Author Topic: On Love and Romance in Muds  (Read 9041 times)

Anony-mouse

  • Guest
On Love and Romance in Muds
« on: December 05, 2002, 05:34:57 PM »
This is just something I'm throwing out that I've been thinking about lately:

Is it okay for people to go beyond IC plausibility in their romantic relations ingame?

What I mean by this:

It is natural that people will be OOCly attracted to other players and their playstyle, even if their PC would most likely find the other person's PC repugnant.  

For instance, there was a particularly hideous and disgusting noble who was, however, a very flashy emoter and colorful character. While I seriously doubt that anyone in their right mind would find this person desirable, there was no end of PCs standing in line to sleep with him. Of course, these people might have been doing it for power, and might have been thinking "disgusting" while they were in the act, but I have my doubts. I think that many truly enjoyed it, because they found the playing style and emoting ability of the player desirable.
 

In some of the noble documentation, it specifically says that nobles will not have romantic relations with commoners, on pain of being ostracized and ridiculed by their society. In other documentation it says that if they do have romantic relationships with commoners, these relationships would most likely take the form of the noble looking upon the commoner as purely a sexual, not romantic, object. However, time after time, commoners and nobles become intertwined in complicated romantic games that are, I contend, driven by OOC relationships and attractions between players, not characters. The nobles often go so far as to choose their concubine/lover (who should be beneath them and inferior according to the documentation) over their own family members.

The problem lies, in my opinion, in a discrepancy between two worlds on the mud.  There is the IC world where people interact realistically together as their characters would.  Then there is the other IC world that is often driven by the OOC sexual desires of the playerbase.

So what's the solution?  Ban mudsex altogether?  Have the staff referee mudsex? Code mudsex into a skill?

No, of course not.  I think the solution is for players to start taking a little more responsibility for their actions and to take the IC documentation and IC game world into account before getting into sexual escapades with others. Look at the person and say, "Would my PC realistically find this person attractive and a viable romantic interest?  Or am I attracted to the playing style and emoting ability of the other player?"

aeshyw

  • Posts: 197
On Love and Romance in Muds
« Reply #1 on: December 05, 2002, 06:10:56 PM »
Wow. As someone who knows just how misinformed the previous post is, I find there is no way to respond to this without giving away sensitive IC information.

I'll just respond with a few general points:

1)  Just because two characters are played as being very sexually active doesn't mean its all getting emoted out on a frequent basis- particuarly when those players are spending almost all their online time running a clan or other operations.

2) Many people find things other then good looks to be very attractive, including wealth, power and intelligence.

3) Nobles in Allanak frequently take concubines from the common population - it is by far the norm. Nobles in Tuluk do not fratinize closely with commoners.

4) The reason that concubines hold a very high position of social status is because they are -presumed- to have the favor and ear of the lord or lady who holds them close.  Below them, yes.  But not so far below them as they see other commoners.  After all, these people are privledged enough to share their beds.

5) Turn it around a bit. Stop looking at things through Western Values.  A concubine is nothing to be ashamed of in Allanki society.  It is a position of honor for the commoner chosen.  

6) Take a minute to think about sexual relationships.  Here you have two people - though one is obviously in charge and handing out the 'goodies', so to speak....who sleep in the same bed for years, perhaps even having children together.  In my opinion, it is not at -all- unreasonable at all for such a couple to develop feelings for each other - though the *wise* noble/concubine couple takes care to make certain that the concubine doesn't overstep their place - particuarly within the noble's family.

creeper386

  • Posts: 2583
On Love and Romance in Muds
« Reply #2 on: December 05, 2002, 06:12:26 PM »
There is also the thought that, anyone who can provide food, water or just funds for these things can be attractive. Also I can see older people or fat people being more attractive to people in Zalanthas as opposed to any standard thats in now of day world.

Like me personally, I am completely attracted to beautiful hair, but I can still play a dwarf correctly and be grotesque at the thought of hair.

Even if there was OOC drives to someone who was attracted to a grotesque noble... I see it as alot better RP then alot that happens, because alot of attractions and figures of lust people give their characters tend to be by current day standards, which I don't see fitting into Zalanthas at all.


Creeper
21sters Unite!

Laeris

  • Posts: 266
On Love and Romance in Muds
« Reply #3 on: December 05, 2002, 06:19:49 PM »
Quote from: "aeshyw"

4) The reason that concubines hold a very high position of social status is because they are -presumed- to have the favor and ear of the lord or lady who holds them close.  Below them, yes.  But not so far below them as they see other commoners.  After all, these people are privledged enough to share their beds.


Please read the documentation available before making statements like this.  The initial post mentioned player nobles siding with concubines over other player nobles.  Your post implies that this is acceptable.  It is not.  Please look at http://www.armageddon.org/general/ranktable.html and you will find that while concubines do hold a higher social status than most commoners, they have no where near as much influence, authority, or power as the lowest of nobles.  Thus, players acting as was mentioned in the intial post are not acting in proper character.  ICly, nobles should
-never- side with a concubine against another noble.  Concubines are commoners after all.
ssues are issues.  People are people.  Issues should be addressed, people should be loved. - John W. Frye

aeshyw

  • Posts: 197
On Love and Romance in Muds
« Reply #4 on: December 05, 2002, 06:21:20 PM »
Laeris,

I also suggested that the -wise- noble would not do such a thing.  I don't think you read my whole post.  :?

Anony-Moust

  • Guest
On Love and Romance in Muds
« Reply #5 on: December 05, 2002, 06:26:48 PM »
Quote from: "aeshyw"
Wow. As someone who knows just how misinformed the previous post is, I find there is no way to respond to this without giving away sensitive IC information.


I doubt that I'm as minsinformed as you might think.

Quote

I'll just respond with a few general points:


I'll respond to your responses where required.

Quote

3) Nobles in Allanak frequently take concubines from the common population - it is by far the norm. Nobles in Tuluk do not fratinize closely with commoners.

4) The reason that concubines hold a very high position of social status is because they are -presumed- to have the favor and ear of the lord or lady who holds them close.  Below them, yes.  But not so far below them as they see other commoners.  After all, these people are privledged enough to share their beds.


I didn't say anything about concubines being superior to other commoners.  I said them being treated superior to other nobles. Specifically to other nobles of the original noble's family.

Quote

5) Turn it around a bit. Stop looking at things through Western Values.  A concubine is nothing to be ashamed of in Allanki society.  It is a position of honor for the commoner chosen.  


I didn't say that there was anything shameful about it.  Maybe you should detach from modern/Western values.  A noble looks at a concubine as an object.  Not as the love of their life. Sure, they may grow closer over time. The concubine may even share in some secrets. However, to hold the concubine up as an equal, even superior, to the other nobility is a break of Zalanthan social norms.

Laeris

  • Posts: 266
On Love and Romance in Muds
« Reply #6 on: December 05, 2002, 06:33:51 PM »
Quote from: "aeshyw"
Laeris,

I also suggested that the -wise- noble would not do such a thing.  I don't think you read my whole post.  :?


I did indeed read your whole post.  A noble period would not do such a thing.  A noble is not going to ever side with a concubine against another noble, particularly one of the same House, because it would be a social faux pas.  It would, ICly, result in discipline from the House and would make such a noble a laughing stock among the noble circle.  A concubine, or any other servant of a noble house, attempting to step above her place would be promptly smacked around and shown exactly where it is she belongs.
ssues are issues.  People are people.  Issues should be addressed, people should be loved. - John W. Frye

Tedronai

  • Posts: 37
Tedronai
« Reply #7 on: December 05, 2002, 06:35:44 PM »
I think that if  noble B went out of his or her way to insult another noble A's concubine or provoked any kind of hostility with said concubine, noble A would take the insult very personally as against him or herself because why would noble B lower themselves to pick only on the concubine?

Also, I think the nobility using commoners for merely debauchery is very common, though I would think any kind of meaningful romantic liason would be very very rare.

P.S Though, if the concubine provoked noble B to begin with, one would expect the concubine would be duly punished, perhaps even deprived of their status depending...A concubine of  a upper noble house would probably get off easier with a minor offense against a younger member of a lesser house, then say if a concubine of a lower house offended a noble of a much higher status...

Clegane

  • Posts: 170
Hrmn
« Reply #8 on: December 05, 2002, 06:38:46 PM »
In response to Laeris' post...

Having played a political noble character a time or two, I must admit that I don't see any problem whatsoever in siding with a commoner over another noble. Regarding that commoner as an equal is one thing, and problematic, certainly. But concubines...like assassins, merchants, templars, soldiers, mercenaries, pimps, drug dealers, cutpurses, spies, informants, etc are just another tool in a noble's little toybox. Meant to be retained and utilized to serve whatever purpose is necessary. I don't presume to know how the political spectrum in the North works, beyond what is printed in the docs, but in Allanak, politics play out on about a thousand different levels and I can think of several situations where it would be perfectly acceptable IC for a noble to 'back' or 'side with' a commoner over another noble.

The original poster indicated that the noble in question (as, obviously, there is a specific instance in mind here, even if it wasn't specifically stated) was siding with this common bedwarmer over his own family. Also perfectly acceptable, IMHO, within certain limitations. Its an excellent way to deliver an insult, for example. Or to remind a fellow noble of the fact that the noble in question is indeed able to wield more clout than they are. "Look, brother, you mean little enough to me that I would sooner back my concubine's interests over your own petty agendas. Now come back when you've finished being schooled." The commoner themselves may have some intrinsic value as a tool that  makes them more important in Noble A's agenda than Noble B might be.

I understand the ranktable and the accompanying social documentation. I understand that it is an expected standard to play by, not simply a 'roleplaying guide', but as Sanvean points out numerous times within the doc itself, every one of those 'levels' is surrounded by nuance, much of which may not be readily obvious to the public eye.

I realize that the first poster was just venting a little frustration over an IC situation, or rather how they -percieved- an IC situation. But, as with so many things in Armageddon, unless you are privy to the thoughts, motivations, hidden agendas, and backgrounds of -every- character involved, you're doing a disservice to the RP of the situation by applying the blanket standard...and thereby forgoing the nuance behind it.
Don't forgive and never forget; Do unto others before they do unto you; and third and most importantly, keep your eye on your friends, because your enemies will take care of themselves.   -J.R. Ewing

aeshyw

  • Posts: 197
On Love and Romance in Muds
« Reply #9 on: December 05, 2002, 06:46:33 PM »
From what I have seen of noble roleplay, nobles are constantly jockeying for position and status within their own noble houses.  I have seen countless instances of one noble taking offense at one another's servant or guard does..and depending on the situation the noble in question either backs them or defers - often based on who is holding more power in the family at the time.  I see concubines as being no different.

Of course a noble -believes- himself better then the commoner concubine. And if the concubine understands oocly what his or her upbringing was, he or she -believes- the noble and his family as better then herself.   To state that you couldn't care for someone you think of yourself as better then seems shortsighted to me - but then, I cried for days when my dog died.

When a noble oversteps his or her power and position, they get slapped back.  The concubine is the -noble's- responsibility. He or she brings them into the family and must take the heat for what comes from it.  If a concubine brings 'value' to the family through information or services or even just relaxing Lord Hardass a bit, then the noble's family might receive them very kindly, and even be glad they are there.

Anony-Mouse

  • Guest
Re: Hrmn
« Reply #10 on: December 05, 2002, 06:47:19 PM »
Quote from: "Clegane"

I realize that the first poster was just venting a little frustration over an IC situation, or rather how they -percieved- an IC situation. But, as with so many things in Armageddon, unless you are privy to the thoughts, motivations, hidden agendas, and backgrounds of -every- character involved, you're doing a disservice to the RP of the situation by applying the blanket standard...and thereby forgoing the nuance behind it.


Actually, I'm not necessarily venting.  I'm making a request that people think through their romantic attachments a bit more.  I'm also not referring to a specific occurrence, though I realize I did refer to a few in my original post.

My main issue, here, is that many people seem to use the mud as their personal dating service, rather than an actual mud. That these people's actions are often dictated by romantic attachments that aren't necessarily based in IC reality. That is, that they weigh the time spent with their PC sexbuddy more heavily than say, the years and years of family conditioning that their PC would have been subject to.  However, I also realize this is natural. It's hard to be too fond of or emotional about that virtual uncle that bounced you on his knee while you were growing up.

Anony-mouse

  • Guest
On Love and Romance in Muds
« Reply #11 on: December 05, 2002, 06:55:44 PM »
In response to the taking offense to what other noble's do or taking the concubine's side:

I agree that the noble might do this.  However, it would be as a chessmaster using pawns in a game. It wouldn't be, "He hurt my concubine's feelings, so now he must pay!" I also think that noble's would be very reluctant to show too much attachment to their concubines and servants, as this lets their enemies have an easy way to strike out at them.

The concubine's and such should be used as tools, as Clegane pointed out. Some tools might be more favored than others, but they're still expendable and replaceable.

Bestatte

  • Posting Privileges Revoked
  • Posts: 2861
On Love and Romance in Muds
« Reply #12 on: December 05, 2002, 06:57:19 PM »
Tossing around a couple of 'sids...

There may be a matter of semantics being confused here. A CONCUBINE is a personal whore, and in old feudal societies, are often slaves. Someone whose primary role is to please her employer sexually, and then get the hell out of the room. They don't sleep together. They sex together. There is no romantic involvement whatsoever, it's strictly a business arrangement. The concubine might receive mutual gratification and be fond of the tryst, but would never -ever- deem herself more than what she is: a whore with a fancy title.

A CONSORT...is another matter altogether. In fact, a consort might never HAVE sex with her employer (n the case of an employer who is incapable of it, for example).

In some cases, the consort exists merely to be a pretty body beside the noble in public, or a personal assistant whose duties might include (but wouldn't be limited to) purchasing her employer's wardrobe on his behalf, arranging his social calendar, running small errands, supervising his personal staff (his chambermaid, bath attendant, cook, and manservant, for example), be his accompaniment when he dines out and companion for games and conversation. A consort is more of a "paid wife" than a concubine, though concubine duties can certainly be included in her job description.

Though the consort and noble might at some point become enamored of each other, their relationship is *still* a business arrangement, she his hired help, he her employer. A consort will definitely have the employer's ear on all sorts of private matters, and might be considered top-dog on the commoner totempole in the household as a result. But she is still, first and foremost, a commoner. The employer would never forget that, and would never let his consort forget that if she stepped out of line.

John

  • Posts: 4240
On Love and Romance in Muds
« Reply #13 on: December 05, 2002, 10:58:20 PM »
Okay, a lot of things have been said but here's my 2 'sid anyway. Everything is just IMO so I won't keep saying IMO after every sentence.

Nobles are Humans, everyone else are objects, tools. That's the best way to view it. Now if your brother grabs a picture signed by a movie star and starts tearing it apart, your gunna get pissed. Your not going to kill him over it, but you liked this picture, it was a good picture, it had many uses, sure it's replaceable, but there's a lot of hassle in having to replace it and it might not be replaceable (movie star is dead).

Now because commoners aren't people but only objects, they can have a variety of uses, some of them not as obvious as others. Imagine you have a handbag that you like to wear, it looks really good and goes out with your outfit, it's not the first thing that's noticed about you, but it's a good accessory that helps make you look better. Now we don't think of the handbag as an equal, but yet it still affects your image. Now at first glance the handbag is -just- to put things in, then you might realise it also makes the wearer look better, and then a hidden purpose is it might have a tape recorder. You might never realise that third use, but it's an important use nonetheless. This is how Nobles think of commoners.

As for Laeris's post, at first glance it sounds like it's completely wrong, but it isn't. Publically a noble won't side with a servant unless they want to insult another noble. However there are various instances when a noble will "side" with a servant. Such as, anytime that "siding" with the servant benefits them. Now when I say siding, I don't mean servant X wants to have Noble Y killed because Noble Y looked at her funny. But if servant X has a secret assassin school in the 'rinth and Noble Y is about to uncover it and servant X tells the noble about it, the Noble has a choice, does he kill his brother and keep the school secret which will benefit him and the servant in the long run, or will he let Noble Y uncover it and have servant X killed? The main thing is, he's always looking out for his best interests, which gives commoners a lot of leeway to work with in order to frame certain Noble's and all sorts.

I'm sure SOME nobles eventually grow a fondness for their concubines, but this should be the exception and not the rule.

As for the original post saying that PCs are deliberately screwing ugly people just because they like there emotes, and is completely OOC, that isn't acceptable. However having your character find ugly people attractive (e.g. ugly as in, they're so fat they can't support their own weight anymore, they have 5 arms, no eyes, a shrivelled penis and a completely covered warts) is acceptable, not everyone finds the same things attractive.

Again, just my 2 'sid, everyone else touched on what I said anyway.

Bestatte

  • Posting Privileges Revoked
  • Posts: 2861
On Love and Romance in Muds
« Reply #14 on: December 05, 2002, 11:49:29 PM »
Also bear in mind that our OOC perceptions of other people's RP DOES come into account.

I, for example, prefer RPing with people who have a good balance between long, drawn-out emotes and none at all. I will go so far as to actually avoid RPing with someone who doesn't use ANY emotes, NO punctuation, NO capitalization, combined.

I will also shy away from people who over-emote as if this was a MUSH or their own personal novel.

Is it IC for my character to avoid these types? Hell yeah. I MAKE her have a reason. The same thing about my character being attracted to characters who may or may not be attractive physically, or in a "league" she would normally associate herself with. I will MAKE a reason for her to associate with them, and in some cases, sure, I might even have her become attracted to them.

I don't do it for the cyber. Whether or not I even cyber at all with any of these people isn't up for anyone's discussion. But even "assumed" behind-locked-doors situations..are ALWAYS done with a roleplayed reason. If I can't justify the attraction IC, I don't get involved if I can help it. But that doesn't mean I won't try to find a justification if I think it'll be a fun RP experience.

Savak

  • Posts: 817
re: OOC vs. IC
« Reply #15 on: December 05, 2002, 11:59:13 PM »
I'm not personally all that interested in the whole consort/concubine/who-sides-with-who thing in regard to nobles -- I do, however, think there is one major point to take out of all of this.  Referring back, that point is players and characters DO "become intertwined in complicated romantic games that are, I contend, driven by OOC relationships and attractions between players, not characters."  Personally, I completely agree with this subjective observation.

SOMETIMES this is played out in a believable manner.

MOST of the time it is not, IMO.  I find it exceedingly difficult to interrupt someone's online relationship even when it just blatantly doesn't make sense, so much so that I simply don't do it.  This is one of those erratically high-emotion things that I, and most of staff, turn a blind eye to.  I also tend to completely ignore such two players while they're communicating or simply in the same room (regardless of whether they're up to anything sexual/intimate).

Point being, I've seen enough online relationships to feel utterly confident that a large number of PC-PC relationships are based more on OOC feelings than IC.  But because there IS a definitive link between a PC and that PC's player, it's practically impossible to completely extricate the two -- we're just not that good, really; nobody is.  And so, it is very likely to continue.

Having said all of that, I would heartily encourage everyone to really think about how their CHARACTER would and should feel prior to acting on it, and if you want to get intimate with a PLAYER, please try to do it in another forum.

-Savak's opinion.
i]May the fleas of a thousand kanks nestle in your armpit.  -DustMight[/i]

Cerebus

  • Posts: 107
On Love and Romance in Muds
« Reply #16 on: December 06, 2002, 01:45:23 AM »
The most difficult thing for a new noble to figure out is the importance of discression. An indiscrete noble will publically break social etiquette which is really rather embarassing for the house. A more experienced noble will never publicly break social rules, but will know how to do so privately to prove a point.

Because of this, if a noble ever publically treats any commoner as being of higher social status than even the lowliest noble, it is a huge insult which has to be responded to in order to avoid losing face, and is a grievious mistake. Privately, however, it is a very different story. A private insult stings, but does not have to be answered to because the only person the noble loses face to is the noble who mistreated them.

Therefore, its my opinion that a noble should never publically side with a consort/concubine over a noble. Consorts and Concubines who speak out of place should expect to be slapped down simply for having the audacity to interfere. But if a noble privately takes his concubine/consort's side over another noble (as in, to their face but not in the presense of public eye) it is still a breech of etiquette, but one that may be ICly appropriate for a situation.

Cerebus

Butting in again

  • Guest
Hrmph.
« Reply #17 on: December 06, 2002, 02:40:13 AM »
Rant: On

Let's assume for a minute that the concubine, consort, sex slave, two 'sid whore ~is~ discreet.  Let's assume for a minute that the boss had his way with her. Let's assume that it was completely plausible for these actions to take place. Let's also assume that even though documentation gives us a guideline it does not restrict us so far that it states:
Quote
THIS will NEVER be done or you will lose your character


What's the point here? Do we let our ooc mind frame slip into our characters? Of course we do, we're human. Far from perfect. I can't tell you how many people's opinions I know, I can't tell you how many people I know that have interacted with someone on Armageddon and then started an off mud friendship, aren't we all guilty of that?  Blanketing anything is just dense.  Should this... should that... what if...  If the immortal staff wishes for specific behaviour then it should be expressly documented, not suggested.  Do not do this, do not do that. It's sad to say this but sometimes, if you want something done to your specifications, you should be specific about it.  Common sense? Obviously not since we're debating as to whether or not romantic things IC'ly are appropriate.

Quote
Then there is the other IC world that is often driven by the OOC sexual desires of the playerbase.


I have a huge problem with this statement for the following reasons:

1.  A vast majority of the population of mudsex haters that I have had contact with seem to be under the mindset that people who choose to actually emote out sexual situations do so because they get their rocks off while sitting at their PC's.  That's utterly preposterous.
2.  The mere fact that one enjoys RP with a certain character does not entail at all whatsoever that the player handling the PC is going to have some kind of sexual desire even if their PC has it.
3.  Even though it states
Quote
often
and not always, I find it really a pain in the ass that while in RL people's sexuality or lack thereof is a private matter, on Armageddon it seems everyone else is in everybody elses rinth rat stew.  I mean really... why do your pc's give a flying mass of feces who the noble is screwing, for that matter, why do you care?

Quote
I think the solution is for players to start taking a little more responsibility for their actions and to take the IC documentation and IC game world into account before getting into sexual escapades with others.


I'm speaking for myself here. I've done both the fade to black and the actual emoting and I can honestly say that the only way anyone is getting my character into the back room of a bar for a romp on the table is because it's in character for them to do so.  Maybe I am being completely naive here but I can count on ONE hand the players I have found that are constantly screwing, PC after PC after bloody PC with their PC. And that PC was preceeded by yet another PC who just so happened to screw PC after PC after PC after PC.  Immortals watch right? And these characters exist, right? And these Immortals allow these people making these PC's to continue making, *gasp* the same fricking PC with a different look and background as the last! Go figure. There are people out there who must get off on rp'ing sex scenes, if there wasn't some kind of eroticism, emoting sex would have quickly dwindled long ago, just because you don't get it doesn't make it any less valid.  There are also people out there that do do it for IC reasons and IC reasons only.  Again, naive here, but I'd like to think there are more of us than there are of them.

It's perfectly within the norm of the world to get laid.
So what it's harsh? People in Ethiopia don't breed?
So what people stink like dust and sweat, everybody there stinks, why would that make a difference?
What makes you think that in a harsh world people wouldn't want some kind of release? Someone to trust? Something to believe in?

It sickens me to listen to the extremists, mudsexers ruin the game, powergamers ruin the game, people with active, vocal opinions ruin the game, nobles who hang out in taverns all the time sitting there bored ruin the game, templars who 'hmm' and kill on a whim ruin the game, immortals who won't give res' ruin the game, having the same description for thirty rooms ruins the game... Jesus people, the key here is that it is a game... if the Immortal staff wanted a band of puppets without thoughts of their own, pc's who just did as told, the world would be full of nothing but Vennants who sit and wait for some bored Imm to slip into them.  If this place was so bad, if the environment was so hideous, if there was no appeal whatsoever, why the hell is it so popular?


I agree with the poster, people should weigh whether or not their actions are IC.  I know I do and will continue to do so.


Rant: Off

Supreme Allah

  • Posts: 131
On Love and Romance in Muds
« Reply #18 on: December 06, 2002, 03:37:45 AM »
Savak, your last post really kind of bothered me. With all due respect, I'd personally rather you specified more precisely what you believe is unrealistic to deter bad roleplay than simply tell us how you treat such instances. This IS a game where the goal of the average player (I hope), myself especially, is to roleplay, and well.

Now, onto that point itself: How would you determine if the relationship was realistic if social norms were seemingly appropriate? Give some examples of appropriate, give some examples of inappropriate. Maybe even some that are borderline.

As far as the original poster's comments, I would agree that noble/commoner relationships may be unrealistic in certain cases (attractive noble A lusting after ugly, well-emoted commoner B), but I could certainly see an attractive commoner wanting to be with a noble for any number of reasons. Wealth, social status, personal power, simple physical attraction, etc etc.

Disagree? Look at some of the partners, purely sexual or otherwise, a celebrity - no matter how ugly or talentless - can get. From a commoner's point of view, I'd think a noble would be seen as (and treated so appropriately) anywhere from a rich, powerful celebrity to an influential world leader in an earlier, perhaps medieval, society where such people wielded far more power than those in modern cultures. Kind of like samurai in feudal Japan.

A once upon a noble

  • Guest
Commoners, sex, and nobility
« Reply #19 on: December 06, 2002, 03:44:29 AM »
Depending on the noble house the reactions in getting involved with a commoner can be anywhere from, 'What a joke' to 'The commoner should be killed for tainting the purity of the noble.'

That's a fairly large spectrum to fall under.  And yet within this spectrum, no matter where you end up Laeris is absolutely, one hundred percent, correct in what she says.  Whether a noble chooses to take his own station in his own hands and follow this is another matter.  

Nobles are humans.  They are swayed by human desires and urges and can turn their cheek to their duty and station.  But, what they are doing, is going against all they are taught and brought up to believe - nobles are higher than the common folk.  All noble houses inherently believe this and because of this, it is taboo to become romantically involved with a commoner - sexing them is fine (for some Houses).  

This leads to the question of supporting a commoner above a noble.  A noble valueing his position in his House will not do this.  And yet, should another noble insult a guard, an aide, of another 'official' of their House - the House must be defended.  Not so much as the commoner being insulted (in all likelihood they deserved it since they screwd up and the commoner should be reprimended in private) but because it is a slur on the House.  Prestige of the Houses is a game - you lose it when your House name falls into the dust and is ridiculed or insulted.  

The concubine issue to me is a joke.  A concubine, as pointed out, is a sex slave.  Whatever personal attachments exist, a slave is a slave is a slave.  An object, a tool, a bit of warm meat that does pleasant things.  Insulting a sword is like insulting a sword - a noble might (will) take offense not because of the sword but because the insult is an insult on the noble's tastes.  The 'feelings' of the sword are irrelevant, it is a matter of having your posessions questioned.

As Savak said, OOC and IC relationships tend to get very mixed up - especially if people are communicating OOCly.  This leads to all sorts of 'questionable' IC reactions should one of the pairing be insulted (or worse, killed).  From a player's stand point - it happens, take it in stride.  Leave it to the House imms to monitor and slap down their nobles if they see fit.  If not, well don't bitch.

Remember, in the final tally, this is a game and the purpose is to have fun.  If having a pseudo relationship that is acted out in Armageddon and 'supported' via offline communications yanks your chain.. yank that chain baby!  But to these people (and there is always more than one relationship that's going on like this), I do ask one thing, don't try and deceive yourself into thinking that the relationship is all IC - it probably isn't.

the halfling

  • Posts: 90
On Love and Romance in Muds
« Reply #20 on: December 06, 2002, 04:01:57 AM »
I almost feel like I really shouldn't post here.  Though I think alot of people think that :)


First I have no problem with Mudsex at all.
If you want to do it, go right ahead.
And also these comments are not based on any knowledge on what brought this up.  Since I have no clue.

But

Yes it is very realistic that a noble(even a commoner) to want to have sex.  It is unrealistic to try to do it with every PC.  Because if you do it that way, you -have- to include that they are doing it to every VNPC also.  So they are basically trying to sleep with every female/male in the whole city.  Sure you can argue that this is still a realistic role.  But I think it is a very harmful one if played by a noble.

It is safe to say that almost all nobles have concubines, but they do not have to be PCs.  I have seen a character, (of a leadership role) do this before, and it was impressive.  They basically say yes I have lots of sex, but never Rp it with any PC.  It's just assumed they do by VNPCs.

A noble who tries to bed every woman/male (not sure if it is really that bad) is really a pointless role.  I rather see nobles just say they do with VNPCs, and just RP with others.  There just isn't a large enough player base to be able to do it otherwise without it looking like they try to get with every woman/male.  It also just doesn't really contribute much, and causes too many problems(on the OOC level)

If you want to have mudsex constantly, more power to you.  But don't do it in a leadership position.
 don't eat everyone.

John

  • Posts: 4240
On Love and Romance in Muds
« Reply #21 on: December 06, 2002, 04:23:43 AM »
Quote from: "the halfling"
I have seen a character, (of a leadership role) do this before, and it was impressive.  They basically say yes I have lots of sex, but never Rp it with any PC.  It's just assumed they do by VNPCs.
Which brings onto a whole new meaning of the phrase "solo-emoting is like masturbating"  :twisted:

Tedronai

  • Posts: 37
solo-emoting
« Reply #22 on: December 06, 2002, 04:37:32 AM »
I always feel very strange when I solo-emote. Sometimes I do. Sometimes I don't.

Mostly I'm of the impression that when I do, no one sees, and when I don't, everyone is watching me.

I'd solo-emote more often, but then I would just quit playing Armageddon and take up writing for a hobby rather then roleplaying ;)

Angela Christine

  • Posts: 6595
Speaking of masturbation . . .
« Reply #23 on: December 06, 2002, 04:54:09 AM »
Quote from: "John"
Quote from: "the halfling"
I have seen a character, (of a leadership role) do this before, and it was impressive.  They basically say yes I have lots of sex, but never Rp it with any PC.  It's just assumed they do by VNPCs.
Which brings onto a whole new meaning of the phrase "solo-emoting is like masturbating"  :twisted:


I wonder how many PCs bother to RP out masturbation?  I mean, you know the character is probably doing it, right?  Most guys and many gals masturbate in our world, and I imagine it would be equally popular in Zalanthas, at least among the adequately fed (starvation kills your sex drive).  Nobles might have concubines on duty all the time so that they never need to handle it themselves, but then some nobles might consider sex with a commoner to be a form of masturbation.  Hmm.

This would usually be done alone, and some people aren't comfortable with solo emoting, I know I feel sort of dumb emoting while I'm alone since emoting is essentially a form of communication.  But emoting masturbation in front of other PCs . . . eww.  Seen any circle jerks in the Byn dorm before breakfast?   :P  On the other hand it would sort of be like emoting out the way you breath, sleep or use the latrine -- every character has to do those things but usually they are handled "off-stage" while you are logged out.  I suppose it would be as valid as emotiong through a sex scene with other PCs involved.  Some folks do emote how they eat or sip their wine, and occasionally you will see someone emoting how they take a leak, so I suppose there is nothing inately wrong with emotiong through basic physical functions.  

There could be trouble with RL biases slipping in.  Despite the fact that most people do masturbate, in general it isn't something people feel comfortable talking about.  Some people are shocked to find out that many married people, some pre-pubecent children, some elderly people, and some severely handicapped people masturbate regularily.  Your husband, your kids, your mom, your boss, the guy serving your coffee at starbucks, your doctor, that guy in the wheelchair you passed on the street, the homeless begger who looks like he hasn't had a bath in months, your kids kindergarten teacher, etc., may all be big wankers.  :shock:  Based on what I've seen on TV, usually it's a big deal when you walk in on someone masturbating and uncomfortable hilarity ensues -- would it be such a big deal in Zalanthas?  I don't know, it would probably depend on the situation.  

 8) Angela Christine
Treat the other man's faith gently; it is all he has to believe with."     Henry S. Haskins

John

  • Posts: 4240
On Love and Romance in Muds
« Reply #24 on: December 06, 2002, 05:48:45 AM »
These are my thoughts before I read Adult Content's post:

Oh no, AC has posted in the General Section, god I hope she hasn't replyed to the Sex thread.

Oh god! AC has replied to the sex thread, I -knew- I shouldn't of made that post!

These are my thoughts after reading AC's post:

:shock:

Wonder how long it'll take AC to post up a poll asking something about masturbation.