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

[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.