the other's client, or pay tribute or something of the kind. At least each tribe will be concerned about it's future fearfulness ratio, and that would have to factor into the arrangement. Marriages, fosterage, and adoptions might be used to seal the deal(or to "carry on the feud just like before" as some ballad about the Hatfields and McCoys has it).

I once had an imaginary feud settled by having a wise-woman tell the two tribes to go up to the mountains to see who could find the best eagle for a local noble's aviary. The point, as she well knew from her experience as a local diplomatist was to ensure that each tribe could do something obviously heroic without shedding blood thus making sure it was understood that neither were to be triffled with.

[Rasputin]

Should there be a Secret involved with this? To be made in the Mafia requires a hit, which helps enforce the code: start talking, and you could be on trial for a capital crime.

[Johnny1A.2]

Originally Posted by Rasputin

Should there be a Secret involved with this? To be made in the Mafia requires a hit, which helps enforce the code: start talking, and you could be on trial for a capital crime.

Such a Secret could be associated with it, but would not necessarily have to be.

That said, this code of honor would probably tend to be unstable in a situation where a functional, and halfway effective, law-enforcement system operated. The temptation to make use of the latter would tend to undercut the former, and those who wanted to follow it would find themselves undermined by that.

Variations on it might be stabler than the pure form.

[Astromancer]

Originally Posted by Asta Kask

Code of Honor (Omerta): "Whoever appeals to the law against his fellow man is either a fool or a coward. Whoever cannot take care of himself without police protection is both. It is as cowardly to betray an offender to justice, even though his offences be against yourself, as it is not to avenge an injury by violence. It is dastardly and contemptible in a wounded man to betray the name of his assailant, because if he recovers, he must naturally expect to take vengeance himself."

-10? -15?

I'd plunk down for the higher price and add requiered disadvantages. Omerta is antiethical with modern societies especially democracies. Anyone following Omerta would have to become a violent criminal sooner or later, and a subculture following Omerta would have to corrupt and or destroy any larger society it was a part of.

[fredtheobviouspseudonym]

IIRC it was Edward Muir (Mad Blood Stirring -- Vendetta and Factions in Friuli during the Renaissance, 1993, Johns Hopkins U. Press) who noted that very often it was the women of the family who both perpetuated the vendettas for generations ["Child! Hear me! It was the al-Fulan who killed your father and uncles; when you are grown to manhood you must kill them -- else you are no son of mine."] and who acted as the negotiators to end the same when the costs grew too high.

So for conservative societies it would be an interesting role for a female PC or PCs to use non-combat skills (see Diplomacy) to enter into negotiations.