Commoner Mating in Zalanthas (Monogamy or not and other topics)

[Taven]

[...]

With regards to commoners though, I don't think there's a place for it at all in Zalanthas. Personally I feel most "mated" situations are already often pushing the borders of what's acceptable, simply because we bring our real-life experiences into it. Concepts of monogamy in general push the boundaries of documentation and the entire flavor of Zalanthas. In a world of murder, corruption and betrayal, love has very little breathing room. What "mate" should imply, but often doesn't, is simply, "This is who I find it advantageous to have sex with right now, and I care about them to the extent that I care about my own self-preservation and interests." I would argue that monogamy itself between "mates" isn't even necessary, and should only be adhered to if one of the two raises a big enough stink about it. And even then, the party raising the stink should be aware of how unusual their feelings are in relation to the rest of the world. Even couples that have children wouldn't need to necessarily remain monogamous, unless either or both parties couldn't financially sustain more mates or children. Tribes are the only exception to this in some regards, because as with most things, they have their own traditions and ways of handling social situations and each one is different. The tribal docs have dealt with this well I think though, and serve their purpose.

[...]

I think we really need a separate thread for what is and isn't normal for mating in Zalanthas.

What's wrong with monogamy in-game? If you think about it, Zalanthas sex isn't clean. Mul mix might prevent pregnancy, but it doesn't prevent STDs. Also, in a world where everyone can kill you by getting you alone into private places, which you do to kank... Sleeping with just one person really isn't so crazy.

Love is perfectly possible in Zalanthas, as well. Maybe you'll get stabbed in the back and die to horrific betrayal because you were fooled, but maybe your partner actually feels the same way, and does have strong feelings for you. In my opinion, the people a PC loves are one of the reasons they might be motivated TO murder others, corrupt others, or betray others.

To my knowledge, there aren't any docs on what a "normal" attitude for a Zalanthian to have about sex is at the purely commoner level. It's open to interpretation.

[Zoltan]

I think love exists in Zalanthas. I think just about any "mating" arrangement is valid (excluding marriage for commoners, which I think should be the province of upper society for reasons already outlined in the other thread). The way I've always taken it, and played it myself, is that there is no "normal" or majority-accepted way for these things to play out. I've had monogamous types, those that kanked but a small circle of good friends, and those that kanked anything that moved. I think it's fair for someone in a sexual relationship to want to keep it monogamous, and it's fair to... not.

I just want to say again that I disagree with the idea that Zalanthas is just too "harsh" for love to develop between people. Who better to face the terrible world with than with your beloved partner(s)? Of course, they may betray your love, and turn on you, etc, etc. Welcome to Armageddon? Like Taven said, love can be a hell of a motivator.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

Oh yeah.  There's love. We know why Allanak is named Allanak. Love is an emotion even animals feel in our world. Zalanthas is full of reasons not to love, but there will always be reasons a special somebody cracks your cold dry heart.

[Wish]

I'd like to shy away from making very specific blanket statements about what the typical Zalanthan will think about monogamy or mating.

Here's what I mean by that - 

A "general" blanket statement regarding monogamy: Many zalanthans do not find it practical to mate for life.
A "specific" blanket statement regarding monogamy: Many zalanthans do not find it practical to mate for life, because life is too harsh and cruel to love anyone that much, and everyone is invariably self-involved and bitter and downtrodden and focused only on their own survival, and people in zalanthas can't even be monogamous to their boots.

There's too many people in Zalanthas to be that specific. There's too many different stories to tell to be that specific. Besides, ruling out love as a storytelling device is like ruling out algebra from a mathbook - it's a pretty basic, fundamental element of stories about people and life.

[MeTekillot]

how can you be monogamous when there are only two to three layers of fabric separating your genitals from that cute stranger at the bar?

[Jherlen]

how can you be monogamous when there are only two to three layers of fabric separating your genitals from that cute stranger at the bar?

Well that's true in real life too, and some people somehow manage.

[a french mans shirt]

Must I go into the game and make a love story so twisted and horrible that no one will ever think twice about questioning love's place in Armageddon ever again?

Yeah, no. No, I'm not close to that good. I was just saying, you know? Actually, I think I did that once. Made a pretty messed-up shit that was based on mate-love. Just not in a way that everyone would catch.

[Drayab]

Love is quite a good motivator for all three of murder, corruption, and betrayal.

Zalanthas has a deliciously unique take on marriage, if you can even call it that, but this in no way is meant to imply that love doesn't have a role to play in a harsh world. Sorry, this just reminds me of one of my favorite poems.

Some say the world will end in fire,
Some say in ice.
From what I've tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To say that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice

[Dresan]

Zalanthians are able to feel a wide range of emotions including jealousy, greed, envy and yes even love. They can feel empathy and even sypathize.  Every once in a while I feel there is this push to make zalanthians into these unfeeling sociopaths. The world is harsh and survival tough but people still manage to live their merger lives. Besides, the game can only take so many brooding cold people in corners who never want to talk, socialize or interact in any way before it becomes kinda dull to play.  

As for mating and mates, I think people have been doing it right so far. In so much that it is no ones business what you and your partner have agreed upon in terms of your relationship. Some people are more greedy, cautious and/or possessive so monogomy might work for them while other might just not want to see their loving stinking of breed or elf sweat but everyone else plus oxen are fine. Every character is different and every relationship can be very different too in game as well. There shouldn't be one right way or common way to do it because frankly no one should give a damn.

Lastly while its true there is no formal recognition for mates but there are plenty of informal ones in the game. I've found that different clans in the game have different ways of providing benefits to the families of some of their higher ranking members.   Even if it is informal, being someone's mate or even lover is still recognized by people in the game for better or for worse. For example if you want to send a message to that person, guess who's head you have them find when they come home to their apartment, yup their lover or their mates. Again thats not a bad thing, since relationships, mates and all the emotions that go on inbetween just adds more depth to characters and makes the game all the more enjoyable.

[valeria]

I feel no need to have any sort of formalization of relationships between regular commoners.  Commoners already formalize their relationship to whatever extent is appropriate (we have this apartment, I don't sleep with other people but she needs to and I love her so I let her, I haven't seen him in a while so it's time to fuck around again, etc).  I don't think that monogamy is either appropriate or inappropriate... I think it's IC for your character or not.

Certain clans have more specific docs about how their group views relationships.  If there isn't a specific doc, then I think you're free to do what you want.

[slvrmoontiger]

I think the documentation is pretty open for this. I don't think there needs to be any formalization. I think whatever you and whoever you plan on being your mate think to formalize your mating is completely up to you. However, it should not be something recognized in any way by the government.

Now having said that the following points should be adhered to:

1) Humans should never pick a sharp, breed, or stump as a mate. Come on people this is just simply gross for everyone.
2) Sharps surely won't mate outside their race or even their 'tribe'.
3) Dwarfs shouldn't be coming onto humans. I actually saw a posting somewhere saying they were, YIKES. No one wants muls running around.
4) Breeds and muls hate themselves so much I don't see them ever doing anything but kanking if they can even tolerate another for long enough to do that.

[Wish]

What's your take on desert elf/gith couples? Yes? No? How about half giants and half elves? I mean they're both half of something.

[Ouroboros]

I think the first thing that should be clarified in this discussion should be the meaning of monogamy in how we're using it. Monogamy is usually used to imply marital monogamy, as opposed to polygamy, but that definition is worthless to us in this discussion from the moment that Zalanthas has no concept of marriage between commoners. What remains are the concepts of social and sexual monogamy. The later refers to two partners remaining sexually exclusive with each other, the opposite of polyamory, while the former includes sexual exclusivity and tacks on to it cohabitation and cooperation in life's basic resources (shelter, food, and money).

Between sexual and social monogamy, I feel sexual monogamy has very little to offer to most Zalanthans. Sex isn't clean, no, but neither is your average commoner and the possible chance of crotchrot wouldn't stop a whore's business unless that person was already socially attractive enough to have their pick of partners whenever they wished. I would also argue the negative aspects of kanking in private, those that would end up in death, are somewhat more an OOC concern than an IC one. Knowing the limitations of crimcode flagging and a closed door has no place this discussion, and I feel those aspects weigh far more heavily on our decisions as players to to maintain our characters sexually monogamous than IC factors do.

By the same token, Zalanthans have a lot more reasons to remain polyamorous than we do IRL, most notably because there is virtually no social stigma attached to such as there is in many "civilized" cultures today. By taking a look at the percentages of single, sexually-active individuals, as well as infidelity rates, one often arrives at the conclusion that most folk would be a lot more likely to have multiple partners than a single one, if society didn't frown on it as much as it does. Variety is the spice of life, after all. Are there still possible reasons for someone to remain sexually monogamous? Certainly. They're just a lot more rare than we often play out in the game in my opinion, and often would have very little to do with the reasons we choose to remain faithful. Maybe all those f-me's have the right idea, eh?

A far better case can be made for social monogamy, due to the advantages it can offer to both partners towards their long-term survival. In these cases two individuals are not just sexually exclusive but also live together and work together towards their mutual survival. But those mostly depend on comparing that scenario with one of living and working alone, regardless of sexual partners. In such instances, sure, two are better than one. But three are better than two as well, four even more, etc. So I'd personally arrive at the conclusion that while social monogamy can be more beneficial than a solitary lifestyle, social polygamy would be even more beneficial and logical to occur.

Where does love fit into all this? Anywhere it likes, the heart wants what the heart wants after all. My original statement wasn't meant to imply that there is no place for love in Zalanthas. I do feel that there is less of a place for it there than there is in our culture however, if for no other reason than that survival tends to trump all other emotions in most cases. I think someone would have to feel somewhat safe from the world in order to let such emotions flourish towards another person, and at least much of the virtual population doesn't seem to have the luxury. But I'm willing to concede it to our PCs because, as I've stated before, most of our commoners are far from common. Compared to the virtual population our PCs are often better, stronger, faster, richer, and in some cases smarter as well (though I wouldn't bet on the last one too much, given their average life-span). So sure, let's assume that love is as freely shared between our PCs in Zalanthans, as it would be at a Woodstock concert.

What I would argue however is that love and monogamy being mutually exclusive is an entirely OOC concept that could well be foreign to Zalanthas. You can see examples of this even in unfaithful RL couples, who often find themselves loving both their partner as well as the one they're cheating with. Imagine a culture without such stigma, fully sexually free, and it's not hard to consider that someone might love many of their partners at any given time. As such, I would argue that while love might have a place in Zalanthas, it doesn't necessarily have one in this discussion.

These are my own views though, and not necessarily yours. So long as relationships conform to the standards of documentation, what happens behind closed doors concerns only those individuals. And the sneaks hidden and stuck in the room. And the poor staff members that have to watch. The point of this discussion, at least to me, isn't to limit player's choices. It's to expand them past the limitations and social stigma we face in real life, so that our characters are free to make decisions based on the entirety of choices available to them.

[Barzalene]

I agree that love is an huge story hook. I don't think anyone is trying to take it out of Arm.
I agree that there is no reason to limit the way people express, draw, or manufacture their style of love. And if people are pairing off and it's giving them a reason to look forward to logging in, well yay!

I think where discussion breaks down is when you have people on one side who think they need a way to have their love recognized in some formal way. This is MY MATE! How nice for you! Or people who think that their relationship is less valid if it's not in some traditional and recognized arrangement. And if they want to play a traditional love affair that's good. If they want to impose that sort of affair on the game world, that's well, bad. (Sorry. Hope I'm making some sense.)

My personal preference (which I would inflict on you as the arbiter of all that is good, and will as soon as you all recognize my authority, but which I'm simply stating as opinion at this time) would be for the term mate to be more meaningful. It seems like two people manage to luck into someone willing to mudsex each other, and they fall into bed, or a booth or a dark alley and then they're mates. It renders the word meaningless. I would like if mating were taken more seriously. But I suppose this too is a reflection of real life and those Vegas chapels do a steady business.

[boog]

I can say I've never had a relationship in game that wasn't thematically appropriate.

I think we're, collectively, doing it right. We rule, guys.

[BuNutzCola]

Whatever makes you guys happy.

I've seen the gamut of relationships in my time here, and really only rarely do I go "Dafuq?" And mostly those involve magicker and non magickers doing nothing to hide their amorous endeavors.

I think relationships can be a phenomenal story hook. Mudsex and the like never appealed to me much but really powerful storylines can come from "love." For some PC's it might be a process years in development, with its high points and lows, allowing for numerous story arcs to branch out. Betrayal, revenge, hero complexes, all manner of phenomenal things can come from Zalanathan love.

For others -shrug-, love might just "oh that pc has boobs/muscles/both". Maybe it's sexual, or intellectual, or borne out of a mutually beneficial arrangement.

I tend to find I get the most enjoyment out of complex relationships between pc's, or those that evolve organically.  I've done the "love at first sight" pc and the "you spent the last ten years at my side and I only just now realize we should get together." Pc's.

Ultimately Armageddon is about relationships,  I feel. Love, hate, comradery, treachery. However you choose to seek out those relationships is fine in my book.

[Patuk]

I sometimes note immense soap opera arcs happening over who happens to be banging who and how angry everyone ends up getting over it.

As long as you're not stepping into anachronistic territory like that, I'd say you're in the clear.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

Just for the record, iirc ... it's perfectly possible for a half-elf to be the result of a loving elven-human relationship. The fate a breed suffers is not exclusively that it is a result of a rape or that there is hate from it's parents. It's the hate the rest of the world heaps on it.

Elven/human relationships are like magicker/mundane relationships. If you aren't hiding it, expect to be scorned/outcast/killed over it. But don't think that elven/human relationships are against docs. Imho, it's not.

[boog]

I sometimes note immense soap opera arcs happening over who happens to be banging who and how angry everyone ends up getting over it.

As long as you're not stepping into anachronistic territory like that, I'd say you're in the clear.

wanna be my baby daddy lol
omg u stole my m8

--

Seriously. I must miss all of this, because I've never seen it, nor even second-handedly experienced or heard gossip about something of this/that nature!

[Cabooze]

I noticed that whenever I try to involve my characters in any sort of mating/(sometimes non)monogamous relationship, it causes nothing but drama and makes it a chore to even get on and roleplay. It's unfortunate, really.. And irritating. Very irritating.

[Patuk]

I sometimes note immense soap opera arcs happening over who happens to be banging who and how angry everyone ends up getting over it.

As long as you're not stepping into anachronistic territory like that, I'd say you're in the clear.

wanna be my baby daddy lol
omg u stole my m8

--

Seriously. I must miss all of this, because I've never seen it, nor even second-handedly experienced or heard gossip about something of this/that nature!

I noticed that whenever I try to involve my characters in any sort of mating/(sometimes non)monogamous relationship, it causes nothing but drama and makes it a chore to even get on and roleplay. It's unfortunate, really.. And irritating. Very irritating.

I think Cabooze has answered your post better than I could.

[boog]

I swear, I've only ever heard of craziness on the GDB.

I guess I am thankful that my IG relationships have been IG, and IG only and fully lacking in teh dramaz.

But, back on topic, I kinda agree with 7DV. I mean - there's tons of taboos in the world. I mean, outrightly, sure, it's disgusting and socially unacceptable for races to bonk and procreate, but they do!

Just, y'know... expect repercussions!

[janeshephard]

I swear, I've only ever heard of craziness on the GDB.

You're lucky. This drama also goes on even if you're not having mudsex. I've been hit on a lot in game and sometimes it's a drag because you want to play in this cool dying world but buddy boy just wants to emote dirty things to you.

[ShaLeah]

No one is saying there is no love on Zalanthas. On the contrary, I think there should be love in a world where just stepping out of your cave can kill you without a moment's notice.

I don't mind the term 'mate' for the one (or three) person(s) you decide to be monogamous with. THAT is an indicator for excellent drama potential. It in itself is very rare and should be rare on Zalanthas because in essence that means this person (these people) matter to me as much as I matter to me. I will kill, betray, corrupt for them, I will avenge their deaths, I will hold grudges for them and I will ensure above anything that our mating nucleus is protected at all time inside the fuck-with-my-mate-I'll-kill circle.

What I would argue however is that love and monogamy being mutually exclusive is an entirely OOC concept that could well be foreign to Zalanthas.

I agree with this, though I wouldn't call it foreign as much as extremely rare. I feel like adjusting to a Zalanthan way of thinking is hard when it's so opposite of how we feel in real life. You can't argue that you're 100% in the Zalanthan mindset if you're falling in love with a whore and wanting her to quit her job to only be with you because it grosses you out that she's kanking everyone with fiddy sid, in this case a noble has that power by making her a concubine. You can't say you're 100% deep in the game world if you're telling the woman you wanna fuck/are fucking that she's not allowed to fuck anyone else while with you, unless you know that person you want her not to kank is kanking filthy magickers or other undesirables. You can't say you gave a fuck about that mate that just died when you're shacked up with someone a big ole two (ooc) days later, that was just a roommate with benefits, everyone knows it, stop saying you loved them sooooooooooo much.

Some situations just reek of happening as a result of real life mindset, not Zalanthan mindset.

My personal preference (which I would inflict on you as the arbiter of all that is good, and will as soon as you all recognize my authority, but which I'm simply stating as opinion at this time) would be for the term mate to be more meaningful. It seems like two people manage to luck into someone willing to mudsex each other, and they fall into bed, or a booth or a dark alley and then they're mates. It renders the word meaningless. I would like if mating were taken more seriously.

I love you Barz, be my mate.
Mate is used wrong in game and maybe that is why it's not really taken seriously. You know how many 'mated' have been in my char's apartment telling me how they really shouldn't? Hah.  You know how many chars have specifically asked my characters to steer clear of their mates even with zero interest from my character? How many have told my character they're not usually possessive but are (suckers!) to my wenches? I can't even tell you how many over the years. Same story, every time.

I noticed that whenever I try to involve my characters in any sort of mating/(sometimes non)monogamous relationship, it causes nothing but drama and makes it a chore to even get on and roleplay. It's unfortunate, really.. And irritating. Very irritating.

As a player of mostly vixens that will use that shit against you, I thank you. People who (think) they don't want the drama are the one's who need it the most or are a magnet for it! What causes drama? Giving a fuck about what's happening.


I'm not saying monogamy shouldn't happen, I'm saying to ask yourself: Is this happening because of how I feel or because the character is feeling strongly enough MUTUALLY with this character to warrant wanting to protect and cherish it for life.

By far I think we're doing okay. People playing for a longer amount of time don't seem to fall too much into the complete real world mirroring.  I know I had a hard time especially with the concept of relationship versus monogamy. I've learned to let the character develop and deal with the IC consequences. Sometimes they (we the characters) THINK they know what they want and then find themselves knee deep in it saying 'Meh, coulda done without this shit.'

Ultimately Armageddon is about relationships,  I feel. Love, hate, comradery, treachery. However you choose to seek out those relationships is fine in my book.

Like.

I can say I've never had a relationship in game that wasn't thematically appropriate.

I actually have, twice - both are noted on my accounts. One was a really broken fucked up girl who needed to be loved by anyone, kanked a dwarf - the other? The other (which was wayyyyyyyyyy worse in wrongness) resulted on a note on my account about it, an erroneous note since it wasn't as deep as what they noted yet it's permanently marring my reputation.

That's another discussion entirely.

Whatever makes you guys your character happy.

Is how it should be, remembering there are consequences to your decisions. It's a good idea to write in your background that your d-elf has a fetish for dwarves/humans/mantis/city elves or your human's got sand-fever for anything not human. That way when they see you buying an apartment with one the Imms won't be like wtf?!?

One thing for sure though, kiddies, if your character falls in love for real, gets real feelings, there will be drama. Welcome to the magickal world of feelings.

[Dresan]

Well said,  Ouroboros but I disagree with you on the social polygamy.

The whole purpose of monogamy is to ensure the survival of the off spring. Contrary to popular opinion this benefits men as much as it does women. Historically women have benefited from this arrangement since a man would go off hunting and bring home resources for her and her child, however I recently read an article stating how monogamy benefits man as much since it is easier to protect a single woman from other competing men, rather than several women. There was more to it then that but it also ensures their offspring survive into adult hood, giving both their genes the best chance of continuing on into the future. In the case of social polygamy this benefits the weak. Why would a woman who has only one child want to put in her resources raising three other children and their mother when she could just as easily invest it in her own child. Equally, no reason for a man to invest his resources in children that aren't his either. Not to say people don't adopt or even buy children to raise in Zalanthas, however just like in RL there is a big difference between choosing to raise a child that isn't yours and being tricked into raising one I suppose. In terms of social safety net knowing you can depend on one strong person when things are bleak might be a lot better then several people who might have not been providing as much as you anyways to begin with. If you raise a good strong family though that will ensure a greater social safety net, the great merchant houses are examples what strong families can accomplish. Not to say polygamist groups shouldn't exist or don't have their own benefits but just that I don't see them being anymore common then monogamist relationships in my opinion. Even if it is only because finding one person to trust is tough enough but finding more strangers to trust at that level would be quite the accomplishment indeed.

I think someone else said it better then me, there is a huge difference between a lover and a mate.

Heck to me even lover is a strong word, most 'relationship' are more aptly described as one-night stands or fuck buddies at best. From what I've seen most people in the game only have one mate, it is social monogamy however there is still sexual freedom in the relationship. I suppose this works out well in Zalanthas due to mul mix, the female/ male too (?) taking mulmix for everyone except her mate. Your mate is the person you trust, have children with and share all your resources with, your lovers/fuck buddies are the people who have quickies with in allies or somewhere discrete or even share with your mate when you are both feeling frisky. On a side note, this sort of relationship is a lot closer to what RL swingers are like. If you ever see a documentary on swingers to them there is a big difference between who they call their husband/wives and who they are fucking for fun. Again this is just what I've commonly seen people do in game, rather then just pure social and sexual monogamy again I don't believe there is any right or wrong way to proceed with a relationship. Whatever way your character and you partner(s) choose to proceed is fine in my books, again I agree with everyone here there should be no formalization of relationships. There is no right way or appropriate way to engage in an intimate relationship with someone.

Again having mates is still an informal thing in the game, as in you can't go to nenyuk and request a joint bank account or inherit your mate's account. You can't tell the templar you won't be saying anything bad about your mate without being tosses in the arena yourself. Organizations don't officially recognize you. However informally they do, as in the Templar would probably expect you to lie for your mate and if the sergeant of militia tells you that someone is their mate, well you can expect they will kick your teeth in and/or gut you if you piss their mate off. You don't have have to recognize or acknowledge their relationship but you are probably doing so at your own risk.

Lastly there so long as people remember its just a game where both sexes are free to act as they please, there is nothing wrong with some drama once in a while.

[Jherlen]

The way I see it, we know people are reproducing in Zalanthas. It stands to reason at least some of those reproductive couples are stable, not necessarily completely monagamous, but stable loving relationships between a "mated" man and a woman. Where there's love/sex, there can also be possessiveness and jealousy. There are also good reasons why a couple might want to stay together for the sake of raising kids, making money, watching the homestead, etc. Certainly not everyone would do this, but I think certainly a not insignificant number of commoners would.

Formal recognition of such unions is maybe going a bit too far, but I think at least some traditions might have sprung up around it. We don't need formal handfastings or weddings or whatever, but wearing a small token that's culturally recognized to say "hey, I'm taken"... or "hey... I'm available!" is a nice little social queue that might add something to the game. Would everyone take part? No, certainly there are those who would rather keep their romantic affairs private, but other folks might decide they're tired of being hit on in bars constantly, or they want to give in to the nagging girlfriend/boyfriend who wants to make things more openly official, or they finally wooed that hot dancer down the street and want to show off. If done well, a little documentation on customs like that could add a dimension to the game without really detracting much.

[Dresan]

In Tuluk, I've seen people getting matching tattoos several times in the past. It always seemed appropriate symbol of love and trust.

Dayum, ShaLeah...you are my hero.


My character was in a knowing relationship with a breed once too. Her pointy ears were hidden behind her hair so  he fell in love before he knew she was a breed. He kept her as his mate but he was always partly ashamed  himself for continuing that relationship, and was always worried other might find out she was a breed and accuse him of being a degenerate . He always reminded her to make sure to keep her ears hidden. Who you kank is not as big of a rule as elves riding however yeah expect society to come down pretty hard on you if they find out about your 'perversions'.

[Lizzie]

I sometimes note immense soap opera arcs happening over who happens to be banging who and how angry everyone ends up getting over it.

As long as you're not stepping into anachronistic territory like that, I'd say you're in the clear.

wanna be my baby daddy lol
omg u stole my m8

--

Seriously. I must miss all of this, because I've never seen it, nor even second-handedly experienced or heard gossip about something of this/that nature!

Heh I had a situation happen that was all flavors of WTF. PC has a mate. In a world where having more than one mate is no big deal, no one should really care one way or another. So I RP it that way. My characters *do not give a shit* whether or not their mates are fucking other people (of course *which* other people might matter - but the idea of having a few bed partners doesn't bother my characters at all). Mate gets the weird idea that he has to leave my PC in order to be with another PC. So he does. And that other PC gets all in my PC's grill about how she now has my ex-mate and blah blah blah and my PC is like - uh - if my mate was so weak-willed and so inferior that he felt he had to leave my PC in order to be with another, then I don't want him anyway.

That other PC didn't get it - I think the player thought it was supposed to be a huge deal but really it was not at all, either IC or OOC. I really wish people would stop using "love and intimacy" as a plot device entirely. It just doesn't make any sense, and I really have no interest in it or I'd play a Furry or a BDSM game instead, where "ownership" and "claim" of one's mate actually matters.

[Dresan]

That other PC didn't get it - I think the player thought it was supposed to be a huge deal but really it was not at all, either IC or OOC. I really wish people would stop using "love and intimacy" as a plot device entirely. It just doesn't make any sense, and I really have no interest in it or I'd play a Furry or a BDSM game instead, where "ownership" and "claim" of one's mate actually matters.

It might not have been a huge deal for your character, but it definitely would have been for others. By the sounds of it those ideas to your character's former mate may have had about having to leave your character to be with another mate may have very well have come from the other PC. You know they could have told him he could kank anyone you want except your character if they wanted to be their mate.  Sounds like she did steal your character's mate to me, on purpose. Now again this might not have mattered to your pc, she might have considered her mate no different then a dirty rotten pair of boots she was going to through away anyways but still they were stolen.... AND they gloated?

Naw lizzie, I don't agree with you, that had nothing to do with sex, love or intimacy at that point. That had to do with principle, you don't take someone's shit and gloat to them unless you want to find yourself naked in the desert somewhere. I hope at the very least your character knocked some teeth in before strutting away like a boss. 

[Patuk]

That other PC didn't get it - I think the player thought it was supposed to be a huge deal but really it was not at all, either IC or OOC. I really wish people would stop using "love and intimacy" as a plot device entirely. It just doesn't make any sense, and I really have no interest in it or I'd play a Furry or a BDSM game instead, where "ownership" and "claim" of one's mate actually matters.

It might not have been a huge deal for your character, but it definitely would have been for others. By the sounds of it those ideas to your character's former mate may have had about having to leave your character to be with another mate may have very well have come from the other PC. You know they could have told him he could kank anyone you want except your character if they wanted to be their mate.  Sounds like she did steal your character's mate to me, on purpose. Now again this might not have mattered to your pc, she might have considered her mate no different then a dirty rotten pair of boots she was going to through away anyways but still they were stolen.... AND they gloated?

Naw lizzie, I don't agree with you, that had nothing to do with sex, love or intimacy at that point. That had to do with principle, you don't take someone's shit and gloat to them unless you want to find yourself naked in the desert somewhere. I hope at the very least your character knocked some teeth in before strutting away like a boss. 

Not sure if serious..

[Lizzie]

That other PC didn't get it - I think the player thought it was supposed to be a huge deal but really it was not at all, either IC or OOC. I really wish people would stop using "love and intimacy" as a plot device entirely. It just doesn't make any sense, and I really have no interest in it or I'd play a Furry or a BDSM game instead, where "ownership" and "claim" of one's mate actually matters.

It might not have been a huge deal for your character, but it definitely would have been for others. By the sounds of it those ideas to your character's former mate may have had about having to leave your character to be with another mate may have very well have come from the other PC. You know they could have told him he could kank anyone you want except your character if they wanted to be their mate.  Sounds like she did steal your character's mate to me, on purpose. Now again this might not have mattered to your pc, she might have considered her mate no different then a dirty rotten pair of boots she was going to through away anyways but still they were stolen.... AND they gloated?

Naw lizzie, I don't agree with you, that had nothing to do with sex, love or intimacy at that point. That had to do with principle, you don't take someone's shit and gloat to them unless you want to find yourself naked in the desert somewhere. I hope at the very least your character knocked some teeth in before strutting away like a boss. 

Not sure if serious..

Yeah the whole point was missed. The point is - the "mate" was not hers to steal from. She didn't claim ownership on that PC, just like she didn't expect him to claim ownership on her. Possessiveness and jealousy of a monogamous mate, in Zalanthas, is *not* common. What is common, is to NOT be possessive or jealous. So when I have my characters behave and think and feel according to what is *common,* then other people need to respect this and respond appropriately. It would be -poor- RP for anyone to *expect* my character to be possessive and/or jealous, and/or intend to/try to/succeed in knocking teeth out of someone stealing a mate that was never "hers" in the first place.

[slvrmoontiger]

I've gone both ways with various PCs. Sometimes my PCs do get jealous if their mate is having sex with other people. This is usually something that should be discussed and decided up front between the PCs that are to be mates. The thing is that whenever one of my PCs have become jealous it is withing the nature and the role of that particular PC. I think what really matters is if you are staying IC for that particular PC. Every PC is different and what they believe or don't believe is up to that individual PC. But those things should be discussed up front with the PCs you are about to become mates with. Other PCs could care less because they liked having sex with various other PCs as well. I think each scenerio should be taken into account, but ALWAYS make sure the PC your PC is to become mates with knows the terms up front before committing to anything. If you don't make sure of that you have NO room to bitch about it later.

[Dresan]

I disagree with you lizzie.

Its not poor RP to assume you loved and trusted someone you lived with and called your mate. Jealousy is one potential feeling that could have been very appropriate in your senerio if you ask me but another one is simply feeling hurt, rather then not feel anything or care at all. Just because you love someone and want them to be with you doesn't mean you sudden want to own them. It doesn't work that way in RL and it not the way it works in the game either. You don't need to own someone to feel jealousy, you don't even need to be in any relationship with them to feel resentment over not receiving the same attention someone else is getting, those are just the way the emotions work.

Now are the feelings of jealousy and possessiveness that uncommon? Hrm, I don't know if they are, most people probably feel both feelings and desires to some degree or another. People are naturally selfish and greedy after all. However, they way they are expressed are probably different then in RL, maybe. It feels like possessiveness to you is owning a person like a slave and having a collar and leash on them, while in zalanthas some people might feel having your mate tell you ever person they kank and asking them not to be involved certain people, races,etc, etc to be pretty conservative and possessive too.  

Lastly since there is no documentation or rules on how zalantian people should or should not be feeling in regards to any of these situations, its not poor RP to play as you like. There was nothing wrong with your RP in that situation, but there was nothing wrong with their behavior and RP either. Not for me at least.

[ShaLeah]

In my humble opinion, if you didn't give a fuck who your mate is fucking who MIGHT end up trumping your status as alpha mate, you don't give a fuck and shouldn't be calling each other mates. THAT'S the point. You shouldn't be calling mate someone you can live without, someone you're not invested enough with to want to keep above all others.

[slvrmoontiger]

In my humble opinion, if you didn't give a fuck who your mate is fucking who MIGHT end up trumping your status as alpha mate, you don't give a fuck and shouldn't be calling each other mates. THAT'S the point. You shouldn't be calling mate someone you can live without, someone you're not invested enough with to want to keep above all others.

This makes perfect sense actually. A mate should be someone that you are deeply bonded with that's what the word implies. Anyone else is just a lover.

[Lizzie]

In my humble opinion, if you didn't give a fuck who your mate is fucking who MIGHT end up trumping your status as alpha mate, you don't give a fuck and shouldn't be calling each other mates. THAT'S the point. You shouldn't be calling mate someone you can live without, someone you're not invested enough with to want to keep above all others.

Again - it isn't "I care/do not care WHO else my mate is having sex with."

It is "I care/do not care THAT my mate is having sex with someone else."

It is also "I care/do not care THAT my mate has, oddly, and contrary to what is considered "common" according to the docs, decided that there was some kind of strange value attached to monogamy, such that he had to choose between me and someone else in the first place."

[slvrmoontiger]

In my humble opinion, if you didn't give a fuck who your mate is fucking who MIGHT end up trumping your status as alpha mate, you don't give a fuck and shouldn't be calling each other mates. THAT'S the point. You shouldn't be calling mate someone you can live without, someone you're not invested enough with to want to keep above all others.

Again - it isn't "I care/do not care WHO else my mate is having sex with."

It is "I care/do not care THAT my mate is having sex with someone else."

It is also "I care/do not care THAT my mate has, oddly, and contrary to what is considered "common" according to the docs, decided that there was some kind of strange value attached to monogamy, such that he had to choose between me and someone else in the first place."

Bolded part is quite contrary to what was stated. If you are terming them as "mate" your PC should care and you should want to fight for him/her.

[Lizzie]

In my humble opinion, if you didn't give a fuck who your mate is fucking who MIGHT end up trumping your status as alpha mate, you don't give a fuck and shouldn't be calling each other mates. THAT'S the point. You shouldn't be calling mate someone you can live without, someone you're not invested enough with to want to keep above all others.

Again - it isn't "I care/do not care WHO else my mate is having sex with."

It is "I care/do not care THAT my mate is having sex with someone else."

It is also "I care/do not care THAT my mate has, oddly, and contrary to what is considered "common" according to the docs, decided that there was some kind of strange value attached to monogamy, such that he had to choose between me and someone else in the first place."

Bolded part is quite contrary to what was stated. If you are terming them as "mate" your PC should care and you should want to fight for him/her.

That's just silly. Someone can have several mates. In fact, polyamory is common in Zalanthas, and monogamy is NOT common. According to the docs. I think the docs were written with good intentions but missed out huge on a lot of points, but they did become the docs, and I've tried to abide by them. If you are insisting that a person can only have one mate at a time, then it is you who are not playing according to what is considered "common" according to the docs.

And that's okay - it's okay to play whatever is considered not common. But it is not okay to do so, and assume it's common, and that any other way of doing it is wrong.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

Eh, Liz, I don't think monogamy is uncommon. I think you're sort of going to the other side of extreme now. I think that there is no form of relationship that is uncommon, and therefore, monogamy is no more common/uncommon than polygamy. I also think we're thinking way to hard about this.

The bottom line is that commoners have no recognized institute for mating. Commoners either do or do not have mate(s), and there is no prejudice against any of these situations.

[slvrmoontiger]

In my humble opinion, if you didn't give a fuck who your mate is fucking who MIGHT end up trumping your status as alpha mate, you don't give a fuck and shouldn't be calling each other mates. THAT'S the point. You shouldn't be calling mate someone you can live without, someone you're not invested enough with to want to keep above all others.

Again - it isn't "I care/do not care WHO else my mate is having sex with."

It is "I care/do not care THAT my mate is having sex with someone else."

It is also "I care/do not care THAT my mate has, oddly, and contrary to what is considered "common" according to the docs, decided that there was some kind of strange value attached to monogamy, such that he had to choose between me and someone else in the first place."

Bolded part is quite contrary to what was stated. If you are terming them as "mate" your PC should care and you should want to fight for him/her.

That's just silly. Someone can have several mates. In fact, polyamory is common in Zalanthas, and monogamy is NOT common. According to the docs. I think the docs were written with good intentions but missed out huge on a lot of points, but they did become the docs, and I've tried to abide by them. If you are insisting that a person can only have one mate at a time, then it is you who are not playing according to what is considered "common" according to the docs.

And that's okay - it's okay to play whatever is considered not common. But it is not okay to do so, and assume it's common, and that any other way of doing it is wrong.

From the marriage help file:

Notes:
    Given that Zalanthas is a place with broad attitudes towards sexuality, it is common to see Zalanthans have multiple sex partners.  While your character may be in a monogamous relationship with another character, understand that as a commoner, this does not deserve (and should not get) formalized recognition by the powers that be.  Your character also should not expect anything for deciding to limit his or her current sexual focus to one person.  Any commoner relationship is not formalized.  This means that there are no such things as inheritance
laws governing who gets your character's things if they die, nor are there divorce laws concerning who gets which half of things if the couple splits up.  Zalanthan commoners are NOT highborn, and this is one area in which that should be very clear.

Please be VERY careful with this. This is from the Marriage help documentation and really the ONLY documentation I know of outlining any relationship information. If you have others please provide links so I can read them through. Please notice there is NO term of MATE mentioned anywhere in this part of the documentation. The information states clearly multiple sex partners. This is what I would term as lovers, not mates. I agree with ShaLeah. I think the term MATE should mean something more. Should involve commitment (even if not recognized officially) and should be more of a bonding term. While yes there should be multiple MATES in this inference you should feel bonded and a sense of profound loss when you lose that person. Animals in nature take mates and feel a sense of loss when that mate dies or disappears.

I think the terms of lovers and mates are completely different. My PCs have always agreed with this.

[Barzalene]

I think what some of us are feeling is that polyamory means that you have many lovers. But mate should connotate something more. The shape of a mating doesn't have to be a pair, and sleeping together outside that configuration may be something that works for those mates. But mating should mean something of enough depth and importance that what their preferences are should be weighted. Even if you the player feel their preference is unzalanthan, would your character be so dismissive of the person whose life they want to wrap themselves up in?

I think some of us, are saying two things:
1. committed zalanthan relationships can differ in many ways from real life ones and the playerbase should be cognizant of that.
2. Mate should not be used casually. It should have a significant meaning. Your mate(s) may be your lover(s) but not all your lovers are going to be your mates.

[boog]

Also, I see possessive behavior in regards to mates being not so uncommon. Considering there is so little happiness and luxury and ownership of anything in this setting,  I think 'Claiming' someone as a mate or otherwise isn't so off theme.

[Patuk]

I'm trying to think of how my characters would react if whomever they'd be sleeping with were to consider them 'theirs'.

They'd react with some mild shock, probably. Followed up by a dull 'why'. I'm not even sure they'd want to go through that much potential trouble because the one person decided they'd cause it.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

I'm sorta bothered that we're trying so hard to be biased against normal relationships that would be alright IRL. If we remove the term and concept of marriage from commoner life, and eradicate expectations for monogamy and prejudices against polygamy, that honestly should be enough. I don't see why it would need to be clarified more than that, and I honestly think that if you feel the need to speak against a monogamous relationship being any less common than a polygamous relationship, we're reversing discrimination, when the whole intent behind the removal of bias in the sort of relationships we have in game was to facilitate any sort of relationship a player wants to play out.

[Fujikoma]

I feel that monogamist relationships, while troublesome and something that has peeved me off OOC in other games (where they are more common) with soap opera drama (which actually generated some interesting conflict that I enjoyed playing through later), should be allowed. There are already, in my likely shitty opinion, so many other barriers in game to guide a player through creating a believable character in a believable setting, that there need not be too many more, lest creativity and interesting situations be stifled in the name of sticking to documents. I have no problem with monogamy in game.

I have no problem with polyamory in game, just like I have no problem with it in real life, I like that it's common in game, but I don't think it should be the rule.

[Barzalene]

I think that's a valid point, 7. I think we'd do better to think more inclusively and less exclusively.

[Patuk]

You can be monogamous without turning possessive.

Just.. Yeah. There's a distinction, and one I feel that needs to be made. Restricting yourself to one person and getting upset/surprised over them seeing others as well needn't be one and the same thing.

[Lizzie]

You can be monogamous without turning possessive.

Just.. Yeah. There's a distinction, and one I feel that needs to be made. Restricting yourself to one person and getting upset/surprised over them seeing others as well needn't be one and the same thing.

The reverse (in my case) is also true. Assuming that polyamory is not an option - assuming that your mate would -not- be okay "sharing" you with others - is weird, in a game where monogamy doesn't have the same value as it does in real life. It was the fact that they assumed my character would be hurt by his wanting other women.. not that he wanted a specific other woman. That specific other woman - was hurtful to her. But if it had been any of a dozen other women, she wouldn't have thought it was that big a deal. It was strange to me, in the game that had specific docs at the time (in the quickstart that isn't on the new website) that emphasized that monogamy was not valued and multiple partners was common, that they picked that issue to be an issue. It wasn't an issue. It was the choice of women, not the choice to have women at all. See the difference?

"I have five mates."
"Okay - that's fine. Who are they?"
"Talia, Malik, Malika, Amos, and Amosa."
"NO NOT AMOSA! Krath damnit I thought we loved each other!"

THAT is what I would've expected to see.
Not:
"I have five mates."
"OMG YOU SLUT"

[James de Monet]

I think there are probably valid reasons for not wanting your PC's intimate relations to sleep with certain others that don't involve gickery.

For example, I think social strata will have a lot to do with this. If a PC is sleeping around within their social strata, their might be some jealousy if they sleep with some people with more power and some less. This goes doubly true if they sleep up (with someone of higher social status, especially nobles). Why? Because nobles are petty and jealous and tend to take what they want. They don't have to believe in monogamy to decide that they don't want the person(s) they are sleeping with to be sleeping around in lower social ranks, dirtying their beds. Sleeping down (with someone of lower social status) is less of a problem (in the south at least), as it is less likely to make a partner feel threatened in any way. Sleeping down too far, though, could be problematic (if you don't want to sleep WHERE they sleep, why would you want them to bring that into your bed?)

I think the harems of kings past might be illustrative. Did they believe in monogamy? No. Not at all. But they did jealously protect what was 'theirs', their wives as well as their concubines. Now, some of that may have been for the sake of paternity, but some of it is probably just human nature, too. If your partner is a status symbol for you, you're probably not going to want to share it.

[slvrmoontiger]

You can be monogamous without turning possessive.

Just.. Yeah. There's a distinction, and one I feel that needs to be made. Restricting yourself to one person and getting upset/surprised over them seeing others as well needn't be one and the same thing.

The reverse (in my case) is also true. Assuming that polyamory is not an option - assuming that your mate would -not- be okay "sharing" you with others - is weird, in a game where monogamy doesn't have the same value as it does in real life. It was the fact that they assumed my character would be hurt by his wanting other women.. not that he wanted a specific other woman. That specific other woman - was hurtful to her. But if it had been any of a dozen other women, she wouldn't have thought it was that big a deal. It was strange to me, in the game that had specific docs at the time (in the quickstart that isn't on the new website) that emphasized that monogamy was not valued and multiple partners was common, that they picked that issue to be an issue. It wasn't an issue. It was the choice of women, not the choice to have women at all. See the difference?

"I have five mates."
"Okay - that's fine. Who are they?"
"Talia, Malik, Malika, Amos, and Amosa."
"NO NOT AMOSA! Krath damnit I thought we loved each other!"

THAT is what I would've expected to see.
Not:
"I have five mates."
"OMG YOU SLUT"

Calling someone a slut just doesn't make sense in a world where multiple sex partners is the norm.

[evilcabbage]

True mating is taking a club, beating your potential love over the head, dragging them into some cave in the wasteland and having hot desert sex.

[Lizzie]

That was my point, slymoontiger. So you agree with what I'm saying.

[slvrmoontiger]

No, Lizzie... I still think there is a big difference between calling someone a mate and a lover. The mere meaning of mate symbolizes some sort of bond beyond just sex.

[Lizzie]

No, Lizzie... I still think there is a big difference between calling someone a mate and a lover. The mere meaning of mate symbolizes some sort of bond beyond just sex.

No, really it doesn't. Not in Zalanthas, and not in the real world. You're arguing semantics about a word that has -many- meanings and -many- common connotations, both in and out of the game. Mate can be your true love one and only. It can also be the person you're fucking this month. It can also be your Kruth partner. It can also be another word for "clannie." It can also refer to your VBFF, and it can refer to your "friend with benefits." It is also an informal word of greeting to someone you barely know ("Hey there mate, how ya doin?"), or even a familiar, friendly term to refer to a complete stranger.

You're trying to limit a word and assign it a unique meaning, that traditionally, culturally, and conventionally does not have a unique meaning. It's like saying "the word "this" can only be used to refer to mammals, from now on, and not to inanimate objects."

[Fujikoma]

Assuming the sexes are equal in Zalanthas, the word slut should never turn up in conversation, unless one also uses the term slut for a man as well.

[Ouroboros]

So far it seems most of us, to varying degrees, are in agreement that having options is a good thing. We can agree that in Zalanthas everything goes, and there's a flavor for everyone. Furthermore, we seem to mostly agree on the fact that looking down on any form of relationship is undesired, so long as it adheres to the standards of documentation and racial bias. Some of us might feel there's a bit more of "this" in the world, others feel there's a bit more of "that". That's not an argument anyone can win though, if there is a victory to be had in it at all, unless a copy of the Zalanthan Census of 1629 comes floating down from staff in a beam of light. If recent events are any indication, we're more likely to get a volcano dropped on us in a beam of light than anything else. And that's as it should be, given documentation on the subject has been purposefully left open-ended.

Speaking personally, I could stand to see not necessarily less monogamous relationships in the game, but more polyamorous or social polygamous ones. Yes, it's been done. But if we're going to agree that there's just as much of one as there is of the other, than perhaps this discussion can serve as a reminder of that fact; something we can consider for our next character, when deciding which facet of Zalanthas we want to see represented by our PC. Either way, the virtual population thankfully takes care of our shortcomings and biases as players, and I tend to rest easy in the knowledge that for every PC couple I see merrily strolling down the street hand-in-hand, there's a virtual character somewhere enjoying themselves with a few guys and gals in bed.

What's interestingly enough come up, and this by the way is the reason such discussions are never a waste of time, is how we feel about the term "mate" in context to Zalanthan relationships. There seem to be two camps on this, one feeling the term is used too frivolously, while the other feels it's not used frivolously enough. My knee-jerk reaction to this is the same as Lizzie's a couple posts above me.

By definition, in the real world, the term mate can imply partner, companion, fellow, friend, pal, chum, etc. Part of the problem seems to be that we've each injected this word into Zalanthas by picking whichever definition we prefer, and expect others to adhere to it. The reasons for this are likely several, but my feeling is that the deepest reason for this is the fact some players have an innate desire to roleplay monogamous unions akin to marriage between commoners and, barred from this by documentation, have decided to use the term "mate" to come as close to their desired symbolism without breaking the rules. As Desertman stated many of us know what triggered the change of the marriage documentation and as a result, this discussion. And while those IG events (which should please remain IG) might have been the catalyst, or the last straw depending on how you look at it, it's nothing new either. Such skirting of the docs has occurred before and will always take place until the grey areas of a given issue become black and white.

I guess we have a few questions to ask ourselves, and staff, before we can find a solution to the problem:

1) Do we want a set term to define a particular type of relationship, which at best is no more predominant than any other type of relationship?
2) Do we want to structure that term with details of what it entails, as we might any other social term, or do we prefer to leave it open-ended?
3) If we do want to define such relationships, be it specifically or not, is the term "mate" what we want to use for it?
4) Is there even a place for something as akin to marriage between commoners, as some have taken the word "mate" to imply?

Coming to some measure of agreement or conclusion to the above questions would help ensure that misunderstandings don't take place, leaving some players feeling other's roleplay is unrealistic or flawed. Feelings can be as tumultuous as they like, but words carry meaning. We might want to leave Zalanthas open to any kind of relationship we can think of, but when we start applying labels to such on our own, without documentation support and especially when the words have other common meanings, conflict and misunderstandings occur.

[ShaLeah]

Assuming the sexes are equal in Zalanthas, the word slut should never turn up in conversation, unless one also uses the term slut for a man as well.

Tell that to the people who call whores sluts and use the term whore as if it were derogatory in a land where whoring is a perfectly acceptable and viable employment option.

4) Is there even a place for something as akin to marriage between commoners, as some have taken the word "mate" to imply?

No. No no no no no. There isn't. There shouldn't be ANYTHING akin to "marriage" as marriage is on Zalanthas for commoners.

Coming to some measure of agreement or conclusion to the above questions would help ensure that misunderstandings don't take place, leaving some players feeling other's roleplay is unrealistic or flawed. Feelings can be as tumultuous as they like, but words carry meaning. We might want to leave Zalanthas open to any kind of relationship we can think of, but when we start applying labels to such on our own, without documentation support and especially when the words have other common meanings, conflict and misunderstandings occur.

I play (and continue to play) all my characters with the following distinctions:

Lover - anyone she kanks on a regular basis.
Mate - anyone she kanks that she has feelings of devotion for that is supposedly mutual. Whether monogamous or not. Depending on the character, this one is likely to remain secret while the above is not at all.

I choose to think being someone's mate as it being NOT the norm on Zalanthas because in my experience through all these years the amount of THOSE my characters have encountered are more rare than diamonds used in actual jewelry IG. Lovers? Hell, you make anything with boobs you can get a lover in less than an hour played.

To -me-, that's rare.

[Drayab]

Mate implies some sort of intimate relationship, but it's not a term with a well-defined meaning. The word runs a whole gamut of meaning IG. At one end of the spectrum it means a no-strings-attached fuck buddy, and at the other end it may mean a monogamous relationship with a time commitment to spend long hours in private together. Lover is the other word that gets used. Yes, it is more often used to refer to the fuck buddy type arrangement, but I would warn against making assumptions unless you're looking for drama.

This makes sense when you think about it. IRL, we distinguish our intimate relationships according to how far we are from marriage: crush, girl/boy -friend, fiance, spouse. In a world where there is no formalized marriage to measure yourself against, the one you call mate has come to mean the person who is also into the sort of arrangement you prefer.

Simply put, you have to speak with your prospective partner to find out what kind of arrangement they're into.

[slvrmoontiger]

I play (and continue to play) all my characters with the following distinctions:

Lover - anyone she kanks on a regular basis.
Mate - anyone she kanks that she has feelings of devotion for that is supposedly mutual. Whether monogamous or not. Depending on the character, this one is likely to remain secret while the above is not at all.

I choose to think being someone's mate as it being NOT the norm on Zalanthas because in my experience through all these years the amount of THOSE my characters have encountered are more rare than diamonds used in actual jewelry IG. Lovers? Hell, you make anything with boobs you can get a lover in less than an hour played.

To -me-, that's rare.

I completely agree and use the terms the same IG with ever character. I'm not saying that must because I have feelings for one character that are feelings of love or bonding it means I can't have the same feelings for another. So yes mates can be polygamous. But mate is a more close relationship and as I have stated before means you have a bond. You can have a bond with one character or half a dozen... Or even a dozen if you like.... But its still a bond that you and the other character(s) share. If you are just kanking someone on a regular bases and all it is is about the the sex than that is a lover.

[Jingo]

From a sociological perspective, it wouldn't make sense to have cities as big and as Allanak without institutionalized marriage. There is a reason why virtually every culture has adopted the model before modern times.

But honestly, Tek doesn't make sense either. So just roll with it.

[evilcabbage]

From a sociological perspective, it wouldn't make sense to have cities as big and as Allanak without institutionalized marriage. There is a reason why virtually every culture has adopted the model before modern times.

But honestly, Tek doesn't make sense either. So just roll with it.

There is institutionalized marriage. For the nobility. The people in the city that -matter-.

[Nyr]

I'd like to shy away from making very specific blanket statements about what the typical Zalanthan will think about monogamy or mating.

Here's what I mean by that - 

A "general" blanket statement regarding monogamy: Many zalanthans do not find it practical to mate for life.
A "specific" blanket statement regarding monogamy: Many zalanthans do not find it practical to mate for life, because life is too harsh and cruel to love anyone that much, and everyone is invariably self-involved and bitter and downtrodden and focused only on their own survival, and people in zalanthas can't even be monogamous to their boots.

There's too many people in Zalanthas to be that specific. There's too many different stories to tell to be that specific. Besides, ruling out love as a storytelling device is like ruling out algebra from a mathbook - it's a pretty basic, fundamental element of stories about people and life.

I tend to agree with this.

[Nyr]

No, Lizzie... I still think there is a big difference between calling someone a mate and a lover. The mere meaning of mate symbolizes some sort of bond beyond just sex.

They're just words.  It's not necessarily the difference between "magicker" and "non-magicker."  I don't think a PC should have to call another PC their "mate" if they're exclusive anymore than a PC should have to call another PC their "lover" if they aren't exclusive.

[ShaLeah]

No, Lizzie... I still think there is a big difference between calling someone a mate and a lover. The mere meaning of mate symbolizes some sort of bond beyond just sex.

They're just words.  It's not necessarily the difference between "magicker" and "non-magicker."  I don't think a PC should have to call another PC their "mate" if they're exclusive anymore than a PC should have to call another PC their "lover" if they aren't exclusive.

mate1   [meyt]  Show IPA noun, verb, mat·ed, mat·ing.
noun
1. a partner in marriage; spouse.
2. one member of a pair of mated animals.
3. one of a pair: I can't find the mate to this glove.

Noble is just a word. Krathi is just a word. Marriage is just a word. Mindworm is just a word. Assassin is just a word.

Words have power. Some words have power on a 'global' scale, such as those above.

I think there seems to be a group of people who would prefer if there was a globally understood usage of the word mate in relation to exclusive (don't read monogamous/polyamorous) intimate and deep relationships involving PCs. I think they may feel that way because calling someone your mate on Zalanthas has become the equivalent of a union that is above casual.

This is the word of choice, like it or not.

I think the best course of action is to, instead of thinking another PCs definition of mate not being the same as yours, just accept that the word mate means the same globally and is defined solely by the people involved in that nucleus. You define your mate as what you like.

[Jherlen]

But honestly, Tek doesn't make sense either. So just roll with it.

YOU SHUT YOUR WHORE MOUTH.

[Nyr]

If one definition of mate:

a person's husband, wife, or other sexual partner.

can mean the same as the definition of lover

a person having a sexual or romantic relationship with someone, often outside marriage.

then I think they can be used for whatever makes sense at the time.  I don't really want to word-Nazi this so that people get strung up in-game for saying someone is a mate when they really meant they're a lover.

[ShaLeah]

If one definition of mate:

a person's husband, wife, or other sexual partner.

can mean the same as the definition of lover

a person having a sexual or romantic relationship with someone, often outside marriage.

then I think they can be used for whatever makes sense at the time.  I don't really want to word-Nazi this so that people get strung up in-game for saying someone is a mate when they really meant they're a lover.

Precisely my point.

I think the best course of action is to, instead of thinking another PCs definition of mate not being the same as yours, just accept that the word mate means the same globally and is defined solely by the people involved in that nucleus. You define your mate as what you like.

Because...

This is the word of choice, like it or not.

Most don't equate lover to the same emotional RISK as the word mate.

If we're not nazi'ing words then why would we care if they call them wife or husband?

[Wish]

Wife and husband are words you use to refer to people who are married, and you won't get married in Zalanthas unless you're a noble or a merchant house family member.

I don't really like the word mate, personally.  I've never used it to describe a long term romantic partnership with someone, and I probably never will.  However, I understand what people are saying when they say "this is my mate, Amos."  It's all about context.

[Barzalene]

What about partner(s)?

[Wish]

Partner is a little more ambiguous/neutral sounding, but I can usually figure that out too, especially if it's accompanied by an emote clasps %amos hand, smiling fondly at !amos

If my character is involved with someone, I usually just say lover.  It pretty plainly defines the relationship as romantic, but is it anyone's business how long or short term that relationship is going to be?  Probably not.

That's just me, though.  Everyone has different ways of defining what other people mean to them, and I think that's fine, because everyone's stories are different.

As long as a few simple guidelines are followed regarding anachronisms, I think the world chugs along pretty well without breaking the all important immershunz.

[Barzalene]

I hope I can say this in a way that makes sense.
The thing about lovers or sex is that sex is easy. But long term stability, maybe even after the sex is no longer the compelling facet is rare. Lover conveys the sex, but not the other stuff.

[Kaineus]

What about partner(s)?

I like the vagueness of 'partner' but agree the connotations are stiff. Lover also has the benefit of being vague, but I always think of that SNL/Will Farrel skit where they always call each other 'lover'.

I always wish I could use the word habibi/habibati, used by millions of people here on earth, but I think the connotations/origin would be jarring to players. But it's a beautiful word and serves as a catchall for friend/lover/boyfriend/girlfriend/husband/wife.

[Drayab]

Actually, I think 'mate' is more ambiguous than 'partner' in terms of how the words are used IG. You need to realize that they way that 'mate' is used IG is not the Merriam-Webster definition. It's related, but specific to this game.

I think using 'partner' to refer to what is normally referred to as 'mate' or 'lover' will only succeed in confusing people. In my experience, when somebody talks about their 'partner,' they mean a business partner of some kind.

[RogueGunslinger]

I go all Aussie and call my clannies and good friends mates, and sometimes random people I don't know too. So I'm all for that word NOT being used specifically to mean something relating to relationships.

[BleakOne]

I always thought the 'lover' implied more... eh... love, than 'mate'. Unless 'mate' has 'soul' before it is doesn't really have much emotional meaning, imho.

[Barzalene]

I go all Aussie and call my clannies and good friends mates, and sometimes random people I don't know too. So I'm all for that word NOT being used specifically to mean something relating to relationships.

I think this get sorted out with context.

[KankWhisperer]

Everyone knows Red Storm is Australia. So if someone says 'Hey mate!' you can tell that 'mate' is a term like 'guy'. No one ever calls their mate 'Hey mate!'. They might say 'This is my mate'. Non issue.

[Dresan]

I've heard people in game refer to their significant others as "This is my man" or "This is my woman". Equally others have referred to people in a intimate relationship as "He is her man", "That is his woman" and "That is his man". These terms are a tad more possessive in the way they sound when referring to a person in relation to another. I don't want to get into how common is it for people to be possessive in Zalanthas again, but I don't think you will be referring to someone as being yours in that way unless you are in a deeper relationship with them to me at least. Just another option for people who might not like or be comfortable with using the word mate.

[slvrmoontiger]

I've heard people in game refer to their significant others as "This is my man" or "This is my woman". Equally others have referred to people in a intimate relationship as "He is her man", "That is his woman" and "That is his man". These terms are a tad more possessive in the way they sound when referring to a person in relation to another. I don't want to get into how common is it for people to be possessive in Zalanthas again, but I don't think you will be referring to someone as being yours in that way unless you are in a deeper relationship with them to me at least. Just another option for people who might not like or be comfortable with using the word mate.

I don't know the connotations would make me feel like I was a piece of property. I guess that's just me.

[Narf]

I've heard people in game refer to their significant others as "This is my man" or "This is my woman". Equally others have referred to people in a intimate relationship as "He is her man", "That is his woman" and "That is his man". These terms are a tad more possessive in the way they sound when referring to a person in relation to another. I don't want to get into how common is it for people to be possessive in Zalanthas again, but I don't think you will be referring to someone as being yours in that way unless you are in a deeper relationship with them to me at least. Just another option for people who might not like or be comfortable with using the word mate.

Some degree of posessiveness is inherent in pretty much all Earth species with long gestation times. It's usually counteracted by other instincts though, so you end up getting some hefty variation in how much it predominates mating interactions.

[Ouroboros]

Some degree of posessiveness is inherent in pretty much all Earth species with long gestation times. It's usually counteracted by other instincts though, so you end up getting some hefty variation in how much it predominates mating interactions.

One might argue that social structure and survival priorities in Zalanthas tends to redirect such possessiveness towards one's boots over one's partner. But that's just one point of view.

[slvrmoontiger]

They are my boots....

And the boots she's wearing are mine too.

[James de Monet]

Yeah. Don't knock boots.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

I hope you see what you did there.

[James de Monet]

 

[LauraMars]

Of course he did - monet is no dumbet.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

Heh.

[MeTekillot]

how can you be monogamous when there are only two to three layers of fabric separating your genitals from that cute stranger at the bar?

Well that's true in real life too, and some people somehow manage.

theirs is truly a miserable existence.

[James de Monet]

Of course he did - monet is no dumbet.

Haha, I see what you did there, too!