Relationships in Zalanthas

[RatherNotSay]

I was reading a article on battered women in the news the other day and it i started to think about relationships in general in Zalanthas.  Nobles and rich merchant family members have their own specific code as to how relationship between themselves and others work.

By relationship i mean having more to do with the person then just fecking them a couple of times

Ex. Having children, supporting them in various ways or living together.

But what about the different levels of commoner, as well all know some have alot more coin and status then others do, depending on who you know, what you do or who work for.

I was thinking for most people (the poor of the poor) relationship probably meant a few days in bed together, ending up with a kid, never seeing each other again.  For others a group of people sharing a small shack with one bed, working mediocre jobs and poking at each other at night.

As we've all read polygamy is more common then monogamy and there is no bias between male and female but what about a bias between power?

       Take for example a female militia Sergeant. Harden and battle scarred, experienced and well respected.  I doubt she shares her armour.  I doubt she lets anyone touch her sword.  What makes anyone think she will allow her stuff including the good-looking but reletively fragile(think merchant or burgular class) man (or woman) she has chosen to be her mate to be used by someone else.  I can see this person go home and beating her mate for not having her food ready or the home she rents not being set up to her liking or them not completely satisfing her.  She probably locks the door on her way out and still might enjoy her own fun on the side before returning home. That person is weak in comparision to her and therefore that person is her "bitch"  or "property".

Also remember that as you move up in the world, your less likely to want to spend time with common whores, not because of any moral reasons but because you most likely have more enemies that could take advantage of you during that time.  Therefore, having one dedicated to you is a good solution. Why not more though? Well work is hard to come by so you'll most likely be supporting that person and whatever children come of it, which gets to be expensive.  Besides if you get tired of the person you can always replace them.  

Hense do to their busy jobs and higher then normal status i could see the upper middle to upper commoner class choosing (or forcing on others)  a monogagomistic relationship.  Also people in these possitions being extremely possesive of their mates (offensive to anyone that even looks at them), as they would be any other piece of item they owned.

Discuss? Comment? Hold the flames, please.

[Dr. Love]

That all came from reading an article on battered women? Are you trying to say relationships on Arm might be... abusive?

I see relationships on Zalanthas something like this...

1) Survival. Unless you're upper class and have everything you need provided for you, taking a lover or mate would probably be motivated by  your mutual survival.

2) Pleasure. Let's say survivial has been squared away, next comes pleasure. That part is fairly self explanatory.

3) Higher level beneifts -- something you started to touch on. What does the coupling offer beyond survival and pleasure? This could simply be a hunter and a crafter that like to bump hips benefitting each other on several levels, all the way up to a powerful noble and their favorite love slave. That is to say the trade off is not always even. Due to radically different levels of power between lower class, nobility, and everything inbetween (in a city anyway), many times what is desired is taken instead of given, and fuck what the weaker one thinks.

To address your comments on possession or possesiveness, that probably varies widely based on the personality of those involved. I think what you described is one possible type of behavior amongst many.

To be honest, I couldn't tell exactly what you wanted to discuss, of if there was a hidden question, so these are just my ramblings!

[wizturbo]

Your forgetting the social heirarchy, a poor commoner is socially higher ranked then 90% of the city.

Here is the pyramid, at least in Allanak.



Templars  Very small percentage.

Nobles  1% of the population (or less)

Merchant -   1% of the population (or less)

Commoners   -  Around 10% of the population

S  L  A  V  E  S   -  HUGE % of the population.  90% wouldn't be too far off.

Labrinyth Dwellers  -  Extreme poor, no citizenship, population vastly unknown.



Look at this hierarchy, and tell me why a militia sergaent would need to "possess" some wealthy merchant?  Why deal with all the hassle, they could take their considerable salary, go up to the borsail slave trading tents and buy themselves a pleasure slave.  

Commoner relationships are in my opinion, for mutual advantage and survival.  Love might come into play, but the need to 'possess' while probably not completely unheard of, isn't really necessary in the society.

As for Labrinyth relationships...fuck...who knows.  I'm sure there's every kind of abusive, terrible, nasty type of thing going on in that lawless place.

[IRatherNotSay]

To clarify:  I'm basically presenting the idea that monogamy might be alot more common the polygamy within the range of the upper to middle status/wealth commoners.  Whether it be accepted or forced on the other person involved.

Agree?, Disagree?

             As to wiz, i'm not 100% sure as to your population percentages and i don't think it's that easy for commoners of any status (with exception to merchant family house members) to buy slaves.  I could be wrong, in which case i should have many.

[Agent_137]

I doubt that slave figure until I see it from an immortal.

Allanak isn't sparta.

[IStillRatherNotSay]

Look at this hierarchy, and tell me why a militia sergaent would need to "possess" some wealthy merchant?

I don't know if a Sergeant could possess a wealthy merchant...but i was thinking along the lines of buff sergent taking on the lowly but still rather attractive begger for a mate, basically a situation where one has obviously more overall power then the other.  I just mentioned the burgular and merchant classes since their main description usually fit the people that might end up in this situation.

[wizturbo]

I think I got the figures mixed up, 90% of the population of Zalanthas lives in cities, is what I think that 90% was.  Sorry :-)  But still, the slave population far exceeds the commoner population in Allanak.


The average commoner couldn't afford a slave no.  But a fairly well off commoner could.

A militia sergaent.  A merchant house employee of some rank.  A noble House aide or military member.  Basically anyone who would have "power" could afford and own slaves.  They might need to save up a year or two's pay, but they could swing it.

[Yang]

I like to imagine that love might play as much a role and as much a complication in Zalanthan relationships as in earth relationships.

But that could just be me.

Tektolnes is a lonely man.

[UnderSeven]

Well it's been established and re-established that poligomy is quite common on Zalanthas and in the city states.  But for a moment, let me go into the reasons animals natrually practice one or the other:

Most animals are poligomous.  The reason is because their children are relatively easy to raise and only one parent (the mother) needs to do it, so it provides a better chance for the species to have lots of babies, lots of lovers.

This might apply to armageddon in that, if a single parent can manage alone, the more kids they have the more workers they can put toward feeding the family.  Not a bad trade.

Another reason poligomy happens, in say monkeys and animals where the baby DOES need a lot of attention,  is in LARGE GROUPS.  Animals that work together and will raise the children together can be more prone to sleeping together too because they don't need to worry about who will take care of the kid.  

Once again the application to armageddon is this means more workers.  This would be less likely applicable to city states, but more to the tribes.  In city states I think the first rule of poligamy would make more sense.

And for Monagomy, animals whom require a LOT of attention to raise the young and don't nessicarily work in large groups.  The reason they are monagmous is because if the mother and father needs to stick around, the mother wants the father to just mate with her to ensure his attention and resources arn't spread thin between other female's children and the father wants the ensure the female only gives birth to HIS children.

I think it's pretty obvious how this might apply to armageddon, but in another sense I think this might apply to a situation where the parents don't feel they can expect a lot of help raising their kids and lack the resources to go it alone.

Therefore I feel the poorer classes on arm are more likely to see monagomy as a good idea, sort of an agreement when it comes to how mating and child raising will go to ensure their children make it to adults, but on the same token I could see the poorer classes making agreements with multiple people.

Ultimately I think both monagomy and poligomy would be quite present on arm, but if a char is going to be strongly toward one or the other, they should know why they're doing it.

[Agent_137]

the slave population far exceeds the commoner population in Allanak.
The average commoner couldn't afford a slave no. But a fairly well off commoner could.

I'm still suspicious. I don't see either of these as true.

But it's not really relevant to the discussion, either.

Though, i would appreciate good evidence for or against those statements because i don't know for sure myself.



As mentioned by others, I think relationship types are going to develop independently for each person based on social status, income, survival, love, and personal preference.'

Pretty much, just pick what you want to do for your character, back it up with half decent logic, and you're golden.

[Larrath]

Roughly half of Allanak's population consists of slaves.

Commoners would make a slightly smaller portion, so there are more slaves than commoners, but only by a little bit.

I would be greatly surprised if Allanak had 60% enslaved though...it's probably closer to 48% or so.

[House Rising Sun]

Not sparta? I seem to remember hearing or reading somewhere that a vast virtual majority of the lower class citizens in Allanak are militia or house employed, and the rest are just slaves. Does anyone else remember something like this, or did I dream it?

[Agent_137]

ok, i don't want to derail this thread:

slave population discussion goes here:

http://www.zalanthas.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=10655

[Angela Christine]

There is a more stable family structure than monogomy: matrilineal family organization.  (Don't confuse matrilineal with matriarchal, male family members can have as much or more power as the females, it is perfectly posible to have a patriarchal matrilineal society.)

What does that mean?  You are a member of your mother's family, which is handy if "dad" is prone to disappearing, dieing, or moving on.  So who is the most important man in your life, who is your father figure?  Your mother's brother.  Men come and go, but your brothers, your mother's brothers, and your grandmother's brothers will be your family forever.  It doesn't matter who the dad is, because a man knows that his sister's children are his blood relations -- paternity may be in doubt, but there is no question of maternity.  

Eliminating the need for a man to know who his children are releases a lot of angst from society.  Your lady is stepping out on you?  No problem.  You may not know who the father of her kids are, but you absolutely know that your sister's children share your blood.  Your sister's kids are the ones you take to baseball games and teach to fish (or Zalanthan equivlent).

This way children grow up with an equal number of male and female role models, even if few people mate for life.


AC

[My 2 sids]

As we've all read polygamy is more common then monogamy and there is no bias between male and female but what about a bias between power?

Actually, this was discussed way back when people said they didn't like Quickstart.  Nowhere else is it actually stated polygamy is more common than any other kind of relationship.


As for power in relationships; I'd agree that a society such as Armageddon would not produce equality in relationships.  My guess is that there would be a very set hierarchy with in the relationship and discipline would happen just like in the rest of society (where employers have been known to whip servants).  

I'd offer this though about property and polygamy.  Just because people are polygamists doesn't justify this idea that the society would tolerate a bunch of one-night-stands.  I would think probably a more realistic way of looking at it would be that multiple partners would have to be known and accepted. Instead of one-night stands where trust is handed out so freely, I see more people being in a relationship and family unit of say three or six people that know, trust, and are loyal to the group.  That is to say it's fine if your boyfriend has multiple partners, but the woman would know the partners and agree to allow them.  Again, probably it would be the more dominate in the relationship to decide who is ok and who is not.  

One caution I'd offer would be to not look into relationships for realistic role-play.  I think players don't want to be so "realistic" because if they want to mudsex like kinky rabbits and will.  Or if they want to not role-play the strings attached to relationships like family settings or stigmas, they won't; regardless of any guidelines by what would make sense for the society.

[Jacques]

I think one needs to look at this issue from a more practical viewpoint. Relationships, be they romantic, business, friendships, or whatever, are about what you give to, and what you receive from, the interaction. Obviously, sometimes the give/receive ratio isn't 1, but it doesn't always have to be. It depends on the people involved.

Going back to the example in the first post. The Sergeant comes home, grumpy and pissed off because the Corporals are idiots and how is she ever going to get this new unit ready in time, and... then waiting for her is a hot meal, her favorite incense in the air, and a wam smile that makes her forget, even for a moment, that she's grumpy. Sure, the Sergeant may provide the money, protection, and other things. The mate will also provide things, and it will be up to the two of them (or more - obviously, this will get more complex in a polyamorous relationship) to decide where the balance lies, and if they're happy with what they're getting from the relationship.  Will the Sergeant beat her mate? Maybe. Will the mate strangle the Sergeant in her sleep? Maybe. Will they live happily ever after? Hell no - this is Armageddon.  :twisted:

[Anarchy]

To me there is two groups.

Fuck buddies.

And

A person you love.

A fuck buddy is anyone, the local butcher, tailor, the cute kid you decided you wanted to break in, a templar's mother. Are they people you care about? Nope. Are they people you trust? Nope. Do they know much about you? Nope. If they die are you going to cry over it? No, you might be pissed off, because they where a pretty good fuck, but meat is meat, you can find someone else. To use the Miltia sergeant as an example, yes, she would most likely beat these people up if they pissed her off.

Now, someone you love on the other hand, is someone you have tested, you trust them, they know everything about you, they know your quirks, they know what you like, they know if you touch your lower back, it gets you in the mood, they know your secrets, but wont tell, because they also love you, trust you, and you also know everything about them. This one person is everything to you. That Milita sergeant had to deal with a violent criminal, her templar is angry with her proformance, she got wounded, she comes home, and sees the person she loves, and its all meaningless. Seeing this person makes your troubles meaningless. You have your fuckbuddies, and the person you love does also. But this one person means the world to you. If s/he died, a part of you would also die. The Miltia sergeant wouldn't beat this person, she wouldn't harm this person. Why would she risk losing this person?

I refuse to accept every aspect of Armageddon is violent. The people have emotions. They would feel love. You dont beat the snot out of someone you love. Its somthing you just cant do on a mental level.

[My 2 sids]

I refuse to accept every aspect of Armageddon is violent. The people have emotions. They would feel love. You dont beat the snot out of someone you love. Its somthing you just cant do on a mental level.

Good point.  Harsh doesn't always equal pain and anquish.

[Dre(StillBored@school)san]

...hmm...having read all the post and considered the society and human nature (it's really the only race that matters :wink: ) ...i've come to the conclusion that the relationships (in the city at least) are usually open though pretty much monogamous.  Keep in mind that a relationship involves all parties being trusting and being committed. What does this mean?

This means that when a man and woman find each other to be prospective mates(for whatever reasons) they get together and pit their resourses into one and being their new life together. They trust each other and share everything.  This does not mean they don't enjoy (either sharing or for themselves depending on the poeple) other sexual partners.  Who and if they share their beds is something for them to talk about... but that's it, sex is one thing living together and raising children is totally another.   I think for the most part esspecially when having children neither couple will go and have one with another person(not the rule just my general view).

Why?

Trust
For any relationship to occur trust is needed, something which should be really hard for people to do in a world as harsh as Zalanthas.  Remember people don't live that long and it takes a while to actually trust someone, epecially to be willing to share your resources with them.  The more people the longer it will take to trust them all competely. This will bring down the number in the polygamous relationship to three maybe four people.

Resources
Our characters are pretty much the lucky few in Zalanthas, we get the coveted jobs with the houses or have the potential to make our fortunes/gain power in other areas.  For everyone else resources are scarce and hard to come by.  Even in a relationship with as little as three poeple (and if two of them were men), the number of children will greatly be increased(even with mul mix, not 100%). Hense resources will be spread even wider.

On top of that all the people involved must be bringing in resources at least to cover what they need inorder to not be a burden to the others.
If there are four people in the relationship and two are burdens (plus more children involved on top of that), well that unit isn't going to last.  Same thing might happen with as little as three people involved.  But now we are down to at least three.

Way of thinking

Most polygamous relationship probably would start with two then would get larger after time...but why? After some time the two will either be doing well or really badly.  If they are doing well, why would they want to risk ruining it by bringing in another person and risk spreading the resources? Doubt a reason would be sex, they could have it with them without having them enter the relationship, love?maybe ...and if it was doing badly why would someone else want to get into that mess and share their resources to sustain your unit...they would probably want to find something better..

Therefore having a successful polygamous relationship is probably harder (doesn't mean people don't try and are probably abudant, just not going too well).  I don't see any reason those at the top, like our characters would share they more then abundant resources with someone that can't deliver like they can.  If two PC get together the Sid they can they bring in is alot so anyone other then someone like them will be a burden. Even if they find someone as well off as them, i see no reason to risk the good relationship.... other than they both deciding they want even more children with another person.