Author Topic: On Love and Romance in Muds  (Read 9073 times)

Carnage

  • Posting Privileges Revoked
  • Posts: 1766
...
« Reply #25 on: December 06, 2002, 08:30:37 AM »
Concubine: A fancy word for noble-whore.

That's it. There's no special attachment. They should be treated like any other servant. They have no special relation to the noble, just as the person who cleans his shoes has no attachment to them. If they speak out of place, their noble should throw them back into their place. They're a servant. No difference.

As for taking the side of servants: I'd consider this to be bad, unless it's a truly exceptional servant. I.e. the leader of your forces, the head of your house's domestic matters. I really would rather not see a noble taking Joe Nobody's side, since they should know that servants are replaceable, but favor is not.
Carnage
"We pay for and maintain the GDB for players of ArmageddonMUD, seeing as
how you no longer play we would prefer it if you not post anymore.

Regards,
-the Shade of Nessalin"

I'M ONLY TAKING A BREAK NESSALIN, I SWEAR!

Anony-Mouse

  • Guest
On Love and Romance in Muds
« Reply #26 on: December 06, 2002, 10:23:39 AM »
Well,

It's me again, and I'm delighted to see the flurry of activity that my original post caused. It indicates that the matter is at least being discussed, and I think that the noble/concubine/consort idea is being more thoroughly hashed over than it ever has been before. Maybe some of this thread will be used to document these relationships more precisely.

Last night while driving home from work, I had some additional thoughts on the matter.

It is natural that Noble PCs are going to build strong, and even friendly, relationships with non-noble PCs.  The reason?  The number of other noble PCs at any given time is finite. Therefore, to have meaningful interaction with other PCs, it is necessary for nobles to turn to non-nobles.

The problem here, is that there is no way for nobles to have meaningful relations with the large virtual noble population. In actuality, nobles would probably be turning to other nobles for their romantic trysts.   There would likely be all kinds of weird hanky panky, affairs, and such going on between the nobility. This is how the documentation outlines the life of the nobility. Unfortunately, this is not how the actual life of a noble PC plays out because our playerbase isn't large enough to support a huge noble population. Therefore, nobles must turn to commoners for their interactions, and out of these interactions friendships, and even love, spring (this is a natural result of two PCs spending lots of time together). In the virtual life of a noble, this would not be happening, because the noble's lover/girlfriend/best friend would be a member of his/her caste. The noble would be spending the majority of his/her time dealing with other nobles. That is impossible in the gameworld, though, because there are probably only 6 other noble PCs existing at a given time, and 5 of those will be your sworn enemy. Therefore, nobles spend the majority of their time fraternizing with commoners.

Just some more thoughts to throw on the fire.

Supreme Allah

  • Posts: 131
On Love and Romance in Muds
« Reply #27 on: December 06, 2002, 10:52:20 AM »
I haven't read anywhere that nobles sleep with other nobles more than commoners. In fact, I'd always thought the opposite - maybe I just missed something in the documentation?

Anyhow, my reasoning: Since nobles are usually only joined together by marriage for the benefit of their houses (not any personal desires), I had figured that a noble's sexual needs were usually sated by a concubine/consort/random attractive commoner at home. Why? Because predictably, they'd be easy to get and there would be little pressure of somehow offending a potentially powerful enemy.

But that's an interesting point, if my views were false. Perhaps it's more of a middle ground.

Note - likely to redo this post later on, gotta run.

Anony-Mouse

  • Guest
On Love and Romance in Muds
« Reply #28 on: December 06, 2002, 11:03:21 AM »
Quote from: "Supreme Allah"
I haven't read anywhere that nobles sleep with other nobles more than commoners. In fact, I'd always thought the opposite - maybe I just missed something in the documentation?


No, you're right.  I was making assumptions.  There isn't anything that states such in the documentation.  However, I'd assume that nobles spend the majority of their time consorting with their own class.  Therefore, most relationships would be between their own class.

The point of my post was to point out the disparity between the lives of virtual nobles, and the actual lives that PC nobles live. The virtual nobility spends the majority of their lives dealing with their own class. The PC nobility spends the majority of their lives dealing with those outside their own class (although I imagine their virtual lives, when offline, are spend consorting with their own class).

The problem is that their isn't enough nobility to build a true noble subculture.  You know, one that exists to have afternoon tea at each other's houses every day where they exchange the latest gossip and cement allies and enemies, huge banquets and feasts where they reinforce how superior they are to the common rabble, followed by masked orgies with spice that lead into the wee hours of the morning where they unleash their most twisted fantasies upon each other (maybe I'm alone in picturing this as the life that most nobles lead.  I just see it being more akin to Dangerous Liasons, Pride and Prejudice, etc, with a Zalanthan twist).

Maybe I'm off here, and the majority of the nobility, virtual and actual, really spend their lives consorting with the commoners and being their friends.

Note: I'm not trying to advocate that noble PCs spend their time dealing purely with their own class.  The purpose of noble PCs is to interact with commoners, direct them, and give them something to do. I'm just trying to flush out what actual noble society is like.

Laeris

  • Posts: 266
On Love and Romance in Muds
« Reply #29 on: December 06, 2002, 11:19:37 AM »
Quote from: "Anony-Mouse"
Quote from: "Supreme Allah"
I haven't read anywhere that nobles sleep with other nobles more than commoners. In fact, I'd always thought the opposite - maybe I just missed something in the documentation?


No, you're right.  I was making assumptions.  There isn't anything that states such in the documentation.  However, I'd assume that nobles spend the majority of their time consorting with their own class.  Therefore, most relationships would be between their own class.


The book "The Age of Innocence" and the movie that was based on it would be a good example of this type of thing happening within a rich, upper class culture.  As to whether it actually does in Zalanthas, I think that is one thing that is actually not addressed at all in our documentation.
ssues are issues.  People are people.  Issues should be addressed, people should be loved. - John W. Frye

crymerci

  • Posts: 1565
On Love and Romance in Muds
« Reply #30 on: December 06, 2002, 11:22:10 AM »
Quote from: "Noble Doc"
Nobles can, and often do, take concubines and catamites from the ranks of the common folk when an especially attractive individual catches their eye, and the position of such individuals is comparable to that of other influential house servants.


I think the key words here are "often" and "influential". The way I see it nobles might prefer to fuck commoners because they feel like they can just "let go". Also, they can pay their common concubine/catamite to keep his or her mouth shut about any sick and twisted things they're into.

As far as their influence...nobles -do- take the counsel of some commoners, although clearly not just any old schmo on the street. Most of my other arguments have already been covered.

I also think it's completely realistic for a grotesque noble to have gorgeous young things falling all over him/her. It happens all the time in real life with the rich, powerful, and famous. And if one of these common lovers could make him/her feel like the sexiest person in the world...that would go a long way toward securing the commoner's position and influence.

As far as people choosing lovers their characters seem like they'd never choose...really, how would -you- know what turns their character on. Unless they have a well-known abiding hatred for gypsies and just took one over to a secluded corner to make out...whoever it is could very well be -exactly- their type. Haven't you ever seen couples in real life where you looked at them and said "What's -he- doing with -her-?"

Besides, there could always be some ulterior motive why they're with this ugly person: they could be a spy or assassin, or could be looking for wealth, power, or protection. There's as many reasons for people to form relationships as there are relationships.

Hmm...I think that's it.
I think we might need to change World Discussion to Armchair Zalanthan Anthropology.

aeshyw

  • Posts: 197
On Love and Romance in Muds
« Reply #31 on: December 06, 2002, 11:34:45 AM »
I would disagree that romantic liaisons between nobles would ever be commonplace, at least in Allanak.  If a noble is paying attention to the political climate around them, they know that -every- interaction with another noble, in or out of their house, is a political action.  Each dinner date, snub, drink at the Trader's... they all have the potential to further one's status and power or alienate a potential ally.   The potential for romance gone awry is a huge threat, whereas a well-cared for stable of concubines and one or two favored mistress/consorts rely on the well-being of that -particular- noble and are much more likely to be working for his benefit..no matter what he does.. or even if he's impotent or hideous.

Other nobles are for arranged marriage, political alliances and very cautious social interaction, from what I have seen.  Even in the noble's own house, PCs tend to be constantly jockeying for position and always aware of their status versus their cousins and uncles.  Just imagine the performance anxiety when bedding your rival for the Lordinchargeofthehouseobsidian versus summoning your favorite commoner to give you dinner, listen to your days woe's and offer his/her thoughts on the matters - all without daring to complain or gossip.

Nobles aren't wind-up boxes of cruelty without emotion or motivation.  They would have emotional needs and wants as much as anyone.  And if a family dog can provide solace and pleasure, just think of what the family concubine can do.  One's own personal consort/mistress would provide more yet.  I think Bestatte hit on an important point when she mentioned the difference between concubines and consorts.  A consort is more a noble's favored and obliged companion - someone from the commoner population that can provide comfort and a trusted ear without fear of political ramifications or intrigue.

Holding a consort or concubine dear doesn't mean that a noble thinks that they think them their equal in any way.  They are a commoner who has been given a great privilege, and if they perform well in the role, they may be showered with gifts and favor - just because the service they provide (and I'm thinking more of the comfort/companion role then the sex - which could be provided by pleasure slaves just as easily)  is something the noble may value.  But, just because a consort is treated well, doesn't mean they aren't constantly thinking of what happens when they grow old or unattractive, and that they aren't continually looking for ways to please the noble further.  Its never a relationship that the commoner can take for granted.  They can be replaced at any time for any reason.

From the player's point of view, playing a noble is a difficult matter - not just from the political angle, but because hopefully they are providing roleplay and interaction for -lots- of other PCs.  IMHO - a well roleplayed noble might have several concubines - all jockeying for the position of favored consort, but the likely have little time to actually roleplay out sexual interaction - it would be mostly just assumed.

Naming a particular concubine as having gained his/her favor as consort or mistress doesn't mean he places them on the same level with himself or other nobles.  It just means that they provide something of use and value to him.  Just as nobles jockey for favor within their own houses, commoners should be eager to jockey for the favor of the various nobles - whether as favored cook/cobbler/guard/mistress.  When playing with the noble houses, politics should filter down to every level from noble to commoner.  Its like peeling the layers off of a giant ocotillo bulb -- with the nobles at the center and the various levels of servants at each inner layer.

I'll not go into the whole siding against other nobles thing again except to say that most nobles give each other the courtesy of not disciplining each other's retainers and will instead go to the noble in question and inform them of the perceived slight.   Its a way to show courtesy and respect to one's peers, much as one wouldn't poison a neighbor's dog for chewing one's roses, but would instead ask the neighbor to leash it.  When a noble sides against another noble about a commoner, in my experience its generally because the other noble attempted action on their own - which is a social faux pas and an insult.  In the same manner, a noble who doesn't discipline a commoner whose misbehavior has been brought to them in a discreet and polite manner is insulting the one bringing the complaint.

Supreme Allah

  • Posts: 131
On Love and Romance in Muds
« Reply #32 on: December 06, 2002, 12:18:38 PM »
I agree with crymerci. Part of that was what I was trying to get across in my last paragraph, two posts ago.

Quote
However, I'd assume that nobles spend the majority of their time consorting with their own class.


In public, yes, I would think nobles spent more time yammering on with each other than commoners - they need to project an image and support it firmly in the public eye - because by all visible accounts, they are supposed to be better than commoners. I actually find this to be true much of the time. Walking into a tavern in Allanak, it's usually more common to see a noble, another noble, and/or an influential merchant sitting with each other and a PC guard or two standing nearby than a noble with a commoner not of influential affiliation with their house - and from my experience, when this happens, the noble is still very well regarded as a superior.

But on the other hand, perhaps in more private quarters, a noble would know that a commoner can tell you a great many things nobles can't. Nobles are more secluded. You see them around less, because they don't have to get around as much - they don't have as great a flow of information. If I wanted to know the 'word on the street' about P Diddy, the drug trade around town, or who's sleeping with who, I'd sooner go to a streetwise clubhopper down from the hood than Michael Jackson. This is where I'd think the real root of the commoner/noble personal relationship would stem: Information, personal or otherwise. You'd have to talk to a -commoner- to get that kind of information. And a relationship can develop from there. Over time, I could see friendship occasionally formed, but the bottom line is that both parties KNOW, for a FACT, that all nobles are better than all commoners.

If this is somehow forgotten, then by all accounts, the arrogant commoner should be promptly slapped down and know immediately why.

In addition, however, the real nitty gritty of a noble house's business runs almost exclusively through commoners - aides, advisors, merchants, etc. They have to direct these people constantly, and thus, interact with them.

For these two reasons, both personal and business, I would tend to believe that nobles spent far more time interacting with commoners in the seclusion of their homes than nobles of other houses. In public it is, or should be, another story. Of course, there's also an incredible comfort factor that the poster above me mentioned. There's nothing political about talking about your life's woes with a consort.

Also, I've never really seen many nobles of other houses terribly friendly with each other on a personal level, aside from the 'we're both nobles, so we're friends' image that's being conveyed. That makes sense to me, because nobles of opposing houses (though there are only three in Allanak with PCs) are likely in constant political competition with each other.

As far as the purely sexual relationships go (I've strayed from the topic a bit, haven't I?), the practical desirability of a commoner over a noble has already been made fairly clear, so I won't go there again.

-SA

Oh yeah, and I'm writing (read: rushing) this between classes in my college, so if it's poorly done, please excuse me.

A once upon a noble

  • Guest
Perception based on House
« Reply #33 on: December 06, 2002, 01:59:06 PM »
To understand the culture and the reaction of nobility in regards to taking a commoner on as a sexual toy one has to look at the House involved.  Each House differs significantly in their views, as I stated previously, and while this diferentiation exists between the Houses the lowest common denominator is this:  Nobility is well above the common folk.  

Starting with the player Houses, I'll take a look at the culture of the House and possible 'acceptance' of this whole commoners for sex issue.  I find this whole subject absolutely amusing.

House Borsail - a House of slavers.  Sexing a commoner is, simply put, a non-concept.  Why?  House Borsail raises sex slaves.  Why would any noble of the House look beyond these specially trained slaves to dally with the common folk - who are so far beneath them that they are the sand beneath their feet.   Going outside the House's stock of sex slaves is a sign of having no faith, trust, respect, whatever you want to call it, of the House's prime reason of existance.  Can you imagine anyone buying a sex slave when the Borsail nobles themselves don't even use them?  Therefore, any sexual liason with a commoner would be shunned by the House.  Any noble wishing to partake in the common flesh would have to go great lengths to hide the action - if it got out, it'd be the ruin of the noble's reputation.

House Oash - A House of intrigue.  Commoners are, once again, just grains of sand.  Why an Oash would go for some slumming is beyond me, the potentional for death, disease, and ruin is very high.  Still, some of the more jaded ones might find 'slumming' to be just their thing.  That added excitement of possibly catching a life rotting disease might get them going.  Fleas?  Good on them!  The more fleas the better.  After all, a noble can bathe and possibly get rid of them nasty buggers.  I'd say the House would take a rather non-view on the whole issue and only discipline its noble ranks if the noble wasn't being discrete.  Consorting with commoners dispels the sense of 'awe' about the nobility and for this reason, it'd be frowned upon.

House Tor - Absolutely no way.  Any sexual encounter with a commoner would be a serious taint on the honor of the noble - possibly to the extent that the noble would be forever out of favor.  The honor of the house and their duty to the House is primary in House Tor.  There is no place here for tainting themselves with a commoner.  To put it another way - a Tor noble will not taint their weapon with common blood unless it is in war, think of how they'd view sex with a commoner.

House Fale - In those wild masked parties anything goes.  While Fale is often viewed as a 'loose' House, its nobles know they are nobles.  Fale is about politics and the noble houses.  A commoner might hold an interest for a passing moment, but they would be like a new toy - delighted in briefly to be dropped to the next.  Still, Fale would frown upon constant liasons with the common folk.  

I cannot speak for the northern houses since I've no experience with them.

Once again, this is a game and how the individual players play it is up to them.  Most players tend to play 'exceptions' to the rule as it is, so while the House view might be against sexing them commoners there could very well be nobles totally into it.  Are they playing their characters wrong?  How the hell would we know.  Should we even care?  Nope.  If they want to spend their time crafting the ultimate orgasmic emote; all the power to them.  

Of course, on the bright side, any virtually sexually active noble has a serious weakness and that's one of assassination.  Get that loveable noble with their pants down and really 'do' them.  Just know, to do this, you might have to craft an entire offline persona to fool the player as well as the character.  It's all part of the 'greater' game of Armageddon.

crymerci

  • Posts: 1565
Re: Perception based on House
« Reply #34 on: December 06, 2002, 05:07:15 PM »
Quote from: "A once upon a noble"
House Borsail - a House of slavers.  Sexing a commoner is, simply put, a non-concept.  Why?  House Borsail raises sex slaves.  Why would any noble of the House look beyond these specially trained slaves to dally with the common folk - who are so far beneath them that they are the sand beneath their feet.   Going outside the House's stock of sex slaves is a sign of having no faith, trust, respect, whatever you want to call it, of the House's prime reason of existance.  Can you imagine anyone buying a sex slave when the Borsail nobles themselves don't even use them?  Therefore, any sexual liason with a commoner would be shunned by the House.  Any noble wishing to partake in the common flesh would have to go great lengths to hide the action - if it got out, it'd be the ruin of the noble's reputation.


I disagree. While a Borsail noble would have the greatest selection of pleasure slaves, and would likely make liberal use of them, I don't think it would be scandalous or shameful for them to have free concubines. Now, if they bought a slave from Kasix or the templarate to use as a pleasure slave, that would definitely show a lack of faith in their own house's stock. But not if it's a free person of common birth, because a commoner concubine performs a different role. Similar, yes, but not identical.

For one, a free concubine has -chosen- to be with the noble. Sure, S/he may be doing it for a number of reasons, the least of which may be affection or attraction, but nevertheless there is a choice. Secondly, a free concubine can be useful in more ways than just between the sheets: think of Jessica or Chani from the Dune books (or for that matter, the ghola Duncan Idaho).

In fact, let's look at some notable commoners in the Dune books. Obviously for every Duncan Idaho, Gurney Halleck, or Liet Kynes, there would be a hundred undistinguished servants or various other dust-covered commoners...but for the cream of the commoner crop, a certain degree of familiarity and even mutual respect is not that unusual. Do you think this applies to Zalanthas as on Arrakkis?
I think we might need to change World Discussion to Armchair Zalanthan Anthropology.

the halfling

  • Posts: 90
On Love and Romance in Muds
« Reply #35 on: December 06, 2002, 05:45:16 PM »
I still think noble concubines is a role that arm can live without.
There are other roles dealing with nobles you know, and they all seem to get drowned out because it all goes around concubines.  Sure it is a realistic role for a noble to play, but not a noble that is needed in Arm.

If some of you want to sit their and delude yourself, by saying that you are only doing it because the RP goes that way.  Then well there is nothing anyone can say to change your mind on it.

If it was my choice(and all you people can be glad it isn't)
Mudsex would be banned in a noble position.  And it is just assumed it is done by VNPCs.  If you want to have mudsex great! But don't lie to yourself and try to say that it isn't because You the player wants to have mudsex.  Play a friggan commoner and do that.
 don't eat everyone.

Bestatte

  • Posting Privileges Revoked
  • Posts: 2861
On Love and Romance in Muds
« Reply #36 on: December 06, 2002, 05:59:01 PM »
I think it's presumpuous of you to believe that concubine/consort/sex slave PCs and nobles have mudsex AT ALL.

In another game, my mid-ranking priestess of the evil dark temple PC had a childhood friend who was destined to be her lover, through rites of passage before they separated company for over a decade. When he showed back up, he joined the brother-guild of the one she was in, and was lower ranking in status, answering to her authority and those higher than she.

But they were in a loving relationship (such as one could be, given their race, which was considered the least emotionally expressive in the game), and his player and I NEVER engaged in mudsex. We goofed around with innuendo, shared kisses when we thought no one was watching, gazed warmly at each other, and made it obvious that there was something heavy going on between the sheets.

From a RP perspective, there was. But really, there wasn't. The closest we ever got to mudsex was one night when we were both logging off at the same time, so he came to my character's estate, laid down in the same bed, and we faded to black by drifting off to sleep at the same time.

Just because some people enjoy mudsex, doesn't mean they're actually doing it. And just because you believe that certain people are, simply because you know they have in the past, doesn't mean they still do. And..just because you think it's not possible that a given player would EVER be interested in it, doesn't mean they're not.

I just think it's wrong, wrong, wrong, for people who aren't directly involved in the relationship to make assumptions one way or another. It doesn't belong in public OOC conversation.

crymerci

  • Posts: 1565
On Love and Romance in Muds
« Reply #37 on: December 06, 2002, 06:07:47 PM »
What's the deal with the stigma attached to mudsex? Are you sure we're not oocly applying the prudish or puritanical notions that much of Western society has about sex? Are we willing to emote out torture, rape, dismemberment, fecal matter, disease, and various other 'gory' things but not anything remotely sexual?  :roll: What do you care, anyway?

Now, I agree with the original poster that one should not use the MUD as one's personal dating service. And if you can't justify your character doing it ICly, then you shouldn't be doing it. But who are we to know any other character's motivations?
I think we might need to change World Discussion to Armchair Zalanthan Anthropology.

Supreme Allah

  • Posts: 131
On Love and Romance in Muds
« Reply #38 on: December 06, 2002, 09:07:01 PM »
First off, I too would have a problem if there was a noble who just sat around and mudsexed all day, doing nothing else for the game. Nobles are supposed to be the leaders of society, and their players have a responsibility to reflect that.

That said, as long as they do other things most of the time and fulfill their duty to the playerbase, I couldn't care less if a noble mudsexes a dozen times daily as long as it was appropriate for the character - and I don't see why anyone would. Who cares if nobles mudsex? Who cares if anyone does? I don't think that should be an issue here so much as clarifying what would be a proper noble/commoner relationship, sexual or otherwise - that is something that actually impacts roleplay between a very large number of players.

How extensively -two people- roleplay out their sexual encounters behind closed doors really isn't anyone elses' business but their own, and you'd be completely out of line in trying to direct that.

Furthermore, this shouldn't be a pro/anti mudsex discussion - stick that in the OOC boards. It should be a roleplaying discussion (on which I'd like some immortal opinion, by the way) of appropriate noble/commoner relationships.

On the other hand, if we're all gonna start pushing our beliefs on others I'll happily go down to www.allah.com and start spamming the boards with passages from the Quran.

John

  • Posts: 4240
My ramblings on Nobles. Feel free to skip
« Reply #39 on: December 07, 2002, 06:01:05 AM »
Okay, I've been thinking about nobles again so feel free to skip this post.
I've got two examples of how nobles act, one from real life and another from the Wheel of Time series.

In Edwardian times (1800s I think) the Lord and his wife would not sleep together and by the social rules weren't allowed to say how they feel, and the wife was extremely restricted in her role. Because of this, the Lord would often take mistresses, but he didn't go to them for companionship, he only went to them for sex. No, for companionship he would go to his butler, and the two would become extremely close. Now you change this a little bit, and it can be applied to Zalanthas.

The Lord can't trust anyone really, not even those within his own House, because everyone always has a plot or two going, so if ever he marries he will be as trusting with her as Edwardian Lords were, because can you really trust someone from another house? Even if they supposedly forsake their House and become a member of yours? So I imagine he'd go to his concubines for sex, but would have a butler type role (perhaps Senior Aide?) and go to him for companionship. Now, as in Edwardian times, the Lord will always be better then the Senior Aide, and the Senior Aide could never presume so far as to think him an equal to the Lord, but he is there for any companionship.

I actually got to see this happen to a degree on the Edwardian show that was on a while ago. It was really interesting cause that same thing happened with the husband becoming estranged from his wife and saught out his butler for companionship, and they had the 20th century prejudices to try to battle against, which the people playing nobles eventually forgot about and stopped pretending to be nobles and BECAME nobles. Sorry, got off topic.

My second example is the Aes Sedai in the WoT series. They would be just as conniving as the Nobles on Zalanthas, and often they would completely break social rules. In public Aes Sedai were never suppose to fight and were always united, yet in private, they were always jockeying for their own agenda's to be put forth and gain prestige. Much like Zalanthas's nobles.

However Suane Sanche breaks the rules and has a couple of Accepted root out the Black Ajah. Now she took their word over any other Aes Sedai's in a blink of an eye, which is completely against the Aes Sedai social rules. And the reason she did that is because anyone could be of the Black Ajah. Well Zalanthas is the same, only you -know- everyone belongs to the Black Ajah, including your servants. Now on the outside Suane appeared to be punishing the two Accepted so as not to appear to be breaking any social rules, but it was quite the opposite.

Anyways, I think I've beaten that subject to death.

John, who doesn't care if people mud-sex but wouldn't feel comfortable seeing it, and would hate to think what would happen if a spy sneaks into a Lord's room to steal something, when the Lord and his concubine walks in and start mud-sexing, but before they do OOCly get consent, because the spy can't exactly say he doesn't consent now can he?

naatok

  • Posts: 260
Intimacy in Zalanthas: IC vs OOC
« Reply #40 on: December 07, 2002, 01:36:03 PM »
While I think Savak had some good points in his post on the IC vs OOC nature of sexual intimacy between PCs on ArmageddonMud, I would like to record my own personal point of view on the subject.
 
I rarely have sexual relationships with my pcs.  The main reason for this is I value my online time in Zalanthas for developing my PC in other ways, including goals.  It is difficult to maintain any sort of goal timeline when it takes literally Zalanthan days to roleplay out a decent or better intimate encounter.
 
I've had, in times past, some not-so-good OOC consequences from IC sexual intimacy and that, for one thing, has led me to be cautious in how I conduct this now.
 
When my PCs do engage in sex or sexual intimacy it is invariably to the purpose of IC bonding between the characters.  I do not want, nor do I expect any OOC involvement with the players of the characters my characters interact with...outside of the dubiously necessary 'when are you gonna be around' sorts of communications, or the (in my opinion) necessary 'Hey, great job!' pats on the back for well played characters.
 
I get enough OOC involvement with you folks when we party at the APMs (lots of fun...highly recommended!!!!).   :twisted:
 
IC bonding between PC lovers or even friends and family, for that matter, is VERY important for roleplay.  Reason?  It is fairly easy to get over the idea of PCs dying in the mud setting, but in a roleplay intensive environment such as ArmageddonMud, this makes little to no sense for the majority of characters.  People form attachments and are devastated when those attachments are severed...especially when severed permanently by PC death.  If the only way to achieve the IC bonding that is realistic is for players to get emotionally involved with their characters and the characters with whom their characters (it is the only way imho to assure this), then so be it.  I won't shy from it.
 
If your character is at all emotionally attached to, say a lover, and the plotline of play calls for your character to whack that lover...it should be an emotional struggle to do so!  Not just something a character can shrug his or her shoulders over and just drive on, but a real emotional dilemma for the PC.
 
In my opinion, roleplaying some form of sexual intimacy adds to the game instead of detracting from it.  The point is, we have to be grown up enough to be able to seperate our characters from our RL selves.  If a player can't do that enough to keep from trying to move the IC bonding to OOC bonding, then I suggest that player refrain from forming sexual attachments IC.  The opportunities abound for bonding OOC between players (I've got APs&M pictures!!!), if that's what they want, but I suggest that IC bonding NOT be the catalyst for such.  It complicates things, and I for one would rather not have to worry about that sorta bullshit when playing ArmageddonMud.
-Naatok the Naughty Monkey

My state of mind an inferno. This mind, which cannot comprehend. A torment to my conscience,
my objectives lost in frozen shades. Engraved, the scars of time, yet never healed.  But still, the spark of hope does never rest.

crymerci

  • Posts: 1565
Re: On Love and Romance in Muds
« Reply #41 on: December 08, 2002, 12:16:14 AM »
Quote from: "Anony-mouse"
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.


So I was looking through some of the documentation tonight, and I realized that commoner/noble relations vary from North to South. Apparently, in the North, these relations are frowned upon, whereas in the South, they are commonplace.

Quote from: "Tuluk Noble Docs"
Nobles do not have relationships with commoners. It is unthinkable, and a monstrous violation of social protocols. Children of such alliances often become outcasts and vagabonds and their noble parent is severely reprimanded.

 Such relationships are considered a social fax paus. The caste system in Tuluk has been in place for years and is a fundamental part of Tuluki society and culture. Such relationships are liabilities for the House. If word were to get out, it would damage not only the noble's reputation, which is bad in itself, but it would also damage the House's reputation.


Notice the contrast between that and the Allanak documentation:

Quote from: "Allanak Noble Docs"
Nobles can, and often do, take concubines and catamites from the ranks of the common folk when an especially attractive individual catches their eye, and the position of such individuals is comparable to that of other influential house servants. Concubines and catamites can expect to be kept in style and lavished with gifts. The wiser of them tuck these gifts away for old age, when all but the most subtle and gifted of them can expect to be discarded by their master or mistress. They may be resented and feared by other House servants, due to their influence over a particular member of the House, but their role is accepted.

 Nobles do not marry commoners. It is unthinkable, and a monstrous violation of social protocols. Children of such alliances often become servants of the House - since they have been raised within a House, they know its ways, nuances and history better than most, and often these bastard children will rise to positions of status and authority among the other servants.
I think we might need to change World Discussion to Armchair Zalanthan Anthropology.

creeper386

  • Posts: 2583
On Love and Romance in Muds
« Reply #42 on: December 08, 2002, 01:09:16 AM »
Quote from: "Docs"
Nobles do not have relationships with commoners.


The question is what exactly do they mean by "relationships." I would think that nobles and commoners in the North would be alot closer and those years and years of developed social system would be changed some, with the commoners the only reason the Nobles are currently alive, even though they still consider themselves better, and the commoners consider the nobles better, I would see there not being as much as a gap.

Now I still couldnt' see it common for nobles taking up in public a relationship with a commoner, or even noble/commoner relationships would be common, but certainly more common then in the south or before the wars.

Also does the Nobles in the north still take concubines? I'd go and read the docs but don't feel like it and the quote you had there, you'd think the nobles have no interaction with commoners what so ever.

I personally would think, since the nobles were spent alot of time "underground" protected by the commoners and such, who would have had alot easier time if they just turned the nobles over. I can see it more common personally for Nobles to talk cassually with commoners and maybe even have a private relationship thats more then just sex(Though probably not much more)

8) Creeper thinks it might be wise for him to go read the docs, but if someone wants to post all the answers I have?
21sters Unite!

Sanvean

  • Posts: 2720
    • My Website
Answers
« Reply #43 on: December 08, 2002, 07:06:57 PM »
Quote
Also does the Nobles in the north still take concubines? I'd go and read the docs but don't feel like it and the quote you had there, you'd think the nobles have no interaction with commoners what so ever.


As I understand it, and Laeris can correct me if I'm wrong, a northern noble might make use of a pleasure slave, but would not take up with a commoner. Slaves are trained and conditioned to obey, while a commoner is a more unpredictable thing. Taking up with a commoner would be a severe loss of prestige, while "using" a slave would be a commonplace event.

John

  • Posts: 4240
On Love and Romance in Muds
« Reply #44 on: December 08, 2002, 08:40:37 PM »
Quote from: "creeper386"
I would think that nobles and commoners in the North would be alot closer and those years and years of developed social system would be changed some, with the commoners the only reason the Nobles are currently alive, even though they still consider themselves better, and the commoners consider the nobles better, I would see there not being as much as a gap.
That's a possibility. Or they may have become more rigid and the gap widened. The reason this could have happened is the northerners were worried about loosing their culture so the commoners and nobles worked together to keep as much of it as possible, and by doing so, willingly widened the gap.

Just another possibility.

John

  • Posts: 4240
Whore Nobles
« Reply #45 on: December 09, 2002, 07:10:12 PM »
Here's a question for everyone. Is there anything wrong with creating Bedme Nobles?

I don't believe there is, in fact, a noble can do a lot before it is considered wrong as long as they're DISCREET. (Something that would be wrong is a noble thinking of commoners as equals).

The reason I don't think there would be anything wrong with a Noble going around screwing commoners and even claiming to have feelings for the commoner when they're in the commoner's arms, is because it is merely another way to gain loyalty from the commoner. History is rampant with Ladies going around and discreetly having affairs with commoners to get them to do things (e.g. kill a Lord) to have them killed. I think a Lady truly having feelings for a commoner would be quite rare, but pretending to love a commoner would be perfectly acceptable. Although going around saying how she loves the commoner would be devastating for her.

Why would a Lady want to do this? Well she might not be very powerful, perhaps she is of low prestige among the Nobles and wants to work her way up the ladder. Now she can offer money, but so can the other nobles, she can offer titles, but so can the other nobles, she can offer sex, and the other nobles can as well, however if she offers sex first and seduces the commoner, the commoner will have an attachment to her and will be less likely to fall for another noble. "Love" is quite an effective means for manipulating people, I can't see nobles being above this. Now if every noble did it, then it wouldn't be good, as technically this is a social no-no. But if a few nobles do it, I can't see anything wrong with it.

John

Savak

  • Posts: 817
re: SEXSEXSEX
« Reply #46 on: December 10, 2002, 09:51:23 PM »
For Supreme Allah:

Part of the reason I've shy'd away from "if you do this and this then it's not appropriate roleplay" when it comes to sexual intimacy in Armageddon is that for every example I give, someone can return with a "yes, BUT.."  And because we're talking about emotion and relationships, not "simply" what someone is or is not doing (spam stealing is pretty easy to define and lay the law down about, but telling someone they shouldn't like X person?  Not easy, and almost always not -necessary-.  Thus the common turning of a blind eye.)  People get very upset, perhaps rightly so, when there is any vague intimation whatsoever that someone (particularly someone on staff) thinks their intimate MUD relationship MIGHT not be the MOST believable or logical or what-have-you -- usually the impression I get is that they feel they've just been called a cheap whore, or worse, which isn't the idea AT ALL.

This kind of intimacy carries a lot of OOC baggage for many people, and not unnaturally so.  When a PLAYER moves on to (apparently) be intimate with someone else, even if the characters change, it can become an emotional challenge (to one extent or other).  As I said before, I think it's incredibly difficult to completely extricate IC from OOC feelings -- particularly when you factor in that many of our players are still of college age (where relationships are not uncommonly in disarray in RL to begin with -- indeed, for some people sexual relationships might still be very new; for every 14 year old starting early there's at least one 20+ biding their time).

But I digress.

Things I would consider reasonably -obvious- levels of inappropriateness would be (and all of these things I've seen, although NOT commonly):

Two characters meet, have a relationship.  One dies.  That person's next character is in bed with the first person before 2 hours playing time.  Rinse, repeat, often over the course of 5+ characters for each person.  I find it INCREDIBLY unlikely that these 2 people aren't intentionally seeking one another out and letting their OOC feelings dramatically affect their IC feelings.  This falls to an extent along the lines of something Naatok pointed out, that intimacy can be a form of bonding -- but it extends beyond merely IC.

Two characters develop a relationship and then only log on for mudsex.  This continues for an RL month or more.

Two characters develop a relationship.  One dies, and the other starts a relationship with someone else.  The first starts a new character and immediately devises to kill the previous lover's new squeeze.  Before they even meet.

Two players have had a long OOC relationship (online only), and start characters.  One dies.  Down the line, that person starts a new character, widely hated by the survivor & that survivor's clan.  OOC'ly the new character informs the survivor who they really are.  They immediately develop an IC relationship.

These are the kinds of things which, I think, are reasonably obvious and can fall under the guise of "common sense" really.  They can always spout obscure reasons why their characters might have fallen for one another, but to me, given the circumstances, it sounds very hollow.

Examples which are more borderline are just further along the continuum of the above examples.  Greater timeframe between their "new" characters meeting, or between them meeting and developing a sexual/erotic relationship.  Or two characters who meet, sleep together, then don't seem to have anything in common nor spend time together OTHER than gettin' busy, but devoutly stand by one another despite there being no evidence of intimacy or emotion...just sex.

It's kind of like two characters describing themselves as lifelong friends, would do anything for one another, etc. etc., but one spends most of his time in the north while the other spends most of his time in Allanak -- they've only ever been in the same room with one another IC'ly twice and never use the Way with one another.  Somehow it just doesn't feel like a believably close friendship.  (Then, later, you find out they're old friends in RL and it all takes on a new meaning.)

The importance here, I think, is that everything *develops* in logical, linear, somewhat deliberate fashion IC'ly, online (not "in the background").  Sex is obviously readily bumped to the background, but intimacy is much more than just that.  Eyes, words, brushing past one another, all that plays in.

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

John

  • Posts: 4240
On Love and Romance in Muds
« Reply #47 on: December 10, 2002, 10:03:28 PM »
All of the reasons savak just said, are why it's a good idea not to inform people of who you are OOCly (e.g. I tell the people I talk to that I'm the Byn sergeant X) because this helps reduce the mixing of IC and OOC feelings. Another good method is to create characters that are completely different from your personality.

Laeris

  • Posts: 266
Re: Answers
« Reply #48 on: December 11, 2002, 10:00:53 AM »
Quote from: "Sanvean"
Quote
Also does the Nobles in the north still take concubines? I'd go and read the docs but don't feel like it and the quote you had there, you'd think the nobles have no interaction with commoners what so ever.


As I understand it, and Laeris can correct me if I'm wrong, a northern noble might make use of a pleasure slave, but would not take up with a commoner. Slaves are trained and conditioned to obey, while a commoner is a more unpredictable thing. Taking up with a commoner would be a severe loss of prestige, while "using" a slave would be a commonplace event.


Correct.  I had thought that clear in the documentation, but perhaps I should revise it to state "intimate relationships" or "sexual relationships" instead of simply "relationships".  Would this clear up some of the confusion?
ssues are issues.  People are people.  Issues should be addressed, people should be loved. - John W. Frye

Zharal

  • Posts: 274
On Love and Romance in Muds
« Reply #49 on: December 28, 2002, 07:15:21 PM »
I say, hit it and run...
 :wink: