Cawodu Tegevi
8:30pm, January 26, 2004
[Edit]
[Delete] | Bounty Hunters' Creed
People Don't Have Bounties, Only Acquisitions Have Bounties.
This single, cardinal rule, more than any other, defines the way in which bounty hunters approach their chosen profession. It reflects the idea that sapient beings, to some degree, must be accorded respect. If, however, an individual has a bounty placed on them, he or she ceases to be an individual with rights. No longer a member of the galactic community, the "acquisition" becomes fair game. Tears should never be shed over the fate of someone that is, after all, only an "acquisition."
Capture By Design, Kill By Necessity.
In keeping with the loosely defined hunter code of ethics, killing is sometimes necessary. That's business, pure and simple. However, unnecessary killing is still murder. The hunter, unless otherwise directed by those leveling the bounty, must attempt to deliver the acquisition alive. Often, those leveling the bounty have a vested interest in a live target -- and the target might be better off getting killed by the hunter.
No Hunter Shall Slay Another Hunter.
Simply put, whatever their origin, bounty hunters see themselves as a special breed. They take their lives (and those of others) into their hands each time they hunt. One may agree with another hunter's motives or damn them for the manner in which they carry out their hunts, but no bounty hunter may ever take up arms against a fellow hunter. This law applies only to hunters who themselves follow the creed. Those who have broken the creed, or who themselves have a bounty posted on their head, are merely acquisitions. In such cases, the ex-hunter is no longer seen as a member of a common fellowship and old scores can now be settled with impunity. The hunter has become the hunted.
No Hunter Shall Interfere With Another's Hunt.
While it is not unheard of for hunters to work as a team, the hunt for a given acquisition is most often viewed as a form of personal duel between two sapient creatures. In such a duel, the hunter matches skill and courage against all the resources one's opponent can bring to bear. If the hunter wins, it is a personal triumph denoting superior skill and intellect, and not simply a question of luck. To interfere with another's hunt, unless first invited, is to leave the question of "who is better" open and, perhaps forever, unresolved. Of course, competition between hunters is often fierce and there is often a very thin line between "competition" and "interference." This being true, while a hunter is constrained against taking direct action against another hunter, there is nothing to constrain a hunter from hiring other hunters to do the dirty work. Of course, if such an action, successful or not, can be traced back to the original perpetrator serious consequences inevitably follow.
In The Hunt One Captures Or Kills, Never Both.
In the case where the acquisition has been taken alive, that "choice" cannot be altered. To kill an acquisition in the course of the hunt is one thing, but to purposely kill an unarmed, helpless being already subdued and unable to resist is seen as simple slaughter and wanton butchery. An acquisition "killed while attempting escape" however, would be an entirely different matter altogether.
No Hunter Shall Refuse Aid to Another Hunter.
While no hunter has the right to interfere with another's hunt, there come times when even the best of master hunters require assistance. In extreme cases, any hunter may ask for and expect aid and assistance from another hunter, even if it means the latter must temporarily suspend his or her own hunt in the meantime to render such aid. Whatever personal grievances or animosities may be involved between the two parties, it is known and understood that hunters take care of their own. Of course, such assistance is not without its price tag, and the arbitration of payment after the fact can often put a substantial dent in the expected profit.
|
