Derail of Discussion of Pregnancy Article

[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.