Armageddon General Discussion Board

We know that multiple sex partners is common, homosexuality, bisexuality, blah blah blah.

Beyond mixing of the races (elf + human, whatever), do you guys believe that there are sexual attitudes or preferences that might be found a little odd, even in Zalanthas?

I wouldn't want to hear "Damn, that beetle has got it going on!" as the stable gate closes.

I think anyone hanging outside the temple in the middle of Meleth's Circle with amorous intentions waiting for something fresh to be delivered would be considered more than a little odd.

Quote from: Bushranger on March 27, 2013, 10:05:21 PM
I think anyone hanging outside the temple in the middle of Meleth's Circle with amorous intentions waiting for something fresh to be delivered would be considered more than a little odd.

Medium rare or well done?

'Gickers. Gypsies. Northern/Southerners. Rinthers.

Children?

Inserting your finger in someone's butt. That's just rude.

What is this thread about anyway?

This thread is about sexual taboos in Zalanthas.

I'm curious about what Recharge said. Is pedophilia considered not-okay?

You're bound to insult someone on the ooc level with that sort of stuff. Just keep it out of the game.

Seeing people on another MUD play kids with an overt sexual element has always been intensely awkward, as is seeing characters with a sexual interest in kids. I don't think there would be a Zalanthan taboo against it, but I, the player, would certainly be rather unsettled if some thirteen year old character rolled by humping everything in sight.

Other than that, and beyond interracial taboos, I suppose that there are an assortment of inter-cultural taboos, too, as mentioned above. I doubt necrophilia would go down too well in the parts of the world where people actually have funerals or generally bother to mark someone's passing by more than just dropping them on the pile at Meleth's Circle. Presumably bestiality falls under the general interracial taboo.

Kind of curious how Zalanthans would regard incestuous relationships considering all the nobility are probably each other's distant cousins.

Quote from: HavokBlue on March 28, 2013, 05:30:36 AM
Kind of curious how Zalanthans would regard incestuous relationships considering all the nobility are probably each other's distant cousins.

I heard a joke about Kentucky or Alabama or something once. 7 million people. 7 last names. Same principle applies I think.

If a noble of either city (obviously sticking to their respective sexual taboos) were to become a full-time prostitute, would anyone bat an eye? Should they? I know that they would, but I always thought that they ought not to, since, once health concerns are dealt with/ignored and idealogies about sexual anything are taken out, nothing is actually wrong, good or bad about prostitution itself.

I'm thinking that an Allanaki noble becoming a prostitute and charging high, but reachable fees and allowing commoners to be clients will get attention. Will they?

Quote from: The Silence of the Erdlus on March 28, 2013, 09:43:10 AM
If a noble of either city (obviously sticking to their respective sexual taboos) were to become a full-time prostitute, would anyone bat an eye? Should they? I know that they would, but I always thought that they ought not to, since, once health concerns are dealt with/ignored and idealogies about sexual anything are taken out, nothing is actually wrong, good or bad about prostitution itself.

I'm thinking that an Allanaki noble becoming a prostitute and charging high, but reachable fees and allowing commoners to be clients will get attention. Will they?

Uh, this is an issue of class.  A noble would not be a prostitute for the same reasons a noble isn't a mercenary, a mason, a miner, laborer, bartender or a shop clerk.  Nobles don't hold jobs outside of the responsibilities of their family businesses.

Quote from: Ender on March 28, 2013, 09:58:07 AM

Quote from: The Silence of the Erdlus on March 28, 2013, 09:43:10 AM
If a noble of either city (obviously sticking to their respective sexual taboos) were to become a full-time prostitute, would anyone bat an eye? Should they? I know that they would, but I always thought that they ought not to, since, once health concerns are dealt with/ignored and idealogies about sexual anything are taken out, nothing is actually wrong, good or bad about prostitution itself.

I'm thinking that an Allanaki noble becoming a prostitute and charging high, but reachable fees and allowing commoners to be clients will get attention. Will they?

Uh, this is an issue of class.  A noble would not be a prostitute for the same reasons a noble isn't a mercenary, a mason, a miner, laborer, bartender or a shop clerk.  Nobles don't hold jobs outside of the responsibilities of their family businesses.

I'll go with Ender. I would say it wouldn't be uncommon for a NAKKI noble to frequent a high class prostitute but a TULUKI would never, even though they would sit and have tea.

Animals
Children (a 13 year old starting age isn't really a child I'd say, not on Zalanthas)
Necrophilia
Incest
Human and any other race

Those I'd call taboo.

No such thing as high-end prostitutes, then?

I mean the classy kind whose main pitch is their exclusivity and style, not like, just some commoner who happens to both be a prostitute and be employed by Kurac/socially advantageous organization.

Quote from: The Silence of the Erdlus on March 28, 2013, 10:20:04 AM
No such thing as high-end prostitutes, then?

I mean the classy kind whose main pitch is their exclusivity and style, not like, just some commoner who happens to both be a prostitute and be employed by Kurac/socially advantageous organization.

I played a high-end prostitute once. She charged a ridiculous amount. There should be more whores in game but that kind of roleplay is hard, like slaves.

Quote from: The Silence of the Erdlus on March 28, 2013, 10:20:04 AM
No such thing as high-end prostitutes, then?

I mean the classy kind whose main pitch is their exclusivity and style, not like, just some commoner who happens to both be a prostitute and be employed by Kurac/socially advantageous organization.

High-end prostitutes and consorts and the like certainly exist and have existed (definitely an Allanaki thing, though).  However, nobles themselves would not become prostitutes.

I tend to play most of my characters with the same sexual taboos I have IRL. Why? Because damn, I just can't force myself to roleplay some things.

I did however play a couple of characters who were pretty vocal about some pretty horrible sexual preferences they had, however they were all "done" virtually when I was offline. Sadly, I didn't get nearly the hate I was expecting from the rest of the playerbase for engaging in such activities. Most people would give me a sneer at best.

You guys disgust me.  :o

Quote from: Desertman on March 28, 2013, 10:51:24 AM
I tend to play most of my characters with the same sexual taboos I have IRL. Why? Because damn, I just can't force myself to roleplay some things.

I did however play a couple of characters who were pretty vocal about some pretty horrible sexual preferences they had, however they were all "done" virtually when I was offline. Sadly, I didn't get nearly the hate I was expecting from the rest of the playerbase for engaging in such activities. Most people would give me a sneer at best.

You guys disgust me.  :o

Get any eyebrow waggles?

"Hey, how about you and me hit the stables afterwork today? *eyebrow waggle*"

Just like IRL, we KNOW there is "bad" stuff out there. Zalanthas has every sexual proclivity that RL does.

The question is, "do we want to take part?"

The next question is, "to what extent do we take part?"

And the third (and final) question is, "how much do we show?"

I've played a character who was a terrible pervert, in a Zalanthan sense. He hid his perversion. He tried (and to a certain extent failed) not to act on it. He didn't march down the street asking for equal rights for perverts. He was properly ashamed.

The goal here was not to model proper "pervert" behavior, but to create internal conflict between feelings and beliefs.

Quote from: Narf on March 28, 2013, 01:02:39 PM

Quote from: Desertman on March 28, 2013, 10:51:24 AM
I tend to play most of my characters with the same sexual taboos I have IRL. Why? Because damn, I just can't force myself to roleplay some things.

I did however play a couple of characters who were pretty vocal about some pretty horrible sexual preferences they had, however they were all "done" virtually when I was offline. Sadly, I didn't get nearly the hate I was expecting from the rest of the playerbase for engaging in such activities. Most people would give me a sneer at best.

You guys disgust me.  :o

Get any eyebrow waggles?

Played a extra creepy pedo once/murderer/raider/rapist/insert most horrible things one could do. Guy was down right evil to his core.

(https://images.nonexiste.net/popular/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/My-face-When-my-housemate-asked-if-I-d-lend-her-season-2-of-Firefly.jpeg)
^
^
^
MFW when I had more than one child pc come onto my character instead of being scared. Also MFW I had one PC act scared, but intentionally put themselves in a place to get horribly pedoed and obviously wanted it in graphic detail. Thank Jeebus my hand wasn't forced there.

Quote from: ShaLeah on March 28, 2013, 10:07:25 AM

Quote from: Ender on March 28, 2013, 09:58:07 AM

Quote from: The Silence of the Erdlus on March 28, 2013, 09:43:10 AM
If a noble of either city (obviously sticking to their respective sexual taboos) were to become a full-time prostitute, would anyone bat an eye? Should they? I know that they would, but I always thought that they ought not to, since, once health concerns are dealt with/ignored and idealogies about sexual anything are taken out, nothing is actually wrong, good or bad about prostitution itself.

I'm thinking that an Allanaki noble becoming a prostitute and charging high, but reachable fees and allowing commoners to be clients will get attention. Will they?

Uh, this is an issue of class.  A noble would not be a prostitute for the same reasons a noble isn't a mercenary, a mason, a miner, laborer, bartender or a shop clerk.  Nobles don't hold jobs outside of the responsibilities of their family businesses.

I'll go with Ender. I would say it wouldn't be uncommon for a NAKKI noble to frequent a high class prostitute but a TULUKI would never, even though they would sit and have tea.

Animals
Children (a 13 year old starting age isn't really a child I'd say, not on Zalanthas)
Necrophilia
Incest
Human and any other race

Those I'd call taboo.

Incest is not Taboo on Zalanthas. In fact most Noble and GMH are known to marry family to family to keep the blood pure. They also marry to others to bring in traits they want.

Except for muls bred for that purpose. That's colorful, eccentric or kinky, but not actually taboo.

If an enemy of mine ever dies in the near future, I'm hiring a prostitute to hump their corpse at meleth's every day.

I think cousins getting comfy would probably not raise too many eyebrows.

Brothers and sisters, on the other hand, would probably ick people out.

Quote from: MeTekillot on March 28, 2013, 02:47:02 PM
I think cousins getting comfy would probably not raise too many eyebrows.

Brothers and sisters, on the other hand, would probably ick people out.

Why? People don't know about genetics nor do they have a religion that tells them otherwise.

I believe even nobles would be careful about breeding baby nobles through close blood relationship (cousins would be fine, I guess). Wouldn't be too hard to figure out that some hereditary disabilities (maybe mutations) come as the result of such breeding, especially since some Houses have a pretty decent know-how regarding mul breeding.

A good (or scary) example from real world history:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_II_of_Spain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_II_of_Spain)

Quote from: Patuk on March 28, 2013, 02:42:20 PM
If an enemy of mine ever dies in the near future, I'm hiring a prostitute to hump their corpse at meleth's every day.

Also humped a corpse, and used one as a pillow. Not the same corpse.

Quote from: Desertman on March 28, 2013, 03:00:49 PM

Quote from: Patuk on March 28, 2013, 02:42:20 PM
If an enemy of mine ever dies in the near future, I'm hiring a prostitute to hump their corpse at meleth's every day.

Also humped a corpse, and used one as a pillow. Not the same corpse.

Had a pc kill someone's pregnant mate (try to, they ran 1 room and got killed by an npc). They screwed on top the corpse. It was so abhorrent to play out, to me, but the characters were spurred on by how fucked up it was. Also had a character be intimate with a corpse once, though they weren't a habitual necro. Also got some weird responses from some people for having a sexually active 14 year old, though the last one, I don't really get. I became sexually active at that age, and I was under the impression that you're forced to start at 13 or older is because you're considered more or less 'grown' at that age in Zalanthas (which also confuses me why several people come in with 13 year olds and act like they're much younger - there's a reason you can't have 'girl' or 'boy' in your sdesc but can have 'teen').

Edit to add: I also had a pc in 2008 (200-late) who was in love with their brother (a pc), though it never went anywhere.

I think that's the most twisted ones I've got.

Quote from: AmandaGreathouse on March 28, 2013, 03:37:35 PM
(which also confuses me why several people come in with 13 year olds and act like they're much younger - there's a reason you can't have 'girl' or 'boy' in your sdesc but can have 'teen').

Folk like to play children. I don't see a problem with it personally. When they pick a 13 year old and play them like they are actually 8 or 9, something I see fairly often, I go with it. It makes for some interesting roleplay a lot of the time that I couldn't otherwise have if I was playing with 13yr+ characters.

I'm not sure what the reasoning was for not letting us play younger characters. Maybe because 'poor strength' alone wouldn't be enough to keep 10 year old warriors from stomping adult characters in combat and so we had to make a limit to that somewhere? If so, I would rather have code put in place to further limit child pc's abilities based on their age to make them act/react more realistically in coded situations to prevent unrealistic scenarios like the one mentioned above.

Maybe have their base offense and defense hardcapped much lower until they reach puberty along with hardcapping other skills and abilities appropriately? I don't know.

But that is all another topic I suppose.

Quote from: bcw81 on March 28, 2013, 02:51:53 PM

Quote from: MeTekillot on March 28, 2013, 02:47:02 PM
I think cousins getting comfy would probably not raise too many eyebrows.

Brothers and sisters, on the other hand, would probably ick people out.

Why? People don't know about genetics nor do they have a religion that tells them otherwise.

doesn't matter, people would notice that breeding with close relatives produces defective offspring. that's how the taboo against it appeared on Earth, I believe.

I'd love to see a mutated inbred noble, that has the desired trait of their particular house but is fucked up in every other way.

Quote from: spicemustflow on March 28, 2013, 03:54:27 PM

Quote from: bcw81 on March 28, 2013, 02:51:53 PM

Quote from: MeTekillot on March 28, 2013, 02:47:02 PM
I think cousins getting comfy would probably not raise too many eyebrows.

Brothers and sisters, on the other hand, would probably ick people out.

Why? People don't know about genetics nor do they have a religion that tells them otherwise.

doesn't matter, people would notice that breeding with close relatives produces defective offspring. that's how the taboo against it appeared on Earth, I believe.

I'd love to see a mutated inbred noble, that has the desired trait of their particular house but is fucked up in every other way.

Oooohhhh, I like that.

Borsail.

The ivory-skinned, silver-crowned midget.

Quote from: spicemustflow on March 28, 2013, 03:54:27 PM

Quote from: bcw81 on March 28, 2013, 02:51:53 PM

Quote from: MeTekillot on March 28, 2013, 02:47:02 PM
I think cousins getting comfy would probably not raise too many eyebrows.

Brothers and sisters, on the other hand, would probably ick people out.

Why? People don't know about genetics nor do they have a religion that tells them otherwise.

doesn't matter, people would notice that breeding with close relatives produces defective offspring. that's how the taboo against it appeared on Earth, I believe.

I'd love to see a mutated inbred noble, that has the desired trait of their particular house but is fucked up in every other way.

Plenty, plenty civilisations indeed did not have any such taboos. Shit, tradition mandated the egyptian pharaoh was made to marry his sister. Zalanthas is a lot less civilised than even most historical earthen cultures, due to its lack of metal. Brother/sister relations may or may not be taboo, but there's no telling without some guidelines.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westermarck_effect

Quote from: spicemustflow on March 28, 2013, 03:54:27 PM

Quote from: bcw81 on March 28, 2013, 02:51:53 PM

Quote from: MeTekillot on March 28, 2013, 02:47:02 PM
I think cousins getting comfy would probably not raise too many eyebrows.

Brothers and sisters, on the other hand, would probably ick people out.

Why? People don't know about genetics nor do they have a religion that tells them otherwise.

doesn't matter, people would notice that breeding with close relatives produces defective offspring. that's how the taboo against it appeared on Earth, I believe.

I'd love to see a mutated inbred noble, that has the desired trait of their particular house but is fucked up in every other way.

It's actually even less thoughtful and deliberate than that.  The taboo developed physiologically, as a way for our bodies to protect us from breeding that would weaken or retard our bloodlines.  Just like you don't need a knowledge of bacteria and microbes to gag and be revolted by the idea of eating feces, one's body has a biological aversion to sexual contact with a close family member.  Even the scent of a close family member will be a turn off to a relative (with a healthy mind).  There are exceptions to the rule - people whose perversion overrides their body's programming, or who for whatever other reason are still attracted to a close relative - but the general population at large will reject incest without needing to think about or culturally justify why.  It's just natural.  It's the flip-side of the coin to what determines attraction.  People are naturally attracted to different genetic pools, because that maximizes the chances of filling in gaps in immunities and traits their own bloodline is lacking.  By the same token, a close family member has the same basic genetic makeup and has nothing to offer as a mate that will improve the chances of offspring thriving.  This is a sceevie topic though, heh.

Edit:  Inca royalty also favored brother/sister marriages.  But even there and in Egyptian society, these were not customs that the masses were encouraged to adopt or mimic.  They remained exceptions to the natural norm.  Western royal families who inbred, even at the level of cousins, in an effort to keep the bloodlines pure thought they were smarter than nature, and the results (like Charles of Spain) show how wrong they were.

The playerbase of Armageddon is one of the most twisted, perverted and wicked players I've had the honor (and horror) of playing with.

Nothing surprises me anymore.

There are two Houses on Armageddon that know very well the results of breeding. Marriages are contractual on Zalanthas and, very likely, used in mind to mingle the bloodline. Incest would remain taboo, no matter how many <insert species> kank while calling themselves brother and sister.

Quote from: Malken on March 28, 2013, 04:12:28 PM
The playerbase of Armageddon is one of the most twisted, perverted and wicked players I've had the honor (and horror) of playing with.

Nothing surprises me anymore.

:-*

Quote from: slipshod on March 28, 2013, 04:07:01 PM
Edit:  Inca royalty also favored brother/sister marriages.  But even there and in Egyptian society, these were not customs that the masses were encouraged to adopt or mimic.  They remained exceptions to the natural norm.  Western royal families who inbred, even at the level of cousins, in an effort to keep the bloodlines pure thought they were smarter than nature, and the results (like Charles of Spain) show how wrong they were.

Yeah, incest taboos are universal, but not universaly the same. The level of consanguinity allowed within a culture often has a lot to do with that culture, as well as clan membership and inheritance rules.

Marrying your cousin is actually a tradition in many parts of the world. But it has to be your mother's brother's kid or your father's sister's kid (cross-cousin) not mother's sister's kid, or father's brother's kid (parallel cousin). That's because parallel cousins end up in the same clan (roughly "have the same last name") but cross-cousins do not.

"It's Ok, We're Not Cousins by Blood": The Cousin Marriage Controversy in Historical Perspective (http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.0060320)

QuoteIn an effort at clarification, the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC) convened a group of experts to review existing studies on risks to offspring and issue recommendations for clinical practice. Their report concluded that the risks of a first-cousin union were generally much smaller than assumed—about 1.7%–2% above the background risk for congenital defects and 4.4% for pre-reproductive mortality—and did not warrant any special preconception testing. In the authors' view, neither the stigma that attaches to such unions in North America nor the laws that bar them were scientifically well-grounded.

Do we have any players from Arkansas?

(Oh yes I did.)

Quote from: slipshod on March 28, 2013, 04:07:01 PM
It's actually even less thoughtful and deliberate than that.  The taboo developed physiologically, as a way for our bodies to protect us from breeding that would weaken or retard our bloodlines.  Just like you don't need a knowledge of bacteria and microbes to gag and be revolted by the idea of eating feces, one's body has a biological aversion to sexual contact with a close family member.  Even the scent of a close family member will be a turn off to a relative (with a healthy mind).  There are exceptions to the rule - people whose perversion overrides their body's programming, or who for whatever other reason are still attracted to a close relative - but the general population at large will reject incest without needing to think about or culturally justify why.  It's just natural.  It's the flip-side of the coin to what determines attraction.  People are naturally attracted to different genetic pools, because that maximizes the chances of filling in gaps in immunities and traits their own bloodline is lacking.  By the same token, a close family member has the same basic genetic makeup and has nothing to offer as a mate that will improve the chances of offspring thriving.  This is a sceevie topic though, heh.

Humans aren't attracted to different gene pools en masse. Culture tends to help out with that. You're right about brother/sister relations, but things go further than this - people tend not to grow attracted to any different sex people they grow up with. That's why daughters tend not to try and jump their fathers, and why adopted kids don't sleep with everyone in their adoptive family once they reach puberty either. In fact, when brothers and sisters get separated at an early age, there's been multiple cases of them getting attracted to each other in the end because of scent recognition.

Quote from: ShaLeah on March 28, 2013, 04:59:51 PM
There are two Houses on Armageddon that know very well the results of breeding. Marriages are contractual on Zalanthas and, very likely, used in mind to mingle the bloodline. Incest would remain taboo, no matter how many <insert species> kank while calling themselves brother and sister.

My point is that the noble families aren't huge. You can interbreed between families all you want, but kind of like the kings and queens of Europe back in the day, everybody is eventually everybody's cousin.

You have discovered the sekrit reason behind the Grey Hunt and Hlum nobility! They need the fresh injection of genetic material ... you must now disappear!!!

Bearing in mind that a lot of IRL noble inbreeding was due to protecting status/wealth and keeping succession lines close for ruling families, there isn't much of an advantage to noble inbreeding in Zalanthas because marriage contracts between Houses function as a trade, so giving and taking is to be expected. Plus, Zalanthan noble families don't really have succession lines to protect since their city is ruled ultimately by one undying dictator. Surely it can be complicated by sex outside of marriage, bastard children (in Allanak), or some sort of freaky Zalanthan equivalent of a Cersei/Jaime/Robert situation, but it seems to me that inbreeding is avoided because the "normal" alternative is so much more desirable. With that and the number of nobility numbering in the dozens to hundreds per House, while most nobility will be related to each other, the relations will be distant enough so as to not produce an inbred child. I mean if two married nobles have great-grandparents who were siblings, that really isn't a risky situation, assuming they aren't more closely related further down the tree.

I played a 15 year old kid once, who felt he was on top of the world when someone hired him a whore. Nothing wrong with that, I think personally. Like someone else said in this thread, in Zalanthas 13+ years old = sexually active = no taboo. I haven't seen many teen pregnancies though, come to think of it. But even that shouldn't be a taboo for Zalanthas, imho.

Kanking a rinthi, different race, gicker = definitely taboo. Rinthi are dirty and have crotch rot, 'gickers make your dick fall off and they're just scary, difference race is just... well... disgusting.

If a dwarf calls my human beautiful or handsome, I always get creeped out.

Quote from: Cutthroat on March 28, 2013, 07:32:00 PM
Bearing in mind that a lot of IRL noble inbreeding was due to protecting status/wealth and keeping succession lines close for ruling families, there isn't much of an advantage to noble inbreeding in Zalanthas because marriage contracts between Houses function as a trade, so giving and taking is to be expected. Plus, Zalanthan noble families don't really have succession lines to protect since their city is ruled ultimately by one undying dictator. Surely it can be complicated by sex outside of marriage, bastard children (in Allanak), or some sort of freaky Zalanthan equivalent of a Cersei/Jaime/Robert situation, but it seems to me that inbreeding is avoided because the "normal" alternative is so much more desirable. With that and the number of nobility numbering in the dozens to hundreds per House, while most nobility will be related to each other, the relations will be distant enough so as to not produce an inbred child. I mean if two married nobles have great-grandparents who were siblings, that really isn't a risky situation, assuming they aren't more closely related further down the tree.

perhapse it's just the Merchant families then. But i KNOW it's in the docs they do it. Though I think it's more cousins/ect then like, close blood.

I really wish I had gotten to do more with my necrophiliac.

That said, I will go against the grain, and say that interracial is probably at an intermediate step between frowned upon and taboo.  And that certain traditions may twist this into acceptable.

To give an example of what I am talking about, take muls.  Normally, humans and dwarves don't mate.  But obviously, there is a context, even if they are forced (which don't think they are given they are bred for it) in which humans and dwarves do mate.  And produce muls.  And in that context, it is completely acceptable.

Further, the IC attitude is going to have to somehow support the half-elven population.  While some is half-elf / half-elf mating, I've never heard of that being a large percentage.  The large percentage is rape.  It probably makes sense that interracial sex is sometimes viewed as okay when the act of mating is rape.  One could argue it is more an act of displaying power than sexually motivated. 

A long term interracial relationship might be taboo, but half-elves do come from somewhere.

On a related note, once upon a time I wouldn't have said rape was taboo really either.  Plenty of my PCs have it in their background, I suppose because I envision more of a forced, violent sexual set of interactions.  With staff consent policy now, I'm not really sure if it is as widespread as I thought but we have consent downplaying its role in current roleplay, or whether it was determined overall to not happen that much.

taboo != never happens

I think you'd still get some sort of stigma if you weren't at the bottom of the barrel if you raped cross species elf-human or whatever.  It's just that in Zalanthas enough people either don't have access and let their hormones override or are sadistic enough not to care or have secret fetishes for other races that it creates a population of it.

Quote from: Twilight on April 03, 2013, 05:54:24 PM
I really wish I had gotten to do more with my necrophiliac.

That said, I will go against the grain, and say that interracial is probably at an intermediate step between frowned upon and taboo.  And that certain traditions may twist this into acceptable.

To give an example of what I am talking about, take muls.  Normally, humans and dwarves don't mate.  But obviously, there is a context, even if they are forced (which don't think they are given they are bred for it) in which humans and dwarves do mate.  And produce muls.  And in that context, it is completely acceptable.

Further, the IC attitude is going to have to somehow support the half-elven population.  While some is half-elf / half-elf mating, I've never heard of that being a large percentage.  The large percentage is rape.  It probably makes sense that interracial sex is sometimes viewed as okay when the act of mating is rape.  One could argue it is more an act of displaying power than sexually motivated.  

A long term interracial relationship might be taboo, but half-elves do come from somewhere.

On a related note, once upon a time I wouldn't have said rape was taboo really either.  Plenty of my PCs have it in their background, I suppose because I envision more of a forced, violent sexual set of interactions.  With staff consent policy now, I'm not really sure if it is as widespread as I thought but we have consent downplaying its role in current roleplay, or whether it was determined overall to not happen that much.

You've confused me;  this was far from clear.  Are you talking about player taboos or IC taboos?  It seems they've been conflated here.

Quote from: Twilight on April 03, 2013, 05:54:24 PM
To give an example of what I am talking about, take muls.  Normally, humans and dwarves don't mate.  But obviously, there is a context, even if they are forced (which don't think they are given they are bred for it) in which humans and dwarves do mate.  And produce muls.  And in that context, it is completely acceptable.

There is a lot more to muls than "dwarf and humans mate." The details are an IC sekrit, but it's not a sekrit that muls are never accidentally produced "in the wild," unlike breeds. Certain noble houses' fortunes in part rely on that fact.

While I'm pretty sure dwarf-human action should have a strong taboo, it seems like it should be a common enough fetish (or focus, where the dwarves are concerned) that we could stand to see more of it than we currently do. OOC squeamishness seems to get in the way when it comes to dwarves. ;)

Twilight, there has always been a consent policy as far as I can remember - are there additional requirements now besides asking for consent before initiating a sexual action/not proceeding with that action if the player does not give consent?

Quote from: LauraMars on April 04, 2013, 02:49:42 AM
Twilight, there has always been a consent policy as far as I can remember - are there additional requirements now besides asking for consent before initiating a sexual action/not proceeding with that action if the player does not give consent?

I believe he's referring to this:

Quote from: help consentIf you wish to pursue a rape plotline or engage in an act of rape, you must seek consent from your target. Without that consent, the plotline may NOT be pursued.

That's what I described in my post, i guess not well (on phone.) anyway that is not new.

Quote from: Desertman on March 28, 2013, 03:55:27 PM

Quote from: spicemustflow on March 28, 2013, 03:54:27 PM

Quote from: bcw81 on March 28, 2013, 02:51:53 PM

Quote from: MeTekillot on March 28, 2013, 02:47:02 PM
I think cousins getting comfy would probably not raise too many eyebrows.

Brothers and sisters, on the other hand, would probably ick people out.

Why? People don't know about genetics nor do they have a religion that tells them otherwise.

doesn't matter, people would notice that breeding with close relatives produces defective offspring. that's how the taboo against it appeared on Earth, I believe.

I'd love to see a mutated inbred noble, that has the desired trait of their particular house but is fucked up in every other way.

Oooohhhh, I like that.

Borsail.

The ivory-skinned, silver-crowned midget.

It never occured to me that Lord Salazar might be grey-haired and a midget because of noble-style inbreeding. Is that who you're referring to?

I like how, no matter what, the things breeds are into sexually are going to be disgusting.

Very few people are breeds, very few. Nyr made a cool population post somewhere and I'm going to find it.

Quote from: The Silence of the Erdlus on April 04, 2013, 08:01:00 AM
Very few people are breeds, very few. Nyr made a cool population post somewhere and I'm going to find it.

http://www.zalanthas.org/gdb/index.php/topic,42384.0.html (http://www.zalanthas.org/gdb/index.php/topic,42384.0.html)

Holy god, I think I stand corrected. There's a few thousand of those things walking around! I always thought that the playerbase contained about half the world's breeds. Well, "breeds" as in people with at least a grandparent of the other race who haven't won the complete appearance ignorance jackpot.

Quote from: Nyr on December 04, 2011, 02:52:11 PM
Bolded for benefit; there really aren't that many overall.

Quote from: Nyr on June 16, 2010, 11:06:20 AM

QuoteTuluk (350,000)
219,000 humans (50% are slaves) (62.6% of total)
108,500 elves (10% are slaves) (31% of Total)
3,500 dwarves (65% are slaves) (1% of Total)
3,500 half-giants (80% are slaves) (1% of Total)
7,000 half-elves (40% are slaves) (2% of total)
1,500 muls (98% are slaves) (0.4% of total)
7,000 unknown/other/mutant (25% are slaves) (2% of Total)


Allanak (481,880)
310,000 humans (50% are slaves) (150,000 free) (64.3% of total)
150,000 elves (10% are slaves) (135,500 free) (31.1% of total)
7,500 dwarves (65% are slaves) (2,600 free) (1.8% of total)
3,800 half-giants (20% are slaves) (3,150 free) (0.8% of total)
5,800 half-elves (40% are slaves) (3,400 free) (1.3% of total)
1980 muls (99% are slaves) (18 free) (0.4% of total)
2,800 unknown/other/mutant (40% are slaves) (1,400 free) (~0.6% of total)

Tuluk's numbers have trended upwards since those figures were compiled (2006) though more recent events may have brought it back down; Allanak's numbers have trended downwards since those figures were compiled (2008) and recent events may have brought it down further.

Red Storm's population:  less than Allanak by a great magnitude.  
Luir's Outpost population:  Equal to or (more likely) less than Red Storm's population.  Varies more often than RS.  Variation depends on many factors.

I'm under the impression that a nongicker sleeping with a 'gicker is considered worse than a human sleeping with a person of another race. True? Nah? Not applicable because inter-anything not related to the wealth of slaving houses sucks?

I would definitely say magicker/non magicker coupling is far more atrocious.

A breed is less than human, a disgusting result of a human and an elf.

A magicker is a fucking abomination that should be killed/collared (and still be greatly mistrusted) on sight.



An addendum: The vast majority of the taboo should be on the non-magicker, IMO.

That's just my opinion, of course. But humans rarely get up and move to another table/threaten/feel fear when an elf sits at the table.

Quote from: BuNutzCola on April 04, 2013, 08:43:42 AM
An addendum: The vast majority of the taboo should be on the non-magicker, IMO.

That's just my opinion, of course. But humans rarely get up and move to another table/threaten/feel fear when an elf sits at the table.

Surely it's all the evil dirty magicker's doing! Surely Amos wouldn't be shacking up with that sexy gemmed on his own; she must have cast a spell on him.

Quote from: hyzhenhok on April 04, 2013, 11:15:59 AM

Quote from: BuNutzCola on April 04, 2013, 08:43:42 AM
An addendum: The vast majority of the taboo should be on the non-magicker, IMO.

That's just my opinion, of course. But humans rarely get up and move to another table/threaten/feel fear when an elf sits at the table.

Surely it's all the evil dirty magicker's doing! Surely Amos wouldn't be shacking up with that sexy gemmed on his own; she must have cast a spell on him.

True enough. And if you're gonna go 'gicker, might as well breed 'gicker, who is also your half-sister.

Quote from: Feco on April 03, 2013, 08:33:47 PM

Quote from: Twilight on April 03, 2013, 05:54:24 PM
I really wish I had gotten to do more with my necrophiliac.

That said, I will go against the grain, and say that interracial is probably at an intermediate step between frowned upon and taboo.  And that certain traditions may twist this into acceptable.

To give an example of what I am talking about, take muls.  Normally, humans and dwarves don't mate.  But obviously, there is a context, even if they are forced (which don't think they are given they are bred for it) in which humans and dwarves do mate.  And produce muls.  And in that context, it is completely acceptable.

Further, the IC attitude is going to have to somehow support the half-elven population.  While some is half-elf / half-elf mating, I've never heard of that being a large percentage.  The large percentage is rape.  It probably makes sense that interracial sex is sometimes viewed as okay when the act of mating is rape.  One could argue it is more an act of displaying power than sexually motivated.  

A long term interracial relationship might be taboo, but half-elves do come from somewhere.

On a related note, once upon a time I wouldn't have said rape was taboo really either.  Plenty of my PCs have it in their background, I suppose because I envision more of a forced, violent sexual set of interactions.  With staff consent policy now, I'm not really sure if it is as widespread as I thought but we have consent downplaying its role in current roleplay, or whether it was determined overall to not happen that much.

You've confused me;  this was far from clear.  Are you talking about player taboos or IC taboos?  It seems they've been conflated here.

Everything except the last paragraph was about IC taboos.  The last paragraph is how the introduction, and subsequent clarification for rape, have changed my perception on how commonplace, and acceptable, rape is IC'ly.

@hyzhenhok:  I am aware of that.  What I am saying is that a taboo is a broad restriction/aversion across all of society, without exception.  That doesn't exist, as the creation of muls entails the mating of human and dwarf (whether this includes sex or not), and the creation of muls is accepted by society.

@LauraMars: Consent has been in place roughly half the life of the Mud, if I am remembering correctly.  Possible just on the upside of half.  The rape piece was a clarification/change to the original consent rule.  The point was that my perspective of rape changed from what it was pre-consent to what it is now with the consent rule and that clarification.

Slaves are not part of society.

Quote from: Twilight on April 04, 2013, 12:28:07 PM
@hyzhenhok:  I am aware of that.  What I am saying is that a taboo is a broad restriction/aversion across all of society, without exception.  That doesn't exist, as the creation of muls entails the mating of human and dwarf (whether this includes sex or not), and the creation of muls is accepted by society.

That really seems like a stretch. Muls are not considered people. They are not fertile. Their creation occurs behind closed doors, so are they really products of "mating"? It might be going to far to assume everyone knows muls are half-dwarves, even.

If doing a Mul isn't taboo, it's still like having sex with a solid metal hammer or shovel. Okay, you're into it. But aren't there better uses?

Dwarves and humans mingle a lot less than elves and humans do. They are a different breed.  Fucking yuck. What human in their right mind, free human, fuck a dwarf without getting paid for it? (and vice versa)

Half-elves are usually a result of RAPE (http://www.armageddon.org/help/view/Half-Elf). Even those few elves that aren't in an elf-only-tribe (like those who work for a certain GMH) stick to their own kind and no self respecting human, even a lowly Bynner, would be caught kanking much less loving an elf.


Muls are bred primarily for the arena, they are beasts of burden, you'd use it like you use a mount so I guess I could see how a mul-fetish might be taboo.  Given their tendency to flip the fuck out, I'd say a very dangerous taboo.  Ride on bitches!

Slaves are tools, use them as you wish, but if you have an elf/mul/dwarf/breed slave as a sex slave it wouldn't be the kind of sex slave you can collar to your leash and walk around with, everyone (including the people selling it to you) would raise a brow at knowing that piece of filthy dirty. Imagine how you'd be treated if you were a lowly commoner with a rep for kanking unsavorinesses?

Quote from: slipshod on March 28, 2013, 04:07:01 PM

Quote from: spicemustflow on March 28, 2013, 03:54:27 PM

Quote from: bcw81 on March 28, 2013, 02:51:53 PM

Quote from: MeTekillot on March 28, 2013, 02:47:02 PM
I think cousins getting comfy would probably not raise too many eyebrows.

Brothers and sisters, on the other hand, would probably ick people out.

Why? People don't know about genetics nor do they have a religion that tells them otherwise.

doesn't matter, people would notice that breeding with close relatives produces defective offspring. that's how the taboo against it appeared on Earth, I believe.

I'd love to see a mutated inbred noble, that has the desired trait of their particular house but is fucked up in every other way.

It's actually even less thoughtful and deliberate than that.  The taboo developed physiologically, as a way for our bodies to protect us from breeding that would weaken or retard our bloodlines.  Just like you don't need a knowledge of bacteria and microbes to gag and be revolted by the idea of eating feces, one's body has a biological aversion to sexual contact with a close family member.  Even the scent of a close family member will be a turn off to a relative (with a healthy mind).  There are exceptions to the rule - people whose perversion overrides their body's programming, or who for whatever other reason are still attracted to a close relative - but the general population at large will reject incest without needing to think about or culturally justify why.  It's just natural.  It's the flip-side of the coin to what determines attraction.  People are naturally attracted to different genetic pools, because that maximizes the chances of filling in gaps in immunities and traits their own bloodline is lacking.  By the same token, a close family member has the same basic genetic makeup and has nothing to offer as a mate that will improve the chances of offspring thriving.  This is a sceevie topic though, heh.

Edit:  Inca royalty also favored brother/sister marriages.  But even there and in Egyptian society, these were not customs that the masses were encouraged to adopt or mimic.  They remained exceptions to the natural norm.  Western royal families who inbred, even at the level of cousins, in an effort to keep the bloodlines pure thought they were smarter than nature, and the results (like Charles of Spain) show how wrong they were.

Actually, recent study has shown that inbreeding especially between 1st or 2nd cousins does not always produce the genetic damage once associated with it. There has to be some preexisting detrimental mutation for it to be a problem.  In families with little history of deformity or other developmental defects, even brother sister marriages would not be too dangerous, and in a place like Zalanthas would be more likely to help a family's blood line rather than damage it.
Given the relatively small population size (based on a post I just read about Allanak and Tuluk populations), It's pretty much a given that all humans alive today on Zalanthas have common ancestors within probably less than ten generations. The mutant genes are probably spread pretty evenly across the population.  If the Noble houses have managed to avoid mutations so far, it would be wise for them to marry very close relatives.

Folks still have social interactions with slaves even if it is just to give them orders, so yes, they are a part of society.  Some are more prestigious in society than a dirty free commoner.

I'm debunking your argument that if something is acceptably done to/with slaves then it's not taboo. 

You can have sex with a slave (or make them have sex with eachother) against their wish, but rape is still taboo.

Ergo, slaves don't count.

Quote from: Marauder Moe on April 04, 2013, 04:12:26 PM
I'm debunking your argument that if something is acceptably done to/with slaves then it's not taboo. 

You can have sex with a slave (or make them have sex with eachother) against their wish, but rape is still taboo.

Ergo, slaves don't count.

I disagree, even among slaves some things are more acceptable than others.

That's fair.  Can we say, at least, that slaves count differently?  That it's OK to do some things to/with slaves that's not OK to do with freemen?

Heck, that extends higher up the social ladder as well.

To bring it all together, let's say that you can't blanket all of "society" by a single set of rules.  Rules apply differently depending on who you are.

Quote from: Marauder Moe on April 04, 2013, 04:21:25 PM
To bring it all together, let's say that you can't blanket all of "society" by a single set of rules.  Rules apply differently depending on who you are.

Welcome to Armageddon.

Quote from: Barzalene on April 04, 2013, 04:28:45 PM

Quote from: Marauder Moe on April 04, 2013, 04:21:25 PM
To bring it all together, let's say that you can't blanket all of "society" by a single set of rules.  Rules apply differently depending on who you are.

Welcome to Armageddon.

Heh. I guess we can't really have an Arm sexual taboo thread then because it'd vary much too much to have a set outside beastiality, necrophilia, racial intermingling, mundane vs putrid magicks hanky panky, pedophilia (not to be confused with starting age since at that young age most Zalanthans will have survived many atrocities), rape and... what else?

Dressing up like escru and tregils.

Quote from: Barzalene on April 04, 2013, 04:36:19 PM
Dressing up like escru and tregils.

I once observed two PCs going at it, one of them in a tregil mask.

Really.

Traditionally, taboo did mean that it applied to all of society.  In modern times only is it used on a more discrete basis as we mangle our own language.  Okay, language we stole from other people in this case.

That said, I would say there are few taboos on Zalanthas.  Rape, if indeed it is taboo, is only taboo because of some retcon around the time consent came into play because of RL considerations.  Murder isn't really taboo, especially not in Tuluk where you can hire an assassin.  Bestiallity is taboo.  Magick is taboo in the North, but not in the South.  Close relations with a magicker is close to taboo in the South, however.  I don't think elf/human sex doesn't quite rise to the level of taboo, otherwise there wouldn't be so damn many filthy breeds.  Consensual, relationship type elf/human sex is probably taboo.

Perhaps your thoughts on rape on the mud reflect your pov rather than game norms.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RapeIsASpecialKindOfEvil

...and we make fun of the palyers on Furcadia.  :-\

There are still gypsy cultures in the UK where their method of courtship is by the male overpowering the female. If she can't get away, she's his. Then she gets all giddy and excited and has a ridiculous gaudy wedding dress made. Its quite peculiar.

Year, I'm watching those shows and they make me extemely angry.

((sorry for the derail))

The problem is the Zalanthian sexuality. Man and woman are equal but the problem I've experienced a few times IC is that the female always is the one who has to be careful/take a break/relies on others when she's pregnant. It still gives me a sense of (even though I played a strong, dominant woman who was with child) the woman having to rely on her partner (whether male or female) and thus, becoming vulnerable.

Unless they don't give a shit about the child. Then shit, slam down your whisky and start boxing up that HG at the bar.

You're pregnant. Gender equality isn't broken by the fact you've a second human inside your body to look out for. Taking it easy, things of that sort, aren't weakness. That's survival instinct of the human race.

But it does mean that they HAVE to rely on someone else, and with some (dominant) personalities, that's hard. Let alone taking care of the kid after it's born (in the milk stage).

So maybe those sorts of people would just sell off the kid, foster it with another family, or hire a wetnurse, etc.

Quote from: BuNutzCola on April 04, 2013, 07:34:42 PM
Unless they don't give a shit about the child. Then shit, slam down your whisky and start boxing up that HG at the bar.

You're pregnant. Gender equality isn't broken by the fact you've a second human inside your body to look out for. Taking it easy, things of that sort, aren't weakness. That's survival instinct of the human race.

Zalanthas doesn't have TV  and doctors telling preggos that Urns bad for you. All my knocked up bitches drink and spice to get through, the nausea, headaches, mood swings, all cured by spice.

Ensuring your offsprings survive would be normal provided you want or need them. I'll murder a bitch if I don't want my bloodline continued. Out if they're my dirty little secret and the kid is the proof.

Quote from: ShaLeah on April 04, 2013, 08:10:27 PM

Quote from: BuNutzCola on April 04, 2013, 07:34:42 PM
Unless they don't give a shit about the child. Then shit, slam down your whisky and start boxing up that HG at the bar.

You're pregnant. Gender equality isn't broken by the fact you've a second human inside your body to look out for. Taking it easy, things of that sort, aren't weakness. That's survival instinct of the human race.

Zalanthas doesn't have TV  and doctors telling preggos that Urns bad for you. All my knocked up bitches drink and spice to get through, the nausea, headaches, mood swings, all cured by spice.

Ensuring your offsprings survive would be normal provided you want or need them. I'll murder a bitch if I don't want my bloodline continued. Out if they're my dirty little secret and the kid is the proof.

Zalanthas Birth control!

if zalanthans understand birth control i presume they have SOME idea of what is a bad idea to do during pregnancy

I'm always sort of intimidated that all the sex-topic threads get filled with posts rather quickly...

Sex is a pretty big part of many people's lives so people tend to talk about it?????

????

Quote from: Zephy on April 04, 2013, 09:01:37 PM
Zalanthas Birth control!

Somehow, despite my careful inuring to the Internet, I still find this casual talk of killing children and mothers disturbing, even if my character would not.

I'm bothered by the way this "gender bias-free" Armageddon discussion somehow has turned to resemble the harsh realities of gender in the real world. Maybe it wasn't meant to be. But Internet communication is complicated at best. I am sure that the merry jokesters didn't mean:
>subdue bitch
>throw bitch stairs
>think (amused) Better than Mul Mix!

Let's keep the callous sociopathy in game where it belongs as best we can, eh, folks?

P.S. I realize that it is women having this conversation.

Quote from: Morrolan on April 05, 2013, 01:10:54 PM

I'm bothered by the way this "gender bias-free" Armageddon discussion somehow has turned to resemble the harsh realities of gender in the real world.

That is only because some harsh real world realities are also harsh Armageddon realities.

Only females get pregnant and carry children. Such is biology in both Armageddon and real life. Until that changes we just have to work around that, no matter how "gender bias-free" we attempt to be.

I do want to play a mutant male that can get pregnant now, thanks to you.  >:(

Quote from: Iiyola on April 04, 2013, 08:04:56 PM
But it does mean that they HAVE to rely on someone else, and with some (dominant) personalities, that's hard. Let alone taking care of the kid after it's born (in the milk stage).

There are very dominant woman in the real world as well. And unless I'm misunderstanding something (like a suggestion men should carry children to childbirth), I don't see where it's a roleplay problem. If it's IC for you to care and provide for the child, partner or not, then do so. Or if you're the selfish sort and only look out for number one, aggressive and self-sustaining or not, well, there's some inexpensive herbs to be had that can solve the issue.

But I don't think it has anything to do with sexual inequality as it pertains to Zalanthas, in my opinion.

EDIT: Not to mention that the decision to get pregnant, at least game wise, is almost entirely your choice as the player. Possible staff might enforce such consequences to the activities that precede pregnancy, but I imagine that's a remarkably rare thing.

Quote from: Desertman on April 05, 2013, 01:42:16 PM

I do want to play a mutant male that can get pregnant now, thanks to you.  >:(

Funny, gender bias discussions always give me the same impulse.

I'm trying to figure out how that would work biologically though. How would the man get the woman's egg out of her body? Suction? Only having sex during menstration?

Now I'm hungry for poached eggs.

Quote from: Iiyola on April 04, 2013, 08:04:56 PM
But it does mean that they HAVE to rely on someone else, and with some (dominant) personalities, that's hard. Let alone taking care of the kid after it's born (in the milk stage).

As a player you can make your PC as dependent or as independent as you want regardless of babbys.  You can have your tough warrior woman riding into battle 8 months pregnant, who cares.  You can go out hunting with formed babbys in slings over your shoulder, because life's tough!

What I've seen is a lot of is disparaging RP towards PCs who choose to be rough and tumble and still be parents where they kinda get shouted/guilted down about it.  And other busy body PCs tell them how they should be in a dependent role even if they were the breadwinners in their various relationships.

So my suggestion to people who want both formed babbys and to be rough and tumble indies, just do it, and tell the haters to stick it.

There is something a little difficult to believe about an 8-months pregnant woman riding a bug into the wastes, getting into fights with savage beasts, taking a vicious wound to the waist and having a healthy baby with a problem-free delivery a few weeks later. That seems more like a hell of a way to get an abortion...

Quote from: Delirium on April 05, 2013, 04:39:01 PM
There is something a little difficult to believe about an 8-months pregnant woman riding a bug into the wastes, getting into fights with savage beasts, taking a vicious wound to the waist and having a healthy baby with a problem-free delivery a few weeks later. That seems more like a hell of a way to get an abortion...

Who said it had to be a healthy, problem-free baby?

Quote from: Delirium on April 05, 2013, 04:39:01 PM
There is something a little difficult to believe about an 8-months pregnant woman riding a bug into the wastes, getting into fights with savage beasts, taking a vicious wound to the waist and having a healthy baby with a problem-free delivery a few weeks later. That seems more like a hell of a way to get an abortion...

We have to make allowances in situations such as this.

Females get pregnant. Males do not. Being pregnant IRL does in fact limit what you are able to physically do safely for yourself and the unborn child. That is also a gender limitation, and gender limitations in Armageddon are a no-no. Thus, let's just assume women people in Armageddon have extremely durable inside-baby-protector-parts, or, we can just accept it as one of those things that "is" and does not exactly require "realistic" backing.

You can only take the whole "gender equality" thing so far on a realistic biological level before you just have to say, "Look, that is a rule we follow because this is a game and not RL, you don't need a good reason for it because maybe there isn't a good reason for it." Pregnancy appears to fall into that category. Nothing wrong with that.

Doesn't everyone know that Zalanthan women have inertial stabilizers genetically engineered into their wombs during the golden age of man?

Quote from: bcw81 on April 05, 2013, 05:34:58 PM
Doesn't everyone know that Zalanthan women have inertial stabilizers genetically engineered into their wombs during the golden age of man?

Or maybe Zalanthan babies are proportionally as tough as Zalanthan adults.

Zalanthan adults can regularly survive falls from the shield wall, which I presume is fairly high up. They'll also be up and at 'em again in a few days. Earth people just can't compete with that. If babies are the same way, you could almost use pregnancy as extra belly armor.

Quote from: Desertman on April 05, 2013, 05:17:25 PM

Quote from: Delirium on April 05, 2013, 04:39:01 PM
There is something a little difficult to believe about an 8-months pregnant woman riding a bug into the wastes, getting into fights with savage beasts, taking a vicious wound to the waist and having a healthy baby with a problem-free delivery a few weeks later. That seems more like a hell of a way to get an abortion...

We have to make allowances in situations such as this.

Females get pregnant. Males do not. Being pregnant IRL does in fact limit what you are able to physically do safely for yourself and the unborn child. That is also a gender limitation, and gender limitations in Armageddon are a no-no. Thus, let's just assume women people in Armageddon have extremely durable inside-baby-protector-parts, or, we can just accept it as one of those things that "is" and does not exactly require "realistic" backing.

You can only take the whole "gender equality" thing so far on a realistic biological level before you just have to say, "Look, that is a rule we follow because this is a game and not RL, you don't need a good reason for it because maybe there isn't a good reason for it." Pregnancy appears to fall into that category. Nothing wrong with that.

Yea, this is pretty much my view on it.  It's up to the player how fragile/tough their womb is and it's really not up to anyone else to decide that for them.

I'm pro virtual choice.  Don't let the MAN tell you that falling off the shield wall killed your forming babby!

It's perfectly fine for pregnant PCs to go out doing risky stuff that they did before. However, there is the expectation that you will roleplay appropriately if something bad happens, like you get gored for frightening damage to the waist by a Mek, or you practice poison and poison yourself six times a week over the course of the pregnancy.

Not only that...

When I was pregnant I wasn't able to do much at all! It's not just a matter of wanting, it's also a matter of physically not being able to (unless we all roleplay our perfect pregnancies with twins who are all perfectly healthy despite the amount of booze and spice consumed).

Quote from: Iiyola on April 05, 2013, 08:15:28 PM
Not only that...

When I was pregnant I wasn't able to do much at all! It's not just a matter of wanting, it's also a matter of physically not being able to (unless we all roleplay our perfect pregnancies with twins who are all perfectly healthy despite the amount of booze and spice consumed).

By -far- most pregnancies do not end in bed rest. I had 5, never on bed rest, did everything I normally did, I didn't waddle, I climbed trees, went to the beach and swam, walked everywhere and when it came time to push them out? Three - six pushes per kid and they're out. My largest was almost 9lbs. It's entirely dependent on the woman and how well they deal with shit. A whiner is gonna be a whiner even while pregnant, probably more so, a champion is gonna be a champion till the end, even if they die in childbirth.

I would think Zalanthan women are heartier, especially if they're into martial arts or living off the wilds. I can see a midwife telling a hunter she should stick to small game and the Byn might make a Trooper hang back on dangerous missions, Houses might shuffle their employees around to lighter duty too if they're life sworn and providing more loyal minions, hell, they might even provide a midwife to facilitate the birth.

I'd think maternal instincts will still be present, the want to protect, the want to be with it when it can't be taken care of by others yet but frequently one nursing mother will provide sustenance to another baby so within clans, wouldn't they hook a sistah up?

Also the amount of addiction needed to adversely affect a fetus is huge and must be done long term. Having an ale a day wouldn't, having warspice all day every day would.

Back on topic people! Making spiced up babies is NOT taboo in the Highlord's City.

Quote from: ShaLeah on April 05, 2013, 10:11:41 PM

Quote from: Iiyola on April 05, 2013, 08:15:28 PM
Not only that...

When I was pregnant I wasn't able to do much at all! It's not just a matter of wanting, it's also a matter of physically not being able to (unless we all roleplay our perfect pregnancies with twins who are all perfectly healthy despite the amount of booze and spice consumed).

By -far- most pregnancies do not end in bed rest. I had 5, never on bed rest, did everything I normally did, I didn't waddle, I climbed trees, went to the beach and swam, walked everywhere and when it came time to push them out? Three - six pushes per kid and they're out. My largest was almost 9lbs. It's entirely dependent on the woman and how well they deal with shit. A whiner is gonna be a whiner even while pregnant, probably more so, a champion is gonna be a champion till the end, even if they die in childbirth.

I would think Zalanthan women are heartier, especially if they're into martial arts or living off the wilds. I can see a midwife telling a hunter she should stick to small game and the Byn might make a Trooper hang back on dangerous missions, Houses might shuffle their employees around to lighter duty too if they're life sworn and providing more loyal minions, hell, they might even provide a midwife to facilitate the birth.

I'd think maternal instincts will still be present, the want to protect, the want to be with it when it can't be taken care of by others yet but frequently one nursing mother will provide sustenance to another baby so within clans, wouldn't they hook a sistah up?

Also the amount of addiction needed to adversely affect a fetus is huge and must be done long term. Having an ale a day wouldn't, having warspice all day every day would.

Back on topic people! Making spiced up babies is NOT taboo in the Highlord's City.

My best friend had a competitive swimmer as a prof once, and she had to have her baby by Dec 31st for to save some money for tax purposes. She would go on marathon hikes to urge herself into labor. One of 'em eventually worked.

Quote from: ShaLeah on April 05, 2013, 10:11:41 PM
By -far- most pregnancies do not end in bed rest. I had 5, never on bed rest, did everything I normally did, I didn't waddle, I climbed trees, went to the beach and swam, walked everywhere and when it came time to push them out? Three - six pushes per kid and they're out. My largest was almost 9lbs. It's entirely dependent on the woman and how well they deal with shit. A whiner is gonna be a whiner even while pregnant, probably more so, a champion is gonna be a champion till the end, even if they die in childbirth.

That's less to do with how you mentally coped with a problematic pregnancy and more to do with your body sounding particularly suited to easy, problem-free childbearing. Pretty insensitive thing to say to Iyola after what she's been through.  :-\

To punish you Shaleah, I didn't brag that time before but I was at this concert: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8JvMdEN4TU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8JvMdEN4TU)

Edit: Oops, I posted a RAT and this isn't the RAT thread. On topic:

Quote from: RogueGunslinger on March 27, 2013, 11:31:48 PM
'Gickers. Gypsies. Northern/Southerners. Rinthers.

And children, the dead and across races. Gickers and mixing races should provoke the most reaction in the playerbase, as they seem mostly played as being attractive physically,  so reaction needs to be more actively and consciously pushed. It comes far more naturally and easier to display suitable reactions to people kanking children and dead people.

Quote from: Booya on April 06, 2013, 07:40:13 AM

Quote from: ShaLeah on April 05, 2013, 10:11:41 PM
By -far- most pregnancies do not end in bed rest. I had 5, never on bed rest, did everything I normally did, I didn't waddle, I climbed trees, went to the beach and swam, walked everywhere and when it came time to push them out? Three - six pushes per kid and they're out. My largest was almost 9lbs. It's entirely dependent on the woman and how well they deal with shit. A whiner is gonna be a whiner even while pregnant, probably more so, a champion is gonna be a champion till the end, even if they die in childbirth.

That's less to do with how you mentally coped with a problematic pregnancy and more to do with your body sounding particularly suited to easy, problem-free childbearing. Pretty insensitive thing to say to Iyola after what she's been through.  :-\

To punish you Shaleah, I didn't brag that time before but I was at this concert: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8JvMdEN4TU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8JvMdEN4TU)

Edit: Oops, I posted a RAT and this isn't the RAT thread. On topic:

Quote from: RogueGunslinger on March 27, 2013, 11:31:48 PM
'Gickers. Gypsies. Northern/Southerners. Rinthers.

And children, the dead and across races. Gickers and mixing races should provoke the most reaction in the playerbase, as they seem mostly played as being attractive physically,  so reaction needs to be more actively and consciously pushed. It comes far more naturally and easier to display suitable reactions to people kanking children and dead people.

Hey now, this was not personalized to Iiyola, I should slap you for even suggesting it! I was saying a general "it's all personal more than strictly PHYSICAL", if it was physical then by far the majority would end up in the same boat, like morning sickness, bloating, boob pain. There is universal and there isn't, bed rest is not. Haysoos!

As for the punishment. I'll bend over for you -any- day you keep hittin' me like that!

Okay, fair enough. Sorry for taking that the wrong way! For what it's worth, I agree if you're talking about morning sickness, bloating, boob pain! I'm with the Champions there. :P

If players want to have their Zalanthan women have bodies like Shaleah's, go for it. If they want to play out being precious, or having troubles go for it. But either way there's no one right way for other characters to react to your pregnant character. They're probably only special in that state to you, and maybe their mate.

Quote from: Booya on April 06, 2013, 08:55:42 AM
If players want to have their Zalanthan women have bodies like Shaleah's, go for it. If they want to play out being precious, or having troubles go for it. But either way there's no one right way for other characters to react to your pregnant character. They're probably only special in that state to you, and maybe their mate.

/me paid dearly for those easy pregnancies with a total of A HUNDRED FORTY SIX (146) hours of labor.

The majority of women who have more than one child have labors that get consecutively shorter, I didn't really fall into that category.

I like having kids on Arm, takes much less time.

Moral of the story?

Punishment by musex (music) would not be considered taboo on Zalanthas.
Preggo fetishes would not be taboo on Zalanthas therefore lactation fetishes wouldn't be either. Using the placenta in any sexual fashion, would be taboo.
Sexy time while in labor, -might- be taboo.


Someone should compile a list, like that Neat Little Things (http://www.zalanthas.org/gdb/index.php/topic,33156.0.html) thread.

 

QuoteUsing the placenta in any sexual fashion, would be taboo.
Sexy time while in labor, -might- be taboo.

I threw up in my mouth a little.

Actual sex might be, but I've heard very interesting things said about constant sexual stimulation during labor making the contractions like a long and very intense orgasm and actually easing birthing pains a -lot-.

Given the content of the placenta and the things I've heard about people eating them, I would think that doing something sexual would be kind of a waste when you could eat them instead.

Agreed on the pregnancy and lactation fetishes though.  :D

Too gross? Sorry Lukoyin!
/me waves at ShaLeah!

Quote from: Lukoyin on April 06, 2013, 12:05:00 PM

QuoteUsing the placenta in any sexual fashion, would be taboo.
Sexy time while in labor, -might- be taboo.

I threw up in my mouth a little.

Throwing up a little in someone's mouth during sex would probably be a sexual taboo.

But with what I've been reading on this thread, I'm not so sure anymore  :-\

Don't let AGH and Shal trick you, Malken. Eating placenta during sex/childbirth is not abnormal.

Quote from: RogueGunslinger on April 06, 2013, 04:11:01 PM
Don't let AGH and Shal trick you, Malken. Eating placenta during sex/childbirth is not abnormal.

Hey hey hey now, lest we misunderstand:

sexual stuff with the placenta, I think wouldn't really be considered much other than a waste of perfectly good nutrients.

After childbirth.

Dunno who'd eat placenta while kanking, that's just yuk. ;)

Quote from: Delirium on April 05, 2013, 04:39:01 PM
There is something a little difficult to believe about an 8-months pregnant woman riding a bug into the wastes, getting into fights with savage beasts, taking a vicious wound to the waist and having a healthy baby with a problem-free delivery a few weeks later. That seems more like a hell of a way to get an abortion...

I read that and the first thing that popped into my head was, 'The kid is going to go far in the Byn'.

Also, thread is taking a turn for the strange. And I like it.

Carry on.

So long as people choose to roleplay injury or some form of hindrance to themselves, I will RP that they are stupid for not recognizing "super obvious handicap". If you want to RP an injury you can do that. You can't just get the special treatment and cool doctor RP them bounce back when it's convenient, if you are still injured. You're either roleplaying a handicap or you aren't.

Quote from: AmandaGreathouse on April 06, 2013, 04:25:01 PM

Quote from: RogueGunslinger on April 06, 2013, 04:11:01 PM
Don't let AGH and Shal trick you, Malken. Eating placenta during sex/childbirth is not abnormal.

sexual stuff with the placenta, I think wouldn't really be considered much other than a waste of perfectly good nutrients.

I think that's your opinion and not an established norm within the games documentation. Tradition can very well overrule reason. In this case  I believe placentasex would be a very defining element of Zalanthas culture!

ANYTHING THAT MOVES (OR DOESN'T RUN AWAY FAST ENOUGH)

Quote from: Iiyola on April 04, 2013, 07:17:54 PM
Year, I'm watching those shows and they make me extemely angry.

((sorry for the derail))

The problem is the Zalanthian sexuality. Man and woman are equal but the problem I've experienced a few times IC is that the female always is the one who has to be careful/take a break/relies on others when she's pregnant. It still gives me a sense of (even though I played a strong, dominant woman who was with child) the woman having to rely on her partner (whether male or female) and thus, becoming vulnerable.

But is having some degree of vulnerability a bad thing? Does a person always have to be hard as steel? Should we not all have moments where there is a chink in the armor?

It would seem that vulnerability is a passing one after all, to me this is not a problem as much an accentuating moment in the pc's live and players rp. 

Quote from: Booya on April 06, 2013, 08:55:42 AM
Okay, fair enough. Sorry for taking that the wrong way! For what it's worth, I agree if you're talking about morning sickness, bloating, boob pain! I'm with the Champions there. :P

If players want to have their Zalanthan women have bodies like Shaleah's, go for it. If they want to play out being precious, or having troubles go for it. But either way there's no one right way for other characters to react to your pregnant character. They're probably only special in that state to you, and maybe their mate.

Agreed. But still disagree with women riding mounts and climbing when pregnant.

I swear riding a mount can cause miscarriage, and I know falling off a cliff can!

Quote from: Fredd on April 06, 2013, 08:32:59 PM
Agreed. But still disagree with women riding mounts and climbing when pregnant.

I swear riding a mount can cause miscarriage, and I know falling off a cliff can!

Just like riding for too long or falling off a cliff can cause testicular torsion, which in turn can and will cause infertility since there is no way that someone could operate in time to prevent it from cutting off the blood flow.

But nobody ever rp that stuff either :(

Riding a mount won't cause miscarriage. An accident with the mount is a different story. (one of Hollands greatest dressage riders rode on the Olympics while she was pregnant, around 20 weeks give or take) and I've known women who have ridden their horse the same week they gave birth. However. They of course weren't able to ride as they usually would. So in comparison: hunting and traveling the Known would probably be possible until 7 to 8 months but mind, it would get extremely difficult to mount a mount with a fat belly like that. Besides, does a mother want to walk the risk of taking a (tainted) arrow? Or fall off their mount? Or get bit in the belly by a beast? Technically the mount could trip. There's always that risk.

Quote from: Lutagar on April 06, 2013, 06:45:27 PM
ANYTHING THAT MOVES (OR DOESN'T RUN AWAY FAST ENOUGH)

This one is by far my favorite!

Most mounts in Arm are waaay bigger than a horse, with a totally different style of saddlery, riding and mounting (ladders to get on an inix???)...each creature would have a completely different gait and level of bumpiness, none of which would be much like a horse. Ox and erdlu would be the most similar, with the rider straddling. Inix and beetles would probably be more like an elephant, with a seat set up above, so less bumpiness and no straddling (because you'd never get your legs around that anyway, would you?)...and I don't imagine beetles are bumpy at all anyway?

Just thoughts...

Climbing would be SO difficult heavily pregnant though, that bump would seriously get in the way and it would be literally impossible to keep your weight in and against the 'wall'.

Sex with your mount ...  is that where we are in this thread?   :-\

We are laughing in teamspeak right now.

Even in a world that happens to have modern medicine (i.e. ours), childbirth isn't exactly a safe endeavor.  The maternal mortality rate in "developing" countries is as high as 5-10% (http://www.zalanthas.org/gdb/index.php?action=post;topic=45193.100;num_replies=122).  And the rates of terrible but nonfatal complications are much more common (http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTHEALTHNUTRITIONANDPOPULATION/EXTPRH/0,,contentMDK:20201062~menuPK:548481~pagePK:148956~piPK:216618~theSitePK:376855,00.html).  That doesn't necessarily mean that childbirth needs to be that dangerous in Zalanthas, but the RL facts are an important frame of reference.

Now, back to talk of placenta sex with your war beetle.

Well, I'll be damned. My third-grade teacher was right after all. Pretty sure I have vivid memories of her telling us that it was probably the healthiest thing to eat ever.

This is why teachers should shut up.

Quote from: Kismetic on April 06, 2013, 10:09:03 PM
Sex with your mount ...  is that where we are in this thread?   :-\

Only taboo for non-breeds.

Quote from: Iiyola on April 06, 2013, 08:52:04 PM
Riding a mount won't cause miscarriage. An accident with the mount is a different story. (one of Hollands greatest dressage riders rode on the Olympics while she was pregnant, around 20 weeks give or take) and I've known women who have ridden their horse the same week they gave birth. However. They of course weren't able to ride as they usually would. So in comparison: hunting and traveling the Known would probably be possible until 7 to 8 months but mind, it would get extremely difficult to mount a mount with a fat belly like that. Besides, does a mother want to walk the risk of taking a (tainted) arrow? Or fall off their mount? Or get bit in the belly by a beast? Technically the mount could trip. There's always that risk.

Tripping might be less frequent with six legged mounts.

Tripping into a chasm is a possibility!

I recently recalled a truly zalanthan taboo:


































Slicing your bread and stuffing the slices with vegetables, meat, eggs or other food.

Is the trample command applicable here?

Yes, in a war-gy, namely, where many humans and metahumans are participating with one beetle.  Scenarios involving multiple beetles and one human (or metahuman) has never been known to have credible survivors.

Charge is also applicable, too.

Animals eat the placenta all the time.  Gets rid of the scent for predators and gives a nutrient rich meal.  In  my case I'd normally see cows doing it.

With that out of the way...

The post about puking in someone's mouth got me to thinking.  What would we call it?  And what would we call other things?

Roman - Puking - ?
French - BJ - Tuluki?
Italian - penis between butt cheeks - Luirs?
Russian - Titty fuck - Nak?
Greek - Anal - Red Stormer?

Quote from: Twilight on April 08, 2013, 02:42:52 PM
Stuff...

Dang...

My reaction for interested parties...http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/344/519/9c1.gif (http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/344/519/9c1.gif)

Yeah, I was just thinking, I didn't have a second thought about joking on beetle orgies, and then ...  Shit just got real.

Quote from: Twilight on April 08, 2013, 02:42:52 PM
The post about puking in someone's mouth got me to thinking.  What would we call it?  And what would we call other things?

Partaking of their sour?
Sharing bile?
Divvying our meals?
Cud-ing?
/me ponders, ponderingly.

Just when I thought it was safe to take a peek at this thread again...

Quote from: Delirium on April 08, 2013, 03:25:08 PM
Just when I thought it was safe to take a peek at this thread again...

The good thing about sharing one's bile is that both parties get to have fun! It's the new 69!

Lol its been over a week and this thread is still weird

MMmm...

Guys...

I have something to admit...

My biggest fetish...

Is washing someone.

With -water-.

I know, I know. It's -so- taboo. But it's -so- good.

Quote from: Patuk on April 07, 2013, 09:11:20 AM
I recently recalled a truly zalanthan taboo:


































Slicing your bread and stuffing the slices with vegetables, meat, eggs or other food.

^Gets my vote for winner. ;)

(http://i48.tinypic.com/wgt8jc.gif)

Be cool and stay on topic my dearies.

Would it be considered blasphemy to call out your local godking's name in the throws of your passion?

I say go for it. I'm all for the common born using the god-kings' names in colorful ways, so long as they believe they're out of earhsot of the upper crust of power.

Quote from: musashi on April 14, 2013, 02:00:04 AM
I say go for it. I'm all for the common born using the god-kings' names in colorful ways, so long as they believe they're out of earhsot of the upper crust of power.

And I say don't go for it. We yell the transcendent deity's name at transcendent moments. Remember, religion on Zalanthas is only vaguely like the religions most of us are exposed to. It's less the "worshipping god" and more like that worshipping of your daddy when you were 6 years old.

QuoteMy daddy is the biggest and the strongest and the smartest guy in the whole world. He could kick your daddy's ass.

I like that analogy.

People say oh daddy during sex too. Sooooo now what cha got? :P

Quote from: musashi on April 14, 2013, 06:24:46 PM
People say oh daddy during sex too. Sooooo now what cha got? :P

Therapy, and a quote from Tank Girl.

Quote from: Tank GirlYou gotta think about it like the first time you got laid. You just gotta say: "Daddy, are you sure this is right?"

For allanaki nobles:

So having a sexy commoner around with you all the time like a deck of kruth cards or a bottle of your favorite vintage is totally cool.

I'm guessing these are the bad parts:

Being in love with your commoner concubine/slave although the physical relationship hasn't changed

Prefering commoners to nobles

Prefering noble/commoner pairings in general as a sexy thing as compared to commoner/commoner or noble/noble

Are they? I wonder.

I think even for nobles in Allanak, it is ok for them to spend a lot of time with commoners. The problem would be with relating to them as 'friends' or equals, which would probably be looked at much the same as a person in RL becoming close friends or equals with a pet spider (i.e. quite odd, perhaps insane). For southern nobles, I imagine commoners are tools. They can be used as a means to get entertainment, service towards a goal, props to posture with, ect. A noble would likely believe that Commoners exist to serve the nobility.

Quote from: BleakOne on April 15, 2013, 07:55:43 AM
I think even for nobles in Allanak, it is ok for them to spend a lot of time with commoners. The problem would be with relating to them as 'friends' or equals, which would probably be looked at much the same as a person in RL becoming close friends or equals with a pet spider (i.e. quite odd, perhaps insane). For southern nobles, I imagine commoners are tools. They can be used as a means to get entertainment, service towards a goal, props to posture with, ect. A noble would likely believe that Commoners exist to serve the nobility.

Agreed. Commoners should be used for all their worth, exploited. Why wouldn't Nakki nobles take what they want when they want? I can even see gaining real affection for (this is how they become concubines/in service for a long time). Love? I certainly wouldn't toot THAT to the world, nor get caught, NOR tell that commoner no matter how much they told me.

Love can be exploited and abused and used to manipulate someone much more effectively than sex.

You would think that nobles would be embarrassed to move sideways their entire life, much less down, but courting commoners would be way, way down, no matter who they are.  At best, you're seeking cheap favor from a GMH family member.  But developing feelings for your favorite commoner?  Sure, if you're into being low on the pole, and shaming your House.  And it's not just about keeping it secret, either, because they would know what a risky secret that is.

Concubines, I suppose, are a little different, and something I don't readily understand about Allanak.  Are you allowed to cuddle with your concubine?

I think the whole concubines thing was in large part advanced by a very dynamic player, with a clear vision and an ability to make her personal vision a reality. She later contributed to some of the documentation and set up an in game establishment that furthered the assimilation of that ideal.

I don't know that this is a good thing or bad. It's nice to know that it's possible to really affect change. On the other hand I don't know that the spider behind the fly should be the norm rather than the exception.


(I say all of the above as though it were fact, but it is all only personal observation and possibly completely incorrect. )

Quote from: Kismetic on April 15, 2013, 09:34:13 AM
You would think that nobles would be embarrassed to move sideways their entire life, much less down, but courting commoners would be way, way down, no matter who they are.  At best, you're seeking cheap favor from a GMH family member.  But developing feelings for your favorite commoner?  Sure, if you're into being low on the pole, and shaming your House.  And it's not just about keeping it secret, either, because they would know what a risky secret that is.

Concubines, I suppose, are a little different, and something I don't readily understand about Allanak.  Are you allowed to cuddle with your concubine?

Think of concubines as a toy, or a sports car, you play with them whenever you want, you might even let someone play with your toy if you get something out of it. Think of a noble as a celebrity, politician, or even a Hugh Heffner.  They can do whatever they want until they shame their House, THEN it becomes a problem and it's dealt with. There were echoes and NPC concubines long before a PC was able to become above even that. Impacted the game world. Changed it. Another one even reached nobility... Tuluki has a road named after her. Again, changed the world, all because they were favored by the nobles that took them as toys.

Yes, you're allowed to cuddle your concubine. You shouldn't cuddle the aide you're fucking. You shouldn't googoo eyes a commoner in public. I wouldn't share my slave, that's personal property. I -would- use my concubine against my arch-nemesis if I knew she/he could get to him/her. In a heartbeat. Plenty of commoners to replace her/him. Plenty -wanting- that noble favor.

NOT Taboo for nobility to fuck/keep/favor commoners in Allanak.
TABOO to fuck (you'll disappear in a NY mnt) a commoner in Tuluk. You may, however, keep them (while you lust after them in your mind) in your employee, and you may favor them.

What happens in LUIRS though... stays in Luirs. :)

Quote from: ShaLeah on April 15, 2013, 10:25:49 AM
What happens in LUIRS though... stays in Luirs. :)

I was going to attempt to respond intelligently to this thread with something about how there's no "one true way" to have a concubine.

Instead, I want to put the above quote on a pedestal.

All of what has been said makes complete sense, but I still think a noble of either city-state that had a vested interest in their career being a success would avoid getting too touchy with the commonfolk.  Examples to the contrary would be stew for good RP, sure.

And yeah, what happens in Luir's stays there, except that pesky VD you got, because you didn't tip your host/hostess.  For shame!

Quote from: Kismetic on April 15, 2013, 10:57:09 AM
And yeah, what happens in Luir's stays there, except...

If you forget to pay your spice bill, or piss off your Agent cause -someone- had to set up that masked rendezvous that is really a Tuluki noble thinking it's a commoner and a Nakki noble thinking its a breed.


Oh to be a kankfly on the wall... or a Kuraci.  :P

Quote from: ShaLeah on April 15, 2013, 11:12:24 AM
If you forget to pay your spice bill, or piss off your Agent cause -someone- had to set up that masked rendezvous that is really a Tuluki noble thinking it's a commoner and a Nakki noble thinking its a breed.

Oh, that had me laughing.  And wishing for more Spartacus episodes.    :D

Quote from: Kismetic on April 15, 2013, 10:57:09 AM
All of what has been said makes complete sense, but I still think a noble of either city-state that had a vested interest in their career being a success would avoid getting too touchy with the commonfolk.

I think the only time I've ever seen a situation in game where a noble being warm (not the right word, but I'm tired, so it'll do) towards a commoner didn't make sense was when one hit on a gemmed at the bar, in front of another noble. Magickers, elves, dwarves, half-elves would all be the kind of consort that would / should get a noble in major shit with their respective House, given the massive negative backlash if it was ever discovered.

By major shit, I mead major dead, or at least confined to the estate for the rest of their lives.

Beyond that, like everyone else, if you have the clout to get away with it, you can do as you please. Noble A wants to have human commoner B sit in his lap? As long as A has the power the to ensure no one can make waves for him and has enough sway over B to ensure she (or he) doesn't make a scene, I don't think there would be much trouble.

The feel I get is nobles are suppose to be one-upping each other, flaunting their power and influence. Being able to openly indulge as you please, with whom you please, above reprisal or backlash from your peers would be quite a display - again, only IF they had the influence.

If not? 'rinthers aren't the only ones that eat their own alive.

The feel I get is that nobles should (not necessarily have to) be in a constant effort of raising the stature of their House.  That's their job.  That said, what works for a Fale doesn't work for a Borsail, and what works for a Nakki doesn't work for a Tuluki.  My general blanket statement is general.

I feel like in general 'nakki templars and nobles mudsex too much >_>

Quote from: musashi on April 16, 2013, 07:27:02 AM
I feel like in general 'nakki templars and nobles mudsex too much >_>

Um... I kind of agree.

Not that they spend "too much time" exactly,  which implies a criticism.

Rather, while romance should definitely be an avenue open to nobles and Templars, I feel that the more time leader type pcs of all flavors should try to maximize the amount of time they are available to the world. Clearly someone who plays 50 hours a week has more discretionary time than someone who plays 20. But really that's more an ooc derail than an on topic addition to the conversation. Um... As you were.

I dunno, my experience with noble/templar players has been that they are just as eager to FTB and get on with the interesting stuff as much as anyone else! And the ones that do want to mudsex? Well, making them feel bad enough to skip what they want to attend to your RP needs isn't going to make them happy RP'ers anyway.

Umm, this conversation isn't about what players do, it's about the expectations of nobles, and subsequent taboos.  Get with the topic, please.  :D

Yep. Sorry! Carry on.

Kismet likes his cybersex chatter -on topic-

Well, doesn't everyone?

 Lets see.

Adultery?  Not taboo that I have seen.
Abortion?  I've always assumed abortion, short of your mate slicing your belly open to pull out the tot, letting you see it die before you do (assuming no Vivaduan intervention, which would be worse?) is pretty much the only form of abortion.  Although, that sort of sounds like a plot worth trying now.
Infanticide?  Okay, not strictly sexual taboo, but close.  I don't think this is a taboo?  Always assume nobles kill off mutations, rinthis kill off unwanted tykes, and smart folks kill off breeds?
Ephebophilia?  Seems okay.
Gerontophilia?  Seems okay.

How do abortion and infanticide fall under the heading of "Sexual Taboo"?

Quote
(http://i48.tinypic.com/wgt8jc.gif)

Be cool and stay on topic my dearies.

Let us not open that can please.

So... What's the deal with pokin' gickers? I know it just isn't supposed to be done, but isn't that part of the allure?

Many people believe their parts would fall off if they kanked gickers.

Even if someone were to not believe the superstition, the fear of being "found out" by other superstitious people would be a primary motivation to stay clear. It's probably considered "worse" than having sex with elves in some parts. You'd probably lose any good employment you had or you would prevent yourself from ever being hired into a prominent/successful profession.

It's taboo not because "it's fun to be taboo" but because it's social suicide or an easy way to get your PC killed.

Basically, you're not only risking your life in a very real sense, but also in a political and social sense.

One could argue for the allure of the forbidden, but I think we've agreed, as a community to argue for the allure of the norm. Otherwise everyone is the exception and then there's no world consistency.

I see. Yeah, figured being "exceptional" is frowned upon by many of the posts I've read.

The concept of social suicide doesn't really stop my characters. They can see something just isn't done, but do it anyway... Kinda like an elf stealing. I understand the desire for world consistency, but my character will always do what he feels he must do, consequences be damned.

EDITED

Reason: possible disclosure of too much character detail, my mistake, I'm sorry.

Okay :)

Honestly, being the exception is fine so long as you brace for and accept the normal majority, and what they're going to do to you because of your exceptionalism.

It's the people who do the exception then rage about the consequences that are kinda lame  :-\

Indeed, ain't gonna rage. Consequences are part of the fun.

Totes!

I wrote a post once about playing the exception.  In a nutshell, it's fine to do that, but there comes a point when your "playing the exception" with multiple characters has you "playing the exception" habitually, and we on staff would have to question exactly what is going on there.

Luckily, there's nothing in ARM documentation discouraging me from making every character bisexual.  ;) I just can't quite get my head into how not to be.
I do wind up playing the weighted side of the statistics bin in certain things based around player personality / availability and not character ... playing certain gender, race, guild, clanning, focus if applicable, and interaction decisions ... it's enjoyable to fit what I wind up with into the world though, and still plenty of artistic room to explore varying forms of 'normal' (a character is definitely more interesting when they reflect their culture I'd say).

Someone already said this somewhere, but I think it deserves echoing:

Everyone's exceptional in a few ways, and normal in a bunch of others. As long as you're playing a character that's generally normal with just a few strange traits I don't think you should be wrecking people's immersion. If you are then it probably means your RP is unrealistically focused on your character's unusual traits, and you need to emphasize their normal traits a bit more.

Quote from: Kalai on April 22, 2013, 10:52:54 AM
Luckily, there's nothing in ARM documentation discouraging me from making every character bisexual.  ;)

There's absolutely nothing taboo about being bisexual on Arm.

I just keep coming back to this thread to laugh at the above gif.

For some reason it is hilarious to me.  :D

Why are there no elf / dwarf breeds

Biology

i guess

If I've been reading things correctly, which is a bit IF... It's because there's so little difference between humans and elves... Dwarves, on the other hand, to mate with humans require magickal intervention, then the mother dies and the offspring is infertile. A dwarf/elf breed would easily rival and destroy humanity, I'd figure, were it able to reproduce, even without some awesome psioinic blessing. Figure the game is all about the humans. A mixture of those races would render humanity obsolete.

All that said, an elven mul would be fun to see in the arena. But It'd likely end up a gith.

might be a cool plotline sometime i guess

It sounds cool to me, but imagine for a second the elven fixation on taking things which would not be give if all the facts were known alongside the pull of a dwarven focus, and a wisdom which would suffer no or little penalty (compared to human) from the blending of the two races... Shit, that sounds cool as fuck to me, finally, all those purists would end up with something else to worry about... Something fucking scary.

What if...
When one crosses an elf with a dwarf...
One gets...
A HUMAN!?!?!
And -that- is where they all came from.

Find out IC.