Sweet 16.

[Maybe42or54]

You can join several modern day militia's around 14.

[jcarter]

Alexander the Great conquered most of the known world by 18.  Leadership has nothing to do with age, and everything to do with personal force and charisma.  If a 13 year old can manage to bolster people to follow him/her, then a 13 year old could become a Black Robe for all I care.

This is extremely different from your average eighteen year old. First of all, he was the son of a king. Second, according to Plutarch (a greek historian), it was believed that Alexander was the son of Zeus and a mortal woman. Third, his teacher was Aristotle, one of the most influential philosophers. I cannot see this as being anywhere near the description of an eighteen year old Zalanthan.

Furthermore, Alexander was not conquering most of the known world at 18. His father was doing the fighting and temporarily left Alexander in charge of the throne at sixteen. When Alexander was eighteen he was helping out his father during the battle of Chaeronea. He led a cavalry wing and obliterated a highly regarded enemy corps. While that is impressive for an eighteen year old, keep in mind his father was the king and supreme general of the army. It's certain that his father was teaching him a few things and not just giving him a pat on the back and a wing of men. It was at twenty that started campaigning and carrying out his father's old plans.

Obviously these were quite extraordinary circumstances. The only time a person would be even close to a position such as this is if they were a noble. Even then, that doesn't mean that they'll be the best person for the job. Furthermore, leadership goes well beyond just 'personal force' and 'charisma'. You can have all the personal force and charisma of the world but that doesn't mean you're going to be able to be a good general. It doesn't even mean you're going to be a good squadleader. In a bloodthirsty world such as Zalanthas, I would think the squadleader would probably be one of the better fighters of the group too. If I was in a band of combative men, I wouldn't be too willing to listen to a guy who barely knows which end of his sword is up.

The main question of the thread, however, is should a sixteen year old be good enough for most positions? Yes, since many of them just require following orders. As long as the guy can fight and follow orders through, why shouldn't he be welcome with a bunch of other fighters? He may start off as lowly grunt, but we all have to start somewhere.

[Dynas]

Point of order, Dynas.

Average life span and life expectancy are two different things. I'd expect the life expectancy in Zalanthas for humans to be much closer to 40 than 70.

Main Entry: life ex·pec·tan·cy
Function: noun
: the average life span of an individual

Source: Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

[My 2 sids]

Historically, even when people started to take on adult responsibilities at a young age, there was still heavy distinction between an adult and a child.  The age groups have never "blended" together because the society still held on to many "coming of age" traditions.

As far as game:

To all those "everything should be fair and equal" people; what's the point of even having characters age if the young don't act young and the old don't act old?  If not to be used as a role-playing tool, why have it at all?

[Barzalene]

But if we wanted eight year olds in the game, you'd be able to app an eight year old. You. Can't. So, you shouldn't be playing your thirteen year old like a an eight year old.

Also, most of those coming of age ceremonies occurr between the ages of ten and thirteen. Today you are a man, baby.

[My 2 sids]

But if we wanted eight year olds in the game, you'd be able to app an eight year old. You. Can't. So, you shouldn't be playing your thirteen year old like a an eight year old.

By your logic you're saying that people _want_ 13 year olds in game because one is able to apply for a 13 year old.

Likewise I'm merely suggesting one shouldn't be playing their 13 year old like a 30 year old.

[Larrath]

Zalanthan 13 year olds should be played like Zalanthan 13 year olds.
Much more hardened and mature than us puny Earthlings, but still adolescents who just recently became sexually active.

It's a balance, but no mentally sound 13 year old Zalanthan should start whining "But I don't wanna!" and throwing a tantrum in public as though they were seven years old.

[Barzalene]

But if we wanted eight year olds in the game, you'd be able to app an eight year old. You. Can't. So, you shouldn't be playing your thirteen year old like a an eight year old.

By your logic you're saying that people _want_ 13 year olds in game because one is able to apply for a 13 year old.

Likewise I'm merely suggesting one shouldn't be playing their 13 year old like a 30 year old.

Agreed.

(separate tangent)
And I think applying to Borsail or Tenneshi to be their vice general in charge of acquisitions and conquered nations as a thirteen year-old is a bit ambitious. Applying to be an aide seem right. It seem like the right age to be applying for that job. You know an aide, not the vice minister of all things administrative.

[Trenidor]

I'm not even going to read everything but I get the gist of the whole thing...

IRL, I see 20 yr olds as kids...
And some 13 yr olds act better than 30 yr olds.

But that's just my opinion.

I believe the Real world sees people who are younger than 18 as kids that can't do anything the right way...

And sorry for turning this topic this way but I need to to prove my perspective...

It's all because of societal demands. If people think you're 'kind' are inadaquit, then it makes things difficult to get the kind of respect and views from others that you need.

So in other words...if your pc thinks 13 is an adult, then they won't mind hiring a 13 yr old. But if your character sees themself as the right age, then anything younger than them is too young.

[Swordsman]

To answer Qetesh's original questions (paraphrased):

How do you view Zalanthan 16 year old humans? Physically, I'd see them as tougher than real-life Western 16 year olds, but more or less at the same stage of development (i.e., adolescence). They'd grow a bit taller and stronger with a few more years, so I wouldn't consider them in their physical prime yet. Socially, I'd see the typical Zalanthan 16 year old as much more mature than the typical real-life Western 16 year old.

Would you hire a 16 year old to work for you? It depends mainly on the person. At 16, I'd consider a Zalanthan human physically able to carry out basically any type of work needed, though for fighting roles, he/she would still be at a disadvantage to, say, a 20 year old. Frankly, as some other people have suggested, most human PCs I've seen tend to be played with less social maturity than I'd imagine Zalanthan humans to actually behave. I'm not talking about having less-than-ideal motives or anything else that fits in with a harsh game setting; I'm talking about what I'd call social stupidity (e.g., blatant rudeness to those higher up), and I've seen this across several different characters that I've played. Just my frank opinion. I'd (ICly) hire a 16 year old if he/she seemed up to the task, both mentally/socially and physically.

Swordsman

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

The point at which we can begin to play a PC allows us to play either a dumb Zalanthan child, or a typical one. Children who act childish all the time are dumb Zalanthan children. Ones who have moments of lucid childish impulse are normal.

The starting age is capapble of encompassing all of these aspects, and the Zalanthan culture also allows us to play Alexander, should we be in a position to do so.

[Angela Christine]

I think 16 is adult, albeit a young adult.


I think it is reasonable for certain jobs to have minimum age requirements.  You might only need to be 14 to get a job at McDonalds, but you have to be 19 to join the RCMP.  Most of the PC organizations in the game are supposed to be elite examples of their type.  The T'zai Byn is the largest and among the best mercenary organizations in the world, there are other (mostly virtual) mercenary companies around.  The Borsail Wyverns are among the best slavers, there are other groups who go out capture people and beasts as slaves and sell them in the slave markets, but the Wyverns are the best at this.  Naturally, elite organizations want to hire the best possible candidates, and in general a 17 year old is going to have better judgement, be harder to manipulate, and be larger and stronger than a 14 year old.  Not always, but usually.  If your elite organization has many more applicants than you have jobs (which they all should ICly even if PCs are not rushing to join) you might establish arbitrary elimination criteria to save time.  No elves, no half-breeds, no dwarves, no one under 16, no one under 5'10", no one under 7 ten-stone, no forigners, no one I don't like the look of, etc.  That eliminates some good canditates along with many poor candidates, but it also saves the recruiters the trouble of putting every possible candidate through a long series of aptitude tests.

It is likely that the noble houses and some merchant houses do have cadet corps, they probably do have jobs for children as young as 8 years old.  You work as an apprentice, page or squire type -- observing, training, doing chores and running erands.  The thing is, these sections of the organizations may not be PC-ized, because it would be dull.  It would be like being a Byn Runner, but for 5 years instead of just 1.  Not many people want to roleplay drudgery.  There would also be a limited number of positions, and likely the children and orphans of employees would get first chance over those that have no connection to the organization.



Nobody knows your age.  With assess -v they can tell that you look young, but not precisely how young.  Sure, they can ask you your age but you could be lying or you might not even know what year you were born (especially if you are an orphan).  So they judge by your appearance and behavior.  If you act like an adult you will be treated as an adult.  If you act childish you will be treated as a child.  They might accept a mature 14 year old but turn away an immature 16 year old.  Giggling at the job interview is probably not a good idea.  That doesn't mean that a teenager has to act like an old foggy all the time, sometimes they are going to act silly.  However, when you are actually at the job interview, the interviewer is going to assume that you are on your best behavior.  Even an 8 year old can be quite serious when he is in the principle's office.  If you act childish at the interview, the interviewer may assume that you act that way all the time.  


Angela Christine

[Morrolan]

I just sat here and read the entire thread.

(whew)

To start, I'd like to make the assumption that everyone, not just kids, does stupid stuff on a fairly regular basis.  Adulthood is the age at which people are not insulated from the results.

Western, especially American, kids are insulated from the results of their actions through the school system and special legal protections.  They are, more or less, irresponsible.

Example: Two kids assault a third kid and rough him up a bit at school.  Do they go to jail?  Probably not; they get detention (or at least, they did when I was in school).

Now, adults assault each other all the time.  What is the result?  Often, a little more than detention if they get caught.  Why the difference?  Because adults are considered responsible.

I guess what I am proposing is that the process of maturation is not biological, but is instead a) cultural and b) created by outside pressures.  Probably not entirely correct, I know.  But I think this approach is the other half of the story.

What does this mean for Zalanthas?  In a world where there is sudden death around any corner, capricious law enforcement, raiders, dehydration, and slavery, adulthood would come as soon as the child was responsible for himself.  That might be at age five, but it might also be at age eighteen, or twenty, or whatever.

I suspect that age thirteen is the minimum age that a character can be because a) it would be hard to code stats for a character that weak, and b) players would probably have nightmares about "the corpse of the toddler."  I'm pretty sure I would.

Morrolan

[jackalmo]

Sorry, I just have to make a note on life expectancy.

In 1050, the average life expectancy was around fourty-five. That means that when a child was born, on average he would live to be fourty-five years of age. One of the things that lowered that expectancy dramatically, though, was a high rate of infant mortality. That means that if you were one of the 60% (that's just an arbitrary figure since I don't have the demographics in front of me) that lived to age five, your expected lifespan might now be 50. If you were male and made it to twenty years of age, it might be as great as eighty. Think of it as, roughly, a negative bell curve skewed left; the very young and very old had the greatest chance of dying, with more dying young.

That meants that assuming that the first third of life is childhood, dividing a life expectancy of 40 by 3, and saying that adulthood came at age 13 is an equation for missing the point. Thirteen year olds did what we would consider to be adult work, and may even have already left home for apprenticeships. They were still, however, children and considered so until 16 or 18 years of age. They also did not marry at age 15 or 16 and start having children; the age of marriage was commonly in the early 20s, though it was more common in higher classes for a young, though legal, woman to marry an older man.

Human life expectancy on Zalanthas is around 68 by the docs. We don't know what infant mortality is like, but I would assume its high. There also might be a higher spike in mortality in late teens/early 20s as young people move out into risky occupations - that curve may look more like a "W" than an inverted bell. Still, though, I'd bet that adulthood came no earlier than 16. Unless puberty is also accelerated on Zalanthas, youths before age 16 are simply not grown. (To address an earlier poster, I've never seen any evidence to suggest that 13-15 year old medieval youths were as physically mature as adults, but I haven't looked for this either. Sources?)

All that to say that 16 seems to be a reasonable age for adulthood from everything I've seen so far.

- Mark

[Nyard]

Well, it depends on the job I'm asking them to do for me.  If I wanted somebody dead, I'd rather ask Leon than Mathilda.  It's always good to have somebody work for you that has earned a lot more experience.  If it was an unimportant task or job, sure.

[jstorrie]

Puberty, somewhat counterintuitively, occured later in the middle ages than it does in modern Western societies. Something about having extra calories to spend, or that sort of thing.

[My 2 sids]

Thirteen year olds did what we would consider to be adult work, and may even have already left home for apprenticeships. They were still, however, children and considered so until 16 or 18 years of age.  

Another excellent point!  Even if asked to take on the responsibility of an adult, there has always been clear distinction between child and adult.  Even during the 1800's – 1900's (when children dressed, played, and worked like adults) they were still treated like children.  By this, of course, I mean they played, were paid like half of what men made (even less than women made), still punished as a child (floor manager could whip them, although he might not whip other adults working for him), and were trained to respect adults.