Derail of Discussion of Pregnancy Article

[tortall]

I have to agree with Lizzie here in the whole pregnancy thing. It is a lot of work to pull it off realistically.

Sadly I see a real common habit of players who are instantly pregnant and know that day ICly after just having sex or I see pregnancy that is too quick, no side effects, practically a cake walk or even more often I see vNPC babies played wrong. Sorry, but a two month old does not laugh at jokes, wave cheerfully, or able to grasp and eat meat on their own. So PLEASE can someone add a emboldened section of realistic stages that vNPC babies go through, what babies can and cannot do in both physical, mental and emotional means.

I would like to see pregnancy require consent. This is a game, and I will make it real clear that this desire has nothing to do with my off-game views on the matter. My only concern is that if I was to play a male PC, my entire enjoyment of the game could potentially be altered for better or (likely) worse because this other player decides that he/she would like their character knocked up. Yes, I could just avoid the offspring, but if its not IC for my character, then I am stuck in a position I don't want to necessarily be in as a player.

Bolded disagreement part. If you don't want to "accidentally" have kids, then don't kank IG. Simple as that. Or if your PC is freaked out by kids, make SURE the woman is taking mul mix, and takes it BEFORE EVERY time.


I have more arguments against what has been said in that thread, but I'll leave it at that.

[Wyx]

Sell your vChildren into slavery. Or kill them, because they're gonna suck a lot of your sid.

[tortall]

Sell your vChildren into slavery. Or kill them, because they're gonna suck a lot of your sid.

I like the slavery idea. That sounds pretty cool, actually. Have a baby, don't wanna keep it, find the nearest slave trader! They'll pay good coin to whip that little bag of skin and water into shape to be the slave who cleans the stables at the noble estate. :-D

[MarshallDFX]

Can I wish up to sell my virtual baby for coin?

[Wyx]

Virtual babies go for virtual coin, which you can spend virtually on virtual booze, virtual food, virtual water, virtual whores, and virtual sand tonic to clean up your virtual STDs, just like the virtual goods your crafter virtually sells when you're logged out, or the virtual hides and meats your ranger virtually hunts up when you're logged out.

[Jdr]

Can I have your virtual babies Wyx?

[FantasyWriter]

I still wish there were an optional system for pregnancy dice rolls.
That if you actually WANT to get pregnant you would be encouraged to only do so after a "successful' role.

It would automatically take into account age and race.
It would have questions that follow to provide other modifiers.

Because (from a man's POV) it sucks to have another characters PLAYER decide something that 'nature would have'.  (not to mention having an entire type of roleplay thrust apon you that you may not -as a player- want to deal with. Not that I have anything against 'mush'y ideas like this, I believe Armageddon's code/RP balances is one of its greatest qualities.

Code Select Expand


>ooc concent to pregoroll?

the tall, muscular man says OOC:
"Sure."

>pregoroll amos
You had sex with the tall, muscular man? (Y/N)

>yes
Did you use 'mul mix' or another herbal birth control?

>no
Did you practice coitus interruptus?

>no
You are about to pregoroll.  If you become pregnant, you will get reminder
when you log in as to how far (in Earth time) along your pregnancy is.  If
you become pregnant, but as some point wish to no longer be pregnant,
you are encouraged to roleplay an abortion/cause a miscarriage and send
the log through the request tool to remove the coded reminders or just
ignore them.

Are you sure you want to pregoroll?

>yes

<suspenseful dice roll delay>

You are now pregnant, sucka!



Edited to add: The woman would still have the right to lie about the results, of course.

[AmandaGreathouse]

I still wish there were an optional system for pregnancy dice rolls.
That if you actually WANT to get pregnant you would be encouraged to only do so after a "successful' role.

It would automatically take into account age and race.
It would have questions that follow to provide other modifiers.

Because (from a man's POV) it sucks to have another characters PLAYER decide something that 'nature would have'.  (not to mention having an entire type of roleplay thrust apon you that you may not -as a player- want to deal with. Not that I have anything against 'mush'y ideas like this, I believe Armageddon's code/RP balances is one of its greatest qualities.

Code Select Expand


>ooc concent to pregoroll?

the tall, muscular man says OOC:
"Sure."

>pregoroll amos
You had sex with the tall, muscular man? (Y/N)

>yes
Did you use 'mul mix' or another herbal birth control?

>no
Did you practice coitus interruptus?

>no
You are about to pregoroll.  If you become pregnant, you will get reminder when you log in as to how far (in Earth time) along your pregnancy is.  If you become pregnant, but as some point wish to no longer be pregnant, you are encouraged to roleplay an abortion/cause a miscarriage and send the log through the request tool to remove the coded reminders or just ignore them.

Are you sure you want to pregoroll?

>yes

<suspenseful dice roll delay>

You are now pregnant, sucka!


+1. I love this idea.

I already use a D&D dice roller and roll a d100 for it. But it would be great not to have to navigate away from Arm to do it. Plus the reminders on logging in about how far along your PC is would be awesome.

[Yseulte]

Because (from a man's POV) it sucks to have another characters PLAYER decide something that 'nature would have'.  (not to mention having an entire type of roleplay thrust apon you that you may not -as a player- want to deal with. Not that I have anything against 'mush'y ideas like this, I believe Armageddon's code/RP balances is one of its greatest qualities.

You're very right. It is not right to force a player to be a parent just because another player decides OOCly they want to have their girl be pregnant. Would it be fair for Staff to see you mudsexing and go 'pregnant' even when you didn't want to be? No. Would you be happy if Staff said 'Oh I decided to kill your baby or you're PC died to labor."? It would not be fair, you would not be happy. So why do it to other players if they don't want to be in that position?

Mul-Mix is not 100% as we all know, so a roll system would be really neat for those wanting to chance it, but that still doesn't safeguard those who allow IC relationships but don't want to play being a parent. It shouldn't be forced on a player.

[FantasyWriter]

Did you not see the consent request before the roll in my example?

[Yseulte]

Did you not see the consent request before the roll in my example?

Actually no, now that I have though, its that much better.

[HTX]

I still wish there were an optional system for pregnancy dice rolls.
That if you actually WANT to get pregnant you would be encouraged to only do so after a "successful' role.

I like it.

Maybe with the option to create a non-descript baby object at the end of the pregnancy period? Perhaps an object which can be sold to NPC (or PC of course!) slave traders. If I recall right, staff stopped creating baby objects for players a long time ago, so why not bring them back but make it automated to lift the burden off the staff?

Also, I've had many a characters who would have loved to profit from stealing babies to sell them, or kidnapping them and demanding ransoms, or murdering them as revenge, or otherwise using babies for their own benefit. These activities would be made much more easier and simpler if the babies were coded, not just virtual. Think of the possibilities and plots which could stem from this!

[FantasyWriter]

http://www.zalanthas.org/gdb/index.php/topic,30315.msg334943.html#msg334943

Thanks loon!!!!





lol to those of you who fall for this

[Yseulte]

If I recall right, staff stopped creating baby objects for players a long time ago, so why not bring them back but make it automated to lift the burden off the staff?

Sanvean says why it stopped and why it will not come back here: http://www.zalanthas.org/gdb/index.php/topic,5956.0.html

Just steal vNPC babies from mother PCs. It can be done.

[HTX]

lol to those of you who fall for this

EDIT: Ahh, you're quick - fixed it already!

Sanvean says why it stopped and why it will not come back here

All of these problems can be solved with coded solutions and new policies, especially in Armageddon 2. Maybe I should make a thread in the Armageddon Reborn, if the staff would be willing to review and consider changing this policy in the next game?

[FantasyWriter]

I fixed it, damn it!
lol

[Marauder Moe]

Virtual babies go for virtual coin, which you can spend virtually on virtual booze, virtual food, virtual water, virtual whores, and virtual sand tonic to clean up your virtual STDs, just like the virtual goods your crafter virtually sells when you're logged out, or the virtual hides and meats your ranger virtually hunts up when you're logged out.

If House Borsail was still open, and I was playing in it, I would totally give out real coin for virtual babies.

I would haggle too.  Oh it would be so much fun!

[path]

I miss Borsail.

Once I had a pc who was pregnant and she was planning to sell her baby, after she was unable to find someone with the know how to abort it. At the time I remember that request really freaking some of the other PCs out. Anyway, then she was killed. Slowly, with a knife. So that goes to show about that.

I think magickers should be considered, for the most part, sterile. 

[Lizzie]

What I would love, is for the stigma attached to popular opinion on mages in general, to be exponentially higher among the monsters born unto pregnant mages. So like..in the north, they think all magicks are evil and horrible and not tolerated in their walls...the baby of a mage would be..the equivalent of a thrall. Something so monsterous..vile, scary..world-changingly lethal..that it cannot be allowed to survive. Mages in the north would do everything possible to AVOID ever getting pregnant, assuming they can. And if they were stupid enough to get pregnant anyway, they'd run away and hide their pregnant selves until they could abort the fetus or bury the newborn.

Southern mages, gemmers, would either be affected by the gems and rendered infertile, or their children would automagically be declared property of the Highlord, and whisked off to the Tower, never to be heard from again.

I would also like to remind players that selling babies in the world of Zalanthas is NOT something hideous and unheard of, shocking to discuss, or distasteful in pleasant conversation. It should be considered almost as common as having sex. I've seen RP scenes where a pregnant woman is told not to worry about what's gonna happen to her kid, just sell it..and the pregnant woman invariably goes apeshit asking if the person is heartless and has no love in her soul.

The -kindness- would be for a lower commoner to sell her kid to a higher-class family where the kid could actually be fed, and have less of a chance of being locked in an apartment starving to death because Mommy went out hunting and never came back, and Daddy never wanted the kid in the first place.

So please remember - the notion of selling children in Zalanthas is a perfectly reasonable one, no matter how distasteful it might be in real life. Zalanthas is NOT realism.

[tortall]

Please note that any itchiness or biting/burning sensations that suddenly crop up after an encounter are likely a coded effect, and you should seek an In Character solution to the problem.

I totally had an imm give me crabs before. You guys should do that more often, for the people that sleep around a lot.

I mean, there's not way for the PC/player to know who the other person has been with. If you ask, they'll just lie. Lying the the Zalanthan way. :-D

[Comrade Canadia]

Frankly, if you go back and look at any society we can hope to approximate to Allanak/Tuluk - the most popular way to deal with unwanted children was exposure. Take them out, place them on a rock, and leave them.

Players should just decide if they're pregnant or not. Rolling for pregnancy seems very dungeons & dragons, which is something i feel this game needs to move away from. Not everything needs random rolls.

Let's try to talk child care.

The mindless ravings about how all babies should be sold into slavery or killed because the rp of child care annoys her does have some worth beneath it all. I don't think the game culture really accounts for child care enough, and I'd like some suggestions. My PC has a virtual baby, and I have to beat people up for a living. What do I do with this kid in my spare time? I can't take it -everywhere-.

Ideas:

• Most pre-industrial cultures had community ways of looking after children, often by the elderly. So in tribal cultures, or even in many merchant houses/noble houses, there would likely be facilities to just care for children of employees/tribemates until the kids are big enough to start doing work.
• Apartment buildings may have similar facilities. One virtual space where children of denizens are dropped off like a day care, possibly included as part of the rent. This is less realistic, but would be awfully convenient and wouldn't really be game breaking - just useful for PCs with kids.
• Really vicious places like the rinth would be -more likely- to have these sorts of facilities. In the nastiest, most brutal environments, there's generally more of a sense of community as people need to stick together to survive.
• Players often have family, even extended. Drop the kid off at your parents' place - they've been living near the Barrel for decades now.

Any other ideas?

[FantasyWriter]

I though this thread was about the OOC issue of the female's -PLAYER- getting to force a mature/unwanted situation on the male's -PLAYER- without consent.

Getting rid of babies is no problem IC... if nothing else, cook them and enjoy a good, tender meal.

[brytta.leofa]

If you don't want to "accidentally" have kids, then don't kank IG. Simple as that. Or if your PC is freaked out by kids, make SURE the woman is taking mul mix, and takes it BEFORE EVERY time.

This; also:
  Strongly disagree that consent should be expected here.
  Strongly agree that people shouldn't be ridiculous about pregnancy (well, or anything else).

[Comrade Canadia]

What Brytta said. Requiring parental consent is ridiculous. Not being a moron should be a reasonable expectation though.

[Zoltan]

The idea of a "pregoroll" coded into the game made me gag a little. Players of females: you make the final decision whether or not your character gets pregnant. The pregnancy is virtual, the offspring are vNPCs -- you can use any excuse as to why you get, or avoid getting, pregnant. Players of males: if you get "saddled" with a pregnant lover, just deal with it IC. Again, they're vNPCs... there are myriad ways to deal with things.

[Whiran Luck]

It might be common courtesy, however, to inform your partner of said pregnancy (or admins?) to avoid situations like:

Character XX kanks character XY.
Character XX decides they are pregnant.
After a short while of pregnancy XX tells XY.
Character XY ends up actually being infertile.
Hilarity ensues. Or tears.

[tortall]

In Tortall's derail she implied that my post had nothing to do with this article discussion so I kindly pointed out her mistake with valid points. People can and do speak calmly even when they have opposing ideas.

First off, I NEVER stated that YOU derailed, and secondly, when you posted that you thought that, I -tried- to NOT solve it on the GDB, by nicely, and CALMLY explaining to you that I never thought your post was a derail, but -my- response to it WAS a derail.


MY RESPONSE TO YSEULTE'S POST WAS A DERAIL AND THAT IS WHY I STARTED THIS THREAD


So please stop thinking that everyone is attacking you. We're not. I was calmly disagreeing with your point. I am allowed my opinion, as you are allowed yours.

[Yseulte]

The only one getting upset is you Tortall and clearly the only one thinking I am being attacked is you. The only one making this out to be more then a consent discussion is also you.

Back on topic. It would be nice for Staff to be aware of pregnancies, kind of like a 'mood' section but a 'pregnant, wanting to be pregnant, not wanting to be pregnant, can't get pregnant' type of option.

On top of a roll system, which is growing on me more FW, it would be kind of interesting to have a way to roll on what occurs in the pregnancy or how the pregnancy ends. It would give some more realism if it wasn't up to just one player on whether or not the mother has a perfect pregnancy or miscarries, suffers to severe symptoms of this or that, whether the child is born a mutant, stillborn, too early, if there are multiple births, etc. It wouldn't be in any way faulted to Staff as it would be just a roll of chance and a risk those that want to be pregnant would take.

[spawnloser]

Okay... seriously, why should magickers be any different than anyone else?  Don't give me some explanation of HOW they could be different.  WHY should they be different?

[Lizzie]

I didn't say they should be different. I said the perception by others, of what kind of abomination would result, by a magicker getting pregnant and giving birth, is likely to be significant enough, to cause any pregnant magicker to be extra super duper concerned AND..if that magicker was a northerner..be mortified at what could happen, if they were found out, to be a magicker, AND giving birth to a potential other magicker. Because magicks are so scary and mysterious and non-magickers are the majority of the population and most non-magickers don't know shit about magicks..or dna.or genetics..

Then it just seems to be the logical next step, that a pregnant mage would make every effort possible to NOT let the general public know she's pregnant, and ensure that the baby is safely tucked away before anyone catches on.

not because the baby is different, not because magicker pregnancy is different. But because of "what people would think" if they knew, in a world where magicks are scary, and mysterious, and unknown, and genetics are unknown, and fables and myths and horror stories and superstitions run rampant throughout civilized areas (specifically, Tuluk and Allanak).

[Taven]

Southern mages, gemmers, would either be affected by the gems and rendered infertile, or their children would automagically be declared property of the Highlord, and whisked off to the Tower, never to be heard from again.

Strongly disagree. Gemmers are not slaves. The rest, with the stigma assosicated, is fine.

The -kindness- would be for a lower commoner to sell her kid to a higher-class family where the kid could actually be fed, and have less of a chance of being locked in an apartment starving to death because Mommy went out hunting and never came back, and Daddy never wanted the kid in the first place.

So please remember - the notion of selling children in Zalanthas is a perfectly reasonable one, no matter how distasteful it might be in real life. Zalanthas is NOT realism.

I agree with this, but I don't think thast it's completely unreasonable for a mother to get upset about someone making the suggestion IF it's a baby she wants, or is with her mate, etc.

It might be common courtesy, however, to inform your partner of said pregnancy (or admins?) to avoid situations like:

Character XX kanks character XY.
Character XX decides they are pregnant.
After a short while of pregnancy XX tells XY.
Character XY ends up actually being infertile.
Hilarity ensues. Or tears.

This. I've always wondered about this.

I personally think that having an IG pregnancy roll would be a little odd, but I'd support a webtool or player created tool for this.

More edits for spelling.

[Yseulte]

Southern mages, gemmers, would either be affected by the gems and rendered infertile, or their children would automagically be declared property of the Highlord, and whisked off to the Tower, never to be heard from again.

Strongly disagree. Gemmers are not slaves. The rest, with the stigma assosicated, is fine.

My derail: This (gemmers are not slaves) is an ongoing debate here http://www.zalanthas.org/gdb/index.php/topic,28848.0.html. In my opinion, due to many colorful experiences with them, I believe they are slaves.

I like the idea, Lizzie. It has its merits and makes sense. Human kind has done it before with enslaved cultures, when offspring were born they were whisked away and separated for various reasons. This is a harsh game.

[Lizzie]

Having played a gemmer, I am very comfortable in my opinion that the gem itself -is- a form of enslavement. A gemmer is provided (assuming the templar does his job) with a very explicit, very painful, very specific example of the consequences of straying from the limitations imposed on them. No, they aren't property of anyone in particular. But neither are they free. Their gem is proof of their servitude, which doesn't end until they die. They -cannot- take that gem off. They are enslaved to the gem itself, and according to myth - to Tektolnes by extension. Whether or not there's any truth to the myth is irrelevent. It is the myth that is believed to be true. It is what they are told.

It would be great, to me, if gemmers risked all kinds of significant potential horrors as the result of pregnancy. Whether any of these horrors actualy happen or not doesn't even matter. The FEAR of the possibility should be enough to make the average gemmer avoid becoming pregnant, looking for ways to end accidental pregnancies, and wanting to hide, or destroy, or sell, any mistaken births that result. The average Krathi should be worried sick that her unborn child will burn her from the inside out when she goes into labor. Stories of elrkosans spontaneously combusing should be common, if entirely untrue. Horror stories of rukkian babies turning their mama's uterus to stone and causing them agonizing pain until they die should be the trend. I mean these are freaks of nature, having babies. That -should- be the common opinion. People hearing about healthy newborns of magickers should approach the idea with suspicion...how do they KNOW that the baby won't end up becoming a defiler when he grows up? Because to the average commoner, magicks is magicks. Commoners don't get educated about this stuff.

And there's a lot more commoners than there are anything else in the two cities..and a WHOLE lot more non-magickers than there are magickers. And I'm guessing a whole lot of magickers would be mortified of their own magicks, let alone what might happen if they actually spread their magick seed to someone else, or became a vessel for the next potential Thrall.

This is the kind of scary mysterious freaky shit I don't hear about, or see, that makes me think "why should I care that the neighbor is a magicker? They're just people like everyone else, who cares." I'm saying, there SHOULD be that kind of stigma. It SHOULD be significant enough that the babies are taken away to be experimented on, to ensure that they aren't going to grow up and take Tek's job.

[Taven]

Southern mages, gemmers, would either be affected by the gems and rendered infertile, or their children would automagically be declared property of the Highlord, and whisked off to the Tower, never to be heard from again.

Strongly disagree. Gemmers are not slaves. The rest, with the stigma assosicated, is fine.

My derail: This (gemmers are not slaves) is an ongoing debate here http://www.zalanthas.org/gdb/index.php/topic,28848.0.html. In my opinion, due to many colorful experiences with them, I believe they are slaves.

I like the idea, Lizzie. It has its merits and makes sense. Human kind has done it before with enslaved cultures, when offspring were born they were whisked away and separated for various reasons. This is a harsh game.

They aren't slaves. They may be treated like slaves, but gemmers are not bred or sold. Infact, I think the only house that really openly employs gemmers is Oash. They're a stigma that is best to be avoided, a tool to be used, but not a coveted item.  Borsail does not trade in gemmers, and while they might (might, as in a debateable point) be slaves in all but name, you won't see their babies getting whisked off to the Tower.

It would be great, to me, if gemmers risked all kinds of significant potential horrors as the result of pregnancy. Whether any of these horrors actualy happen or not doesn't even matter. The FEAR of the possibility should be enough to make the average gemmer avoid becoming pregnant, looking for ways to end accidental pregnancies, and wanting to hide, or destroy, or sell, any mistaken births that result. The average Krathi should be worried sick that her unborn child will burn her from the inside out when she goes into labor. Stories of elrkosans spontaneously combusing should be common, if entirely untrue. Horror stories of rukkian babies turning their mama's uterus to stone and causing them agonizing pain until they die should be the trend. I mean these are freaks of nature, having babies. That -should- be the common opinion. People hearing about healthy newborns of magickers should approach the idea with suspicion...how do they KNOW that the baby won't end up becoming a defiler when he grows up? Because to the average commoner, magicks is magicks. Commoners don't get educated about this stuff.

I agree with this. I think it would be great to see that sort of thing. I think that there should, in the gemmer community, be horror stories told about that very thing. Worse, what happens when a baby of two magickal but different element parents is born? A gemmer might believe or come to terms with their power, but what sort of convoluted mix might be created? A krathi could be torn apart from the inside by whiran winds, or the every conception with a krathi and a elkrosian could cause an explosion. I'm very supportive of that idea.

[Lizzie]

That was where the idea of templars taking babies of the gemmed away came from. Just the fear/loathing/horror/potential/mythos involved in the "spawn of the devil" scene...would be enough that there could be a city-wide uprising, if word got out that a templar allowed one of these things to survive.

I was taking the potential for city-changing plotlines to extremes, carrying the "what if" and "wouldn't it be great" idea to what seemed like a very reasonable, natural conclusion.

[Taven]

That was where the idea of templars taking babies of the gemmed away came from. Just the fear/loathing/horror/potential/mythos involved in the "spawn of the devil" scene...would be enough that there could be a city-wide uprising, if word got out that a templar allowed one of these things to survive.

I was taking the potential for city-changing plotlines to extremes, carrying the "what if" and "wouldn't it be great" idea to what seemed like a very reasonable, natural conclusion.

Nah, after all, Templars already let the gemmers live. They'd probably let their babies live, too, though why us commoners can't fathom. That said, it might make an interesting imm plot to change that, but I don't see it the way things are now.

[Dalmeth]

but gemmers are not bred or sold.

This is not the important part.

They may be treated like slaves,

This is.

Gemmers are not bought and sold like slaves because only one entity can own them, the state of Allanak.

[Taven]

but gemmers are not bred or sold.

This is not the important part.

They may be treated like slaves,

This is.

Gemmers are not bought and sold like slaves because only one entity can own them, the state of Allanak.

But they aren't owned. They can leave the city whenever they want (even if they are never beyond punishment's reach), and honestly, slaves would have more respect. A slave is an item belonging to the person in question, a sort of extention of them. A gemmer is useful, but not something you'd want to really be associated with. While I think that the recent dissolving of the council ("recent") brings up the question of how many rights they really do have, they aren't slaves.

I sort of thing of it as, only nobles can read and write, but what about the noble houses? Nenyuk everyone knows keeps transaction slips. But the merchant houses aren't nobility! They're (meaning the respective groups of gemmers and GMH) sort of in a middle state, I think in both cases.

[Lizzie]

They're not a middling state. It's pretty clearly spelled out in the "help read" file:

Please note that literacy is illegal or unknown for most people on the
face of Zalanthas.  While nobles and templars are trained in the arts of
reading and writing and the Merchant Houses pass along a knowledge of how
to write the trade-ciphers associated with Cavilish to their agents and
merchants, it is considered treason for common citizens to possess such
knowledge within the city-states of Zalanthas.

Agents and Merchants of Greater Merchant Houses -do- and -are allowed- to be capable of reading and writing Cavilish, specifically. This is something generally known, though _probably_ impolite to boast about in public - so you wouldn't normally see a Nenyuki writing in her diary in the Gaj...but in her own place of business such as the bank, it would not seem out of place, or gape-inspiring, or templar-inducing.

[Yseulte]

But they aren't owned. They can leave the city whenever they want (even if they are never beyond punishment's reach), and honestly, slaves would have more respect. A slave is an item belonging to the person in question, a sort of extention of them. A gemmer is useful, but not something you'd want to really be associated with. While I think that the recent dissolving of the council ("recent") brings up the question of how many rights they really do have, they aren't slaves.

They are owned. Allanak owns them. Tektolnes owns them in the gem they wear. You're power is a slave to him. (Some commoner slaves can leave cities too, it depends on their relationship with their owners.) They can leave the city, but have you ever stopped to think that little gem could be a homing device? Maybe its a power tap and Tektolnes feeds off of it? Maybe he can see everything and anything you do while you wear it? If you wore a collar and if you knew you'd die in removing it, how are you even remotely free? If there is a war you don't have a choice to not fight in it, you're thrown out at the front and told to use your spells or die right there. Anyone seeing you gemmed knows you belong to Allanak. There are many, many IC beliefs around that gem to ungemmed magickers who live in the wild.

Templars and nobles can order you to do anything, you specifically among all other commoners. You can be denied freedom to leave the city. You can be denied freedom to leave your quarter. You can be denied to use your elemental connection.

I would love to see templars for no reason other then being bored round up a few gemmers, throw them in the arena, tell them to fight to the death and the winner gets freedom from the gem. And guess what? Freedom from the gem is death.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

Excellent viewpoint.

Also, your avatar rocks. What is it from?

[Yseulte]

Excellent viewpoint.

Also, your avatar rocks. What is it from?

A friend made it from a commercial for one of those daytime soaps.

Nah, after all, Templars already let the gemmers live. They'd probably let their babies live, too, though why us commoners can't fathom. That said, it might make an interesting imm plot to change that, but I don't see it the way things are now.

Why would they let their babies live? Why would a Templar spend the 'sid on a baby that has no magickal connection (you don't 'blossom' until puberty if you are a magicker)? And when I say spend the 'sid, the quarter is kept up by the city, possible some gemmers themselves. Having a baby could potentially limit the work that gemmer can do for whatever amount of time if said offspring is kept. It makes sense to take gemmer babies away. Hell, what if the higher-ups in your temple did it to save room for actual magickers to survive on what means the quarter can supply? It would be interesting to play out. Sure, some players would be very upset to lose their vNPC baby but this is a harsh game. I like the risks.

[Taven]

But they aren't owned. They can leave the city whenever they want (even if they are never beyond punishment's reach), and honestly, slaves would have more respect. A slave is an item belonging to the person in question, a sort of extention of them. A gemmer is useful, but not something you'd want to really be associated with. While I think that the recent dissolving of the council ("recent") brings up the question of how many rights they really do have, they aren't slaves.

I would love to see templars for no reason other then being bored round up a few gemmers, throw them in the arena, tell them to fight to the death and the winner gets freedom from the gem. And guess what? Freedom from the gem is death.

I almost feel like I'm arguing that a slave would be higher-classed then a gemmer. You might trust a slave, but trusting a gemmer (unless you're trusting in your power over them) is highly, highly unlikely. You don't breed them, you don't sell them. Heck, slaves get food, and gemmers don't. They have to do jobs to earn food, although they do get places to stay. Anyone can hire a gemmer, although it's unlikely just anyone would want to, due to the stigma attached. Unlike a slave, they don't have to just work exlcusively for their owners. They can pick, although they are subject to very harsh laws. While the gem casts who knows how much power over them that they know and feel, I don't think it would be ridiculous, if not exactly on par, to comparing it to other holds. Tuluk, for example, marks all of it's people with tattoos. We don't see anything bad ever happen about this, because the people are supposed to love the templarate, blah blah. But who knows what could be there?

Gemmers certainly have it worse then the average citizen, and there's no arguing that, but I don't think that this makes them equivlent to slaves.

...And I think we've derailed a derailing of another thread.

[path]

I would love to see templars for no reason other then being bored round up a few gemmers, throw them in the arena, tell them to fight to the death and the winner gets freedom from the gem. And guess what? Freedom from the gem is death.

This is the most delightful idea.

[Salt Merchant]

[I would love to see templars for no reason other then being bored round up a few gemmers, throw them in the arena, tell them to fight to the death and the winner gets freedom from the gem. And guess what? Freedom from the gem is death.

I'd say gemmers are already treated close enough to disposable commodities by templars as it is. They're not gladiator characters, created with the presumption of near immediate death.

Nor are gemmers slaves. Think about the life of a slave. Every day they perform rote labor that benefits only their owners. They aren't allowed any possessions without explicit permission. They aren't allowed to work for coin or for their own benefit. They do not leave the city at their own leisure. They're mostly given only filthy living conditions and poor food. They don't have to scratch out a living from the city economy.

The gem is not a slave's collar.

[Dalmeth]

I almost feel like I'm arguing that a slave would be higher-classed then a gemmer.

You're sticking to a rather rigid definition of slave.  There have been many different forms of slavery over the history of mankind.  No one is saying that gemmers are treated the same as the slave that serves the Lords and Ladies of Allanak their wine.  What they do share is the state standing over their shoulder like no commoner knows.

You might trust a slave, but trusting a gemmer (unless you're trusting in your power over them) is highly, highly unlikely. You don't breed them, you don't sell them. Heck, slaves get food, and gemmers don't. They have to do jobs to earn food, although they do get places to stay. Anyone can hire a gemmer, although it's unlikely just anyone would want to, due to the stigma attached. Unlike a slave, they don't have to just work exlcusively for their owners. They can pick, although they are subject to very harsh laws.

You don't think the state of Allanak works to maintain that stigma?  By the way, you are wrong.  They don't get to decide who they work for.  Do you really think that when a Lord Templar comes calling, they really have a choice?  They drop everything they're doing and get to it, or they're going to suffer whatever the templar decides they'll suffer.  What are the chances they'll be let off lightly?

While the gem casts who knows how much power over them that they know and feel, I don't think it would be ridiculous, if not exactly on par, to comparing it to other holds. Tuluk, for example, marks all of it's people with tattoos. We don't see anything bad ever happen about this, because the people are supposed to love the templarate, blah blah. But who knows what could be there?

There is no comparison with the Tuluki caste tattoos.  They are worn with pride.  They are symbols of allegiance and descent and not ownership.  Even in the case of slaves,   If commoners were the only ones to wear them, you may have a point, but they aren't.  They're a part of an extended system that all in Tuluk wear as a matter of social order.

Gemmers certainly have it worse then the average citizen, and there's no arguing that, but I don't think that this makes them equivlent to slaves.

Generally, any difference in rights and legal treatment creates a slave class.  To some degree, even commoners are slaves.  The purpose of nobility is to limit the pool of people clawing for political power and the social turmoil that results from that.

I'd say gemmers are already treated close enough to disposable commodities by templars as it is. They're not gladiator characters, created with the presumption of near immediate death.

Templars do this to commoners as is.  Are you saying that Templars should treat gemmers as more valuable than commoners?  I think not, but you're getting awfully close.

Nor are gemmers slaves. Think about the life of a slave. Every day they perform rote labor that benefits only their owners. They aren't allowed any possessions without explicit permission. They aren't allowed to work for coin or for their own benefit. They do not leave the city at their own leisure. They're mostly given only filthy living conditions and poor food. They don't have to scratch out a living from the city economy.

You're sticking too closely to a rigid definition of slavery.  I'll again say they are not the same as the other slave class of Allanak.  Most of what you mentioned are not merely arbitrary points of cruelty, tossed in because their owners are incompetent, but methods of control.  Allanak's control over its gemmer population is absolute through the gem they wear around their neck.

The gem is not a slave's collar.

Gemmers are given an entire quarter where they can largely be gemmers.  They are even given temples where they are not just allowed to cast spells, but encouraged.  Gemmers are given everything they need to be useful to the Templarate.  Survival of any large portion of the gemmer population is not a necessity, and so the state does not provide for it.  If at any point they stray from this plan, that gem comes into play.  If it is not a slave's collar, what is it?

[brytta.leofa]

I would love to see templars for no reason other then being bored round up a few gemmers, throw them in the arena, tell them to fight to the death and the winner gets freedom from the gem. And guess what? Freedom from the gem is death.

New poll: how many ways does any pair of gemmed elementalists have to indirectly kill blue robes? It's kind of a neat idea, but I think this is bad harshness.  (Good harshness is, more or less, when you cross a predictable line and get nailed hard.)

You realize that we're derailing the derail.

[Salt Merchant]

Templars do this to commoners as is.  Are you saying that Templars should treat gemmers as more valuable than commoners?  I think not, but you're getting awfully close.

Commoners are not treated this way. Templars never walk into the Gaj, say "I'm bored, you, you and you, fight to the death". Long ago, it used to be more this way, with templars killing people on a whim, but now their behavior is much more restrained than that.

What happened back then when certain templars started handing death out so arbitrarily? PCs would simply vacate the city until the templar died or disappeared.

You're sticking too closely to a rigid definition of slavery.  I'll again say they are not the same as the other slave class of Allanak.  Most of what you mentioned are not merely arbitrary points of cruelty, tossed in because their owners are incompetent, but methods of control.  Allanak's control over its gemmer population is absolute through the gem they wear around their neck.

The control over the commoner population is just as absolute through soldiers and swords. For both gemmed and commoners, it's do what you want except for breaking the law. It's just that the average gemmer is more dangerous than the average commoner, thus the extra security.

Gemmers are given an entire quarter where they can largely be gemmers.  They are even given temples where they are not just allowed to cast spells, but encouraged.  Gemmers are given everything they need to be useful to the Templarate.  Survival of any large portion of the gemmer population is not a necessity, and so the state does not provide for it.  If at any point they stray from this plan, that gem comes into play.  If it is not a slave's collar, what is it?

I see the elementalist's quarter as being more a matter of segregation from an unwelcoming commoner populace. It prevents problems from developing through proximity.

Certainly they can be useful to the templarate. On the other hand, it's quite possible to live out a life as a gemmer without ever serving as artillery or without ever even being approached by a templar since acquiring the gem. During the Copper War, for instance, the templars didn't force anyone to go when they passed through the Quarter, recruiting. The gemmed are normally free to do precisely what they want. Nothing forces them to cast a single time and develop their abilities. They are not chattel to any individual. Frankly, the militia more resemble slaves than they do.

The gemmed have had their own organization (CAM) and lost it only through political manipulation. They've been allowed to contract out their services to parties other than the templarate, without having to share the profits from those endeavors with the Highlord or the templarate. Templars have customarily paid gemmed for their services in the past. None of this seems very slavelike to me.

[Yseulte]

Templars do this to commoners as is.  Are you saying that Templars should treat gemmers as more valuable than commoners?  I think not, but you're getting awfully close.

Commoners are not treated this way. Templars never walk into the Gaj, say "I'm bored, you, you and you, fight to the death". Long ago, it used to be more this way, with templars killing people on a whim, but now their behavior is much more restrained than that.

And you know it 'never' happens how? Are you always in the Gaj? Do you watch every Templar? What about NPC and vNPC Templars or does virtual fighting not count? When I play in Allanak I like to think it does as that city-state is meant to be a more brutal, in-your-face environment.

I for one would love to see Templars do this. Whether its with commoners, northerners or my personal enjoyment; gemmers.

What happened back then when certain templars started handing death out so arbitrarily? PCs would simply vacate the city until the templar died or disappeared.

No. Players chose to vacate the city. A PC death everyday by any one Templar would get old and piss plenty of players off, but a well-played, unpredictable Templar who randomly decides to throw PCs into the arena would be very interesting to watch and experience.

[spawnloser]

Not if you were in the targeted group, which is what is being suggested... targetting gemmers because they might have more gemmer babies.  Gemmers are useful, which is why they're allowed to live with the controls placed upon them by the templars.  The templars don't care if there are more gemmers except that more gemmers means more useful people to get under control and make do things for them.

Additionally, many magickers are fully convinced that they are superman/woman because of the power they wield that a normal person does not.  Normal people have a similar opinion of magickers, except that opinion isn't one that may induce pride in a gemmer friend but fear of the gemmer non-friend.  It's not a long step to make for gemmers to WANT to have more magicker babies.

[Dalmeth]

Commoners are not treated this way. Templars never walk into the Gaj, say "I'm bored, you, you and you, fight to the death". Long ago, it used to be more this way, with templars killing people on a whim, but now their behavior is much more restrained than that.

They never say that, but it's happened to me on a few occasions.  Admittedly, I managed to squeeze out each time, and it was a Templar's representative that dragged me in on some trumped up charge, but there was always someone else waiting to go into the arena with me.  It was fantastic each time.

The control over the commoner population is just as absolute through soldiers and swords. For both gemmed and commoners, it's do what you want except for breaking the law. It's just that the average gemmer is more dangerous than the average commoner, thus the extra security.

A commoner can walk into the Rinth and largely be free of the laws of Allanak.  Also, once they're outside the city walls, they're again largely on their own. [IC Info removed by Nyr.]

I see the elementalist's quarter as being more a matter of segregation from an unwelcoming commoner populace. It prevents problems from developing through proximity.

Yes.  They protect their property.  Is the Elementalist's Quarter anything other than a ghetto?  You keep pointing out these narrow circumstances. I'm pointing out the consequences of those circumstances.  Slaves are always kept separate from the general populace, ostensibly for protection.  Can you name any situation where this wasn't the case?

Certainly they can be useful to the templarate. On the other hand, it's quite possible to live out a life as a gemmer without ever serving as artillery or without ever even being approached by a templar since acquiring the gem. During the Copper War, for instance, the templars didn't force anyone to go when they passed through the Quarter, recruiting. The gemmed are normally free to do precisely what they want. Nothing forces them to cast a single time and develop their abilities. They are not chattel to any individual.

Stress normally.  They are normally free to do anything they want until they garner a templar's attention.  You also just said they are often treated like disposable commodities.  Isn't that awfully close to chattel?

A slave can go their entire lives simply performing the duties that maintain the lifestyle of their fellow slaves.  They can never lift a finger to do anything that ever directly benefits their overseers.  That doesn't make them free.

Also, I wouldn't want to force anyone onto a battlefield that didn't want to be there. So, can you answer me, yes or no, whether the Elementalist's Quarter functions as a breeding place for this artillery-class mage?

Frankly, the militia more resemble slaves than they do.

That's because we expect them to be on duty every day for the entirety of their lives.  Don't make me go into that one.

The gemmed have had their own organization (CAM) and lost it only through political manipulation.

If the CAM was disbanded because they lost permission, it was never really theirs to begin with.

They've been allowed to contract out their services to parties other than the templarate, without having to share the profits from those endeavors with the Highlord or the templarate.

Commoners can do all these things too, but all those profits and other property are subject to seizure without reparation by the state of Allanak.  Just like everyone else who isn't a noble.

Templars have customarily paid gemmed for their services in the past. None of this seems very slavelike to me.

I've seen slaves (bought and collared) given gifts of gear and other tidbits when they perform above par.  It's nothing unusual, and it is not a reliable distinction between a slave and a free man.

Let me put this in another way.  A commoner with no magickal ability doesn't have to wear a gem.  They are free to move to Red Storm, Luir's, or even Tuluk.  There is no such thing, legally speaking, as a commoner with magickal abilities in Allanak.  They're either an elementalist with a gem or about to die.  From the moment they put on the gem, they belong to Tektolnes forever.  Period.  End of story.

Why are you so against this interpretation?  You aren't producing many facts.  Technically, everyone but the God-Kings themselves are slaves.  Gemmers are even supposed to be looked down upon.  The gem is an everpresent symbol and reality of Allanak's more personal control over them.  What gives?

[Dalmeth]

Gemmers are useful, which is why they're allowed to live with the controls placed upon them by the templars.  The templars don't care if there are more gemmers except that more gemmers means more useful people to get under control and make do things for them.

Except for one thing, as Salt Merchant pointed out, not every magicker is really useful.  The gemmer spamcasting in the temples are a player invention.  The ones the Templars want are the cream of the crop.

[Is Friday]

Commoners are not treated this way. Templars never walk into the Gaj, say "I'm bored, you, you and you, fight to the death". Long ago, it used to be more this way, with templars killing people on a whim, but now their behavior is much more restrained than that.

This has happened to 3 of my PCs. Twice, it was to characters with under 1 day of play. All three times my characters lived, and one was enslaved to the militia for life. Fun stuff.

[Salt Merchant]

They never say that, but it's happened to me on a few occasions.  Admittedly, I managed to squeeze out each time, and it was a Templar's representative that dragged me in on some trumped up charge, but there was always someone else waiting to go into the arena with me.  It was fantastic each time.

The fact that you escaped each time (as did Is Friday) is a good indication that you didn't end up fighting to the death in the arena after all, which is what Yseulte in her bloodlust for arbitrary mage death was describing.

The control over the commoner population is just as absolute through soldiers and swords. For both gemmed and commoners, it's do what you want except for breaking the law. It's just that the average gemmer is more dangerous than the average commoner, thus the extra security.

A commoner can walk into the Rinth and largely be free of the laws of Allanak.  Also, once they're outside the city walls, they're again largely on their own.  Gemmers, though, can get their magickal little heads popped from the other side of the world.  That is a demonstrably a greater degree of control.

1. I'm not sure that this is actually true.
2. Getting too IC.  
3. It doesn't really counter the point I was making. If a templar wants a commoner dead, he can post a bounty and hire assassins (ironically, those assassins are often gemmed). The gemmed are no more slaves than the mundane commoners are in this regard.

I see the elementalist's quarter as being more a matter of segregation from an unwelcoming commoner populace. It prevents problems from developing through proximity.

Yes.  They protect their property.  Is the Elementalist's Quarter anything other than a ghetto?  You keep pointing out these narrow circumstances. I'm pointing out the consequences of those circumstances.  Slaves are always kept separate from the general populace, ostensibly for protection.  Can you name any situation where this wasn't the case?

I don't believe the templarate much cares about protecting the gemmed. In fact, I've seen certain templars deliberately remove soldiers from the gemmed quarter. What they're doing is preventing annoying trouble between commoners and gemmed, and preventing the commoners from being stirred up by displays of magick.

Certainly they can be useful to the templarate. On the other hand, it's quite possible to live out a life as a gemmer without ever serving as artillery or without ever even being approached by a templar since acquiring the gem. During the Copper War, for instance, the templars didn't force anyone to go when they passed through the Quarter, recruiting. The gemmed are normally free to do precisely what they want. Nothing forces them to cast a single time and develop their abilities. They are not chattel to any individual.

Stress normally.  They are normally free to do anything they want until they garner a templar's attention.  You also just said they are often treated like disposable commodities.  Isn't that awfully close to chattel?

Commoners also have to follow a templar's orders. There's no difference, except that gemmed are more useful and so get called upon more often.

The point I was making about being disposable commodities is that it's the gemmed that are most often called upon and thrust into dangers at a templar's whim. Whenever the latest superfoe pops up, the gemmed are hauled out first. That should be enough to satisfy Yseulte's bloodthirst. But I'd call that conscription rather than slavery.

A slave can go their entire lives simply performing the duties that maintain the lifestyle of their fellow slaves.  They can never lift a finger to do anything that ever directly benefits their overseers.  That doesn't make them free.

I'd say this point is truly grasping at straws. Such slaves are still serving their owner's purposes.

Whereas a gemmed can do nothing at all and live a life of perfect leisure as it pleases them. Except for conscription, if it ever even happens.

Also, I wouldn't want to force anyone onto a battlefield that didn't want to be there.

Now you're throwing away the one argument you really have, which is that the service is involuntary and therefore slavery.

It often isn't involuntary; the templar will ask a particular gemmed to enter his service or to do a task for a fee. Gemmed can and have said no. Again, not like slavery.

The gemmed have had their own organization (CAM) and lost it only through political manipulation.

If the CAM was disbanded because they lost permission, it was never really theirs to begin with.

The fact that CAM came to an end doesn't mean it didn't exist for many years and do business, all with the knowledge of the templarate. Can't erase history with a senatorial edict.

They've been allowed to contract out their services to parties other than the templarate, without having to share the profits from those endeavors with the Highlord or the templarate.

Commoners can do all these things too, but all those profits and other property are subject to seizure without reparation by the state of Allanak.  Just like everyone else who isn't a noble.

Except for slaves who cannot not run their own business and take profit from them and keep the proceeds rather than passing them over to their owner.

Templars have customarily paid gemmed for their services in the past. None of this seems very slavelike to me.

I've seen slaves (bought and collared) given gifts of gear and other tidbits when they perform above par.  It's nothing unusual, and it is not a reliable distinction between a slave and a free man.

There is a distinction between a payment to a hireling and a gift to a slave. Payments are agreed upon in advance, for one thing. Payments can be expected for service, for another thing.

Let me put this in another way.  A commoner with no magickal ability doesn't have to wear a gem.  They are free to move to Red Storm, Luir's, or even Tuluk.  There is no such thing, legally speaking, as a commoner with magickal abilities in Allanak.  They're either an elementalist with a gem or about to die.  From the moment they put on the gem, they belong to Tektolnes forever.  Period.  End of story.

I've seen nothing in the documentation that supports your claim that they belong to Tektolnes. Quote me some documention or quote a staff member's official opinion that supports this and I'll concede this point. Otherwise, it's simply your own invention.

Why are you so against this interpretation?  You aren't producing many facts.  Technically, everyone but the God-Kings themselves are slaves.  Gemmers are even supposed to be looked down upon.  The gem is an everpresent symbol and reality of Allanak's more personal control over them.  What gives?

I've produced plenty of points in support of my viewpoint, you just don't acknowledge them. Your interpretation of slavery seems to amount to anyone whom another has complete authority over. That is not the same thing as being personal property (chattel). I will grant you that the gemmed don't have any special status relative to commoners, but I would not define either commoners or gemmed to be slaves.

There are slaves in Allanak and they are not gemmed nor commoners. They have specific owners and very limited existences. They are a very different class of being.

Presently, the templarate often doesn't care if the gemmed live or die. If the gemmed are officially declared to be slaves, I can forsee the templarate changing to treating them that way. Other organizations would stop hiring them even under the table. No payment for service (but still no food and water provided). No giving the gemmed a choice about service. Impossible to set one's own goals (not allowed to own or do anything). Not allowed to leave the city because that would be threatening the Highlord's property. Excluded from the taverns. Basically characters of six guilds all being forced into one singular role: magicky slave. It's been repeatedly pointed out on the GDB how boring playing the role of a slave can be. No thanks.

[Is Friday]

The fact that you escaped each time (as did Is Friday) is a good indication that you didn't end up fighting to the death in the arena after all, which is what Yseulte in her bloodlust for arbitrary mage death was describing.

Yeah, they did fight to the death. Only, my character isn't the one who died.

[Pale Horse]

Sooooo....how about that pregnancy article, eh?  And the derail that came off of it.  Interesting stuff, yeah?

[Jingo]

Sooooo....how about that pregnancy article, eh?  And the derail that came off of it.  Interesting stuff, yeah?

Can't do.

Too busy arguing semantics.

p.s.

Gemmers are not a slave role.

[Salt Merchant]

The fact that you escaped each time (as did Is Friday) is a good indication that you didn't end up fighting to the death in the arena after all, which is what Yseulte in her bloodlust for arbitrary mage death was describing.

Yeah, they did fight to the death. Only, my character isn't the one who died.

You've had two one-day olds characters that triumphed in fights to the death? You must be good.

[Marauder Moe]

So, in short... don't mess with baby gemmers or pregnant templars?

[Pale Horse]

So, in short... don't mess with baby gemmers or pregnant templars?

A pregnant Templar?

...Do they really exist?

*shudders*

[Taven]

Sooooo....how about that pregnancy article, eh?  And the derail that came off of it.  Interesting stuff, yeah?

...And I think we've derailed a derailing of another thread.

We have skillz.

[Is Friday]

The fact that you escaped each time (as did Is Friday) is a good indication that you didn't end up fighting to the death in the arena after all, which is what Yseulte in her bloodlust for arbitrary mage death was describing.

Yeah, they did fight to the death. Only, my character isn't the one who died.

You've had two one-day olds characters that triumphed in fights to the death? You must be good.

The best. 

[spawnloser]

Gemmers are useful, which is why they're allowed to live with the controls placed upon them by the templars.  The templars don't care if there are more gemmers except that more gemmers means more useful people to get under control and make do things for them.

Except for one thing, as Salt Merchant pointed out, not every magicker is really useful.  The gemmer spamcasting in the temples are a player invention.  The ones the Templars want are the cream of the crop.

I cry bullshit.  There are all sorts of tasks I have seen gemmers used for that don't require the cream of the crop.  Every magicker is useful, so long as the player knows how to make their character useful.  I'm not talking about super secret stuff, either.  I'm talking about taking advantage of that elementalists perks/skills that make him/her better at certain things than other people.

Additionally, you can get to being the cream of the crop without spamcasting, let alone spamcasting in temples.  Spamcasting in temples is the chumpy way to do it, and not only that, having never used any of your spells in a live situation, you'll never understand how to use them in live situations.  I played a gemmer that made it to cream of the crop without every spamcasting in my temple.  My character's life was lived, my character doing things like work and explore and make deals and meet people and kill stuff and all the rest.

[Jingo]

Gemmers are useful, which is why they're allowed to live with the controls placed upon them by the templars.  The templars don't care if there are more gemmers except that more gemmers means more useful people to get under control and make do things for them.

Except for one thing, as Salt Merchant pointed out, not every magicker is really useful.  The gemmer spamcasting in the temples are a player invention.  The ones the Templars want are the cream of the crop.

I cry bullshit.  There are all sorts of tasks I have seen gemmers used for that don't require the cream of the crop.  Every magicker is useful, so long as the player knows how to make their character useful.  I'm not talking about super secret stuff, either.  I'm talking about taking advantage of that elementalists perks/skills that make him/her better at certain things than other people.

Additionally, you can get to being the cream of the crop without spamcasting, let alone spamcasting in temples.  Spamcasting in temples is the chumpy way to do it, and not only that, having never used any of your spells in a live situation, you'll never understand how to use them in live situations.  I played a gemmer that made it to cream of the crop without every spamcasting in my temple.  My character's life was lived, my character doing things like work and explore and make deals and meet people and kill stuff and all the rest.

I've done this before with a hidden mage. I'll admit it's fun, but I don't see how you can actually develope any magickal skills that way.

I spent almost 20 days with that character, who was probably better with the haggle and listen skill than any spells.

[Dalmeth]

I cry bullshit.  There are all sorts of tasks I have seen gemmers used for that don't require the cream of the crop.  Every magicker is useful, so long as the player knows how to make their character useful.  I'm not talking about super secret stuff, either.  I'm talking about taking advantage of that elementalists perks/skills that make him/her better at certain things than other people.

Additionally, you can get to being the cream of the crop without spamcasting, let alone spamcasting in temples.  Spamcasting in temples is the chumpy way to do it, and not only that, having never used any of your spells in a live situation, you'll never understand how to use them in live situations.  I played a gemmer that made it to cream of the crop without every spamcasting in my temple.  My character's life was lived, my character doing things like work and explore and make deals and meet people and kill stuff and all the rest.

Alright.  Let me rephrase.  The gemmer who persistently improves their skills in magick is largely a player invention.  Admittedly, it's encouraged by the way the skills are set up, but still, the majority of gemmers are probably not all that good at all with magick.

[spawnloser]

I disagree.  I believe that the magickers of the world are just like everybody else... some young kids, some slackers, some dedicated practitioners.  I'm sure the v/NPC popular has a distribution of 'how skilled they be' similar to all the non-magickers of the world... some good at a few things, some good at all, some excellent and some others that insist on sucking it up like a pro.  That's human nature.

Also, there are PCs that don't practice their spells and end up remaining some schmuck that's barely useful, just like the other low to middling powered characters that just happen to be v/NPCs.

[Dalmeth]

I believe that the magickers of the world are just like everybody else... some young kids, some slackers, some dedicated practitioners.  I'm sure the v/NPC popular has a distribution of 'how skilled they be' similar to all the non-magickers of the world... some good at a few things, some good at all, some excellent and some others that insist on sucking it up like a pro.  That's human nature.

Also, there are PCs that don't practice their spells and end up remaining some schmuck that's barely useful, just like the other low to middling powered characters that just happen to be v/NPCs.

That would be my point.  The average gemmer is not really all that more useful than the average commoner, given the wide range of ability that should be present in the population.  They may know a few spells, but are they truly reliable in the realm of what a templar would want to use them for?  I'd say most are not.  Your assertion that the average gemmer is more useful than your average commoner is based on the idea that gemmer has been working on their spells, an idea in part inspired by the lack of skill degradation.  A PC's skills always improve over a given stretch of time, so the average gemmer PC has more potential than your average commoner PC in terms of raw power.

[MarshallDFX]

Just to make a light point, on the subject of pregnancy rolls.  I would only see this necessary, if there was a surplus of sex, and a severe lack of pregnancy.

In my character's experience, it seems to be completely the opposite.   

[jhunter]

Commoners are not treated this way. Templars never walk into the Gaj, say "I'm bored, you, you and you, fight to the death". Long ago, it used to be more this way, with templars killing people on a whim, but now their behavior is much more restrained than that.

This has happened to 3 of my PCs. Twice, it was to characters with under 1 day of play. All three times my characters lived, and one was enslaved to the militia for life. Fun stuff.

Yeah, I think I liked it more when it was more likely that a templar might do something like this.

[spawnloser]

I believe that the magickers of the world are just like everybody else... some young kids, some slackers, some dedicated practitioners.  I'm sure the v/NPC popular has a distribution of 'how skilled they be' similar to all the non-magickers of the world... some good at a few things, some good at all, some excellent and some others that insist on sucking it up like a pro.  That's human nature.

Also, there are PCs that don't practice their spells and end up remaining some schmuck that's barely useful, just like the other low to middling powered characters that just happen to be v/NPCs.

That would be my point.  The average gemmer is not really all that more useful than the average commoner, given the wide range of ability that should be present in the population.  They may know a few spells, but are they truly reliable in the realm of what a templar would want to use them for?  I'd say most are not.  Your assertion that the average gemmer is more useful than your average commoner is based on the idea that gemmer has been working on their spells, an idea in part inspired by the lack of skill degradation.  A PC's skills always improve over a given stretch of time, so the average gemmer PC has more potential than your average commoner PC in terms of raw power.

No, that would not be your point.  I'm saying that they have a similar range of skill.  However, even the lowest-skilled magicker of any element can do things no normal can do.