Let's talk about sex

[My 2 sids]

Many people have posted and complained that players are allowing Earth thinking/values/morals into game.  Esp. over sexuality issues.  Well, yes... we should be leaving Earth morals behind in game.  However, every society has morals... the DOCs are what tell us what morals most in game have,  that is why it is important for players to understand what the sexual morals of the game is... to play their PC accordingly.  That is why I'll state... please, please, please READ THE DOCS!  For me I've noticed some players disregarding the stated morals of the society.  I think this leads to much confusion about how to role play a character.  These are just some examples of what I perceive... perhaps I'm wrong, but I'm wondering if others have these same questions or observations.  

The first issue I have is the battle of the sexes and, if its just me or, is the trend now to have women in a subservient role in game?  According to the docs... both sexes are equal, yet I'm finding a lot of inequality given to women in game.  It just seems like a majority of women in power are only there (can only –get- there) by sleeping around or being "arm jewelry" to some man.  Also, almost all the female slaves I see are sex slaves... however, almost none of the males are.  Nor do I see many of the noble women taking sex slaves, whatever.

Second, would be sexual partners.  I believe players are confusing the idea of having one partner with having one partner for life.  The docs tell us that almost everyone practices the concept of multiple partners.  However, many times I'm seeing relationships with only one person and jealousy.  Why does it make sense in a world of multiple partners that people get upset as if they have been "cheated" on?  I find it confusing as to if PCs have multiple partners at one time... or if they have one-on-one relationships throughout out their life.  

Finally,  I have a question about sexual power vs. real power.  Sure, as the docs state any type of girlfriend/boyfriend/concubine would probably have –some- say and could be able to suggest a few things to their lover.  However, it should not go to the extent of being able to totally dominate a superior's decisions.   An example... Say a noble lady keeps a 'pet'.  Now this guy may have a great deal of influence over a few things... however if he starts to creep up and try to have real power over the noble, that noble would/should get rid of him.  Sex is cheap and no commoner would/should EVER have the slightest influence over a noble's true power.  IF that noble is dumb enough to actually allow such a thing... the rest of the house should be putting an end to it.  This goes for ANY socially-unequal relationship.   Everything in the world revolves around social status.  With sex as a mere past time/production method, sex would/should NEVER get in the way of or bypass social status.  

One out and out question I want to slip in here.  Virginity.  Would finding a virgin be so rare it is considered valuable... or would it simply suggest a cast-out unwanted type person?

[Anonymous]

The docs tell us that almost everyone practices the concept of multiple partners

I've never seen this.  Can you provide a link?

[Carnage]

The first issue I have is the battle of the sexes and, if its just me or, is the trend now to have women in a subservient role in game? According to the docs... both sexes are equal, yet I'm finding a lot of inequality given to women in game. It just seems like a majority of women in power are only there (can only –get- there) by sleeping around or being "arm jewelry" to some man. Also, almost all the female slaves I see are sex slaves... however, almost none of the males are. Nor do I see many of the noble women taking sex slaves, whatever.

It's not that female PCs can't get anywhere. It's that most of them that I've seen fuck whoever is in charge and get into power rather than be one of the anonymous members of the guard force/house workers who earns their way up. I've liked this and the only thing for me to really do about it is lead by example. My characters will never sleep with their workers, underlings, or servants. There -are- VNPCs for your characters to be in relationships with if there's no one else. I've also never cared for the 'buff male captain falls in love with the big-breasted recruit' story that I've seen so many times. There's a ton of VNPC Zalanthan women who would want to be with a successful character. You sure as hell wouldn't need to take on another member of the house and risk your reputation.

As for the sex slaves, I'm just going to say that there's a lot more to Armageddon than sex with other characters. Really, go ahead and do what the hell you want to unless it's screwing over your duties. I've noticed a few nobles who spend more time with their concubines/sex slaves/whatever than actually doing their damn job. This pisses me off to no end, as you're basically fucking over the people who work underneath you when you do shit like that. There's nothing fun about sitting in the sparring room by yourself for hours on hours on end when the noble could and has IC reasons to interact.

Yeah, I'm pretty bitter.

[Krath]

I agree with Carnage.....I can not believe I just said that..

[Anonymous]

What's this about nobles and jobs?  Someone who pays more attention to their little toy boy or toy girl than any tasks upper house leadership has assigned them is doing a damn fine job of playing the stereotypical lazy, self-centered noble.

Why would that sort of noble PC give a shit if your PC was bored?

[Carnage]

What's this about nobles and jobs?  Someone who pays more attention to their little toy boy or toy girl than any tasks upper house leadership has assigned them is doing a damn fine job of playing the stereotypical lazy, self-centered noble.

Why would that sort of noble PC give a shit if your PC was bored?

OOCly, the noble role is intended to enhance the game, and players who accept such a role should agree that they will play in a way that contributes to the game. That includes initiating events, providing employment for other PCs, cooperating with staff requests, etc.

It wasn't my PC who was bored, it was me. I literally spent hours just idling by myself, doing absolutely nothing. My experience with the house was horrible and I'm not going to play in it as long as that noble is around. I also don't want them to be leaders for my characters anymore as their player has also done this sort of thing before. Quite frankly, my time was completely wasted and it was one of the worst times I have had in Armageddon. I didn't write in a complaint but looking back on it, I should have. A little interaction isn't too much to ask for considering I spent at least HALF if not more of my character's playtime idling by themself in their IC duties. This character was also over five days played.

Yeah, that noble didn't -have- to play with my character or interact with them, but considering that there was about three or four people in the clan including them and a person who was away pretty often, I felt really screwed out of things. If you're going to apply for a noble and mudsex all day, think long and hard about whether or not you're going to be adding things to the game. People depend on you to run that clan and provide things to do for PCs. I think that someone who deters slightly from what their character would do to make things a lot more enjoyable for others is a hell of a lot more respectable than someone who makes a clan so miserable.

But wow, playing the stereotypical noble. That's almost as fascinating as the stereotypical cruel and corrupt templar. Both are incredibly overdone, a dime a dozen, and utterly boring to be around. They give that 'nothing new here, move along' feeling. In about three or four weeks the player is going to retire and you'll face another one. One of my favorite templars was in Allanak. She was around for a while and I thought she was a pretty good templar. Not only that, but her player led some damn good RPTs. A lot of these nobles and templars could learn something from her.[/b]

[Malifaxis]

The stars are aligned, the end of an epoch is upon us... or something.  I also agree with Carnage.

I enjoy playing guard types.  I do, so I play them commonly (a full quarter of my PCs have been guard types), and have even gotten requests to play guards for certain other players.  A guard type gives a hell of a lot of potential for high profile interactions, gives a lot of potential for increasing the rep of the associated guard-ee (for example, if a rival's guard screws up publicly, and your guard does an immaculate job, people will remember), and has the potential to be quite a fun role.

The problem is, that potential is all too commonly wasted because no matter what the player behind the character gets bored to fuck.  Playing a guard is a *huge* investment in time, you get little freedom, and you get treated (by and large) like crap... all because Lord Fancypants is so concerned with playing a 'proper, by the docs' noble.  You know, that's great that you want to play your aloof, self-centered fuck... but after the 20th or 40th hour of sitting there watching some noble talk about fashion, or after the 50th hour of standing there during a damn teaparty, I've pretty much exhausted my wish to use the 'think' command. It's right about then that I start pondering how much I can sell that damn signet ring for to a rival house, and if or if not I can get a 10k bonus for the attached finger.

Wise words from Carnage:

Yeah, that noble didn't -have- to play with my character or interact with them, but considering that there was about three or four people in the clan including them and a person who was away pretty often, I felt really screwed out of things.

That's so true... a noble doesn't have to give you things to do, but anyone who says that it isn't a noble's job to keep the employee's *players* entertained is talking out of the wrong hole.  Is it so much to ask to have a PC sent on some f'd up mission on ocassion?  It's *SO* simple to keep people you value occupied... here's some ideas:

:arrow: Aquire exotic tastes.  Examples:  Send people to a neighboring town (Liur's or Red Storm for example) to retrieve for you a cask of specific liquor, or a bag full of some odd type of food.

:arrow: Don't bloody use the Way constantly.  Write notes, have PCs deliver them.  If you do need to find someone right now, have your guard Way them... there's no reason a noble would want the brainstrain.

:arrow: Espionage, Espionage, Espionage... You have a highly trained stealth class PC in your guard?  USE THEM!  I speak from experience when I say that sparring day after day with a stealth class sucks.  Make that PC and player feel important and valued.

:arrow: Take up a sudden, fleeting interest in some bizarre random shit that exists out in the wastes.  Send them out to get some purple glowing fungus, or some odd crystal from some cave that might not even exist.  If you send them out after something that you as a player *know* is fake, you can easily avoid punishing the PCs for 'failing' by waving it off as being 'not that important anyway.'

That's just a smattering of small ideas to help keep people occupied.  I mean seriously, not interacting with someone for hours and hours?  About as fun as unplugging your ethernet cord/modem cable/whatever and constantly hitting 'refresh' on an empty browser window.  Nobles are an app type character, so every Noble has most likely played a commoner PC before that who has been bored to tears.  Don't forget that feeling, and for the love of Sanvaen, don't inflict it on others!

Side Note:  If there is a noble who is making you bored for your 145th hour... revolt!  DO IT!  Shake things up!!!  If you can do it, bring a friend or two!  A revolter/deserter forces the Noble to make things fun for everyone.  It's fun for the revolter/deserters, it's fun for the loyalists (who have to hunt the rebel scum down), and it's fun for the noble (who has to cover this shit up or else lose face.)  Or maybe it's not fun for the noble... but after 145 hours of standing around with no interaction, I think it's a wonderful karmic kick to the jimmy.

[Malifaxis]

I just had someone very kindly point out to me that my above post has nothing to do with the original point of the thread... as per usual.

So here's that stuff:

I do think that people carry over a lot of real world concepts on sexism over to Armag, which is totally bogus.  Having played a female character (and well, from what I've heard) I can state that I was treated very differently... very condescendingly at times.  I really, really had to work to get any kind of a 'hard ass' reputation.  I would consitently beat my sparring partners bloody, knock people out, and generally kick major ass, only to turn around and find that some mission or responsibility was being given to some guy... some guy who, 4 of 5 times I had schooled without breaking a sweat.

On the My 2 Sids' point of sexual power over real power... I see no reason why it shouldn't exist.  Both ways.  If the commoner plays the right cards, does the right things, proves to be dependable both in bed and out, they could easily become too valuable to dispose of, and therefore have a shred of control and influence over the noble's wielded power.  That's just how I see it, though, because personally I've been really looking forward to someday playing a Wyrmtongue type PC.

[Callisto]

The first issue I have is the battle of the sexes and, if its just me or, is the trend now to have women in a subservient role in game?  According to the docs... both sexes are equal, yet I'm finding a lot of inequality given to women in game.  It just seems like a majority of women in power are only there (can only –get- there) by sleeping around or being "arm jewelry" to some man.

There is no bias that places women in subservient roles, the women place themselves in subservient roles. I don't clan up very often, but when I do I have no problem rising to respectable rank in due time without my character so much as winking at someone important.

Does it take longer? Sure, but when the person who worked to get to the top is compared to the person who whored her way to the top, nine times out of ten the one who worked hard is going to tower above the other in terms of power, sway and respect.

It isn't that there's a bias against women in-game, its that the women in-game (PC wise) are more prone to be whores.

Second, would be sexual partners. I believe players are confusing the idea of having one partner with having one partner for life. The docs tell us that almost everyone practices the concept of multiple partners. However, many times I'm seeing relationships with only one person and jealousy. Why does it make sense in a world of multiple partners that people get upset as if they have been "cheated" on? I find it confusing as to if PCs have multiple partners at one time... or if they have one-on-one relationships throughout out their life.

It isn't earth nature to be jealous, its human nature.

However, I think people blow the whole "multiple partners" thing way out of proportion. If you're speaking in terms of Joe commoner having multiple fuck buddies then that's going to be very common and people would likely see someone getting jealous over that as strange, but if you mean long-term relationships with love and romance then I think multiple partners would just be accepted, as opposed to being so common as to be the rule, like some people might suggest.

It would be accepted in the same manner as a two person relationship or a same sex relationship, no big deal. That's all in my opinion, of course.

It also seems reasonable to me that if you're mated to one or more people, that you would become upset if they were fucking around outside of those involved in the relationship. This isn't to suggest that some couples and such aren't going to be okay with their other romping with someone else, just that it isn't bad role play or 'earth bias' for them to get jealous.

Finally, I have a question about sexual power vs. real power. Sure, as the docs state any type of girlfriend/boyfriend/concubine would probably have –some- say and could be able to suggest a few things to their lover. However, it should not go to the extent of being able to totally dominate a superior's decisions. An example... Say a noble lady keeps a 'pet'. Now this guy may have a great deal of influence over a few things... however if he starts to creep up and try to have real power over the noble, that noble would/should get rid of him. Sex is cheap and no commoner would/should EVER have the slightest influence over a noble's true power. IF that noble is dumb enough to actually allow such a thing... the rest of the house should be putting an end to it. This goes for ANY socially-unequal relationship. Everything in the world revolves around social status. With sex as a mere past time/production method, sex would/should NEVER get in the way of or bypass social status.

It rarely happens and when it does it is for generally for good in-character reasons. I promise you that when it does happen and the House becomes aware, the rest of the House will take care of the situation with all due haste to avoid the risk of the public finding out one of their own was lorded over by a common lover. Thats the kind of embaressment that would haunt the house for years to come.

One out and out question I want to slip in here. Virginity. Would finding a virgin be so rare it is considered valuable... or would it simply suggest a cast-out unwanted type person?

Depends on your character concept. Some of my characters have near-squealed with glee at the idea of having someone no one else ever has, while others suspect them to be damaged goods or have something wrong with them. You can't put a standard perception on something like that, if that's what you're looking for.

I did all that on the fly, so you will have to forgive me if it rambles a little and contains horrible spelling mistakes.

[ashyom]

Players' chars represent a very small percentage of Zalanthan's population.  Addressing the original post - if I were to take the main point out of context and apply it elsewhere, like, say...common people's lifestyles.  About 85-95% of Zalanthans are poor.  So, why aren't more players RP'ing being poor?

This is the answer I came up with:  They don't want to.  Most players would rather accumulate wealth and enjoy RP'ing the good life (that they possibly might not have RL).  If it means that the players decide their chars should sleep the way to to the top, or have only one lifelong partner, so be it.  I'd rather these players enjoy their chars.  And again, these chars represent a very small, almost insignificant percentage of the people on Zalanthas.  But you see those chars do what would be out-of-norms for an average Zalanthan the most because they're the ones that interact with you 99% of the time.

Now, I'm not saying that it's okay to let the Western culture into Zalanthas.  Just that it's inevitable that some does leak in. All you and the rest of us can do is keep RP'ing the best we can, and try break from the Western culture mindset while simultaneously teaching the newly-come players to do the same.

-----

As for the sexual power v. real power - That all depends on the chars involved, and I don't think it's appropriate to go in detail on GDB.  You (and anybody else), however are welcome to email the mud to let the staff know what's going on, and we'll check to see if it's wacky or not.

Regards,
Ashyom

[EvilRoeSlade]

There's nothing that we guys can do about the subserviance of women.

If they want to play a big-breasted, demure aide instead of a burly, foul-tongued warrior, there isn't a lot that I can do besides roll my eyes.

So yeah.  Girls, its all your fault.

[Cuusardo]

There's nothing that we guys can do about the subserviance of women.

If they want to play a big-breasted, demure aide instead of a burly, foul-tongued warrior, there isn't a lot that I can do besides roll my eyes.

So yeah.  Girls, its all your fault.

I hope I'm not getting too IC, but I have seen quite a few female characters whose descriptions (and sometimes sdescs) have something about breast size in them.  When making my character, the thought never occurred to me to put something about breast size in her desc.  (Perhaps I was assuming that no one would take notice of that when they looked at her, due to the type of character she is.)

Are people on Zalanthas really such sexual creatures, driven by the desire for survival?  It would seem so, seeing as sex is the means for procreation.  People are animals, driven by their desires and hormones.

[EvilRoeSlade]

I hope I'm not getting too IC, but I have seen quite a few female characters whose descriptions (and sometimes sdescs) have something about breast size in them.

Yeah, that's how you know there is a male PC behind that character.

*cackles and runs away, with a few incomprensible gibberings sprinkled in*

[crymerci]

Hmm...I'm not sure how to phrase this, but I'll give it a try.

I think that the reason that there are more women sleeping their way to the top (both in Zalanthas and in real life) is that there are plenty of men willing to aid and abet that cause. Let's face it, if men weren't so easy to lead around by their nether parts, we'd have to do it the old-fashioned way.  And it's not that these f-me characters can't do that, it's just easier and faster to do it on your back. Or maybe the women would have been on their backs anyway, but getting rewarded for it is just a perk.

Or maybe I should stop posting while half asleep.

[Angela Christine]

I hope I'm not getting too IC, but I have seen quite a few female characters whose descriptions (and sometimes sdescs) have something about breast size in them.  When making my character, the thought never occurred to me to put something about breast size in her desc.  (Perhaps I was assuming that no one would take notice of that when they looked at her, due to the type of character she is.)

I usually include something about breasts, or more subtle references to her figure being curvy or stick thin, but not because -I- care.  I do it because some male characters will care, some will care a great deal.  I strong burly warrior chick will usually have either large but dangly breasts (beefy type woman) or virtually no body fat and therefore no breasts to speak of (lean and muscular woman).  Some of the boys out there are crude, they are going to want to make crude comments about your breasts, how can they do that if they have no IC indication of what your figure is like?  Putting your breasts in your main desc means you never have to emote your breast type, or deal with confusion when one guy assumes you are a double A cup and his buddy assumed you were a double D.  Even under leather there will usually be some indication of body shape.  

I'm much less likely to describe her legs or ass, despite all the leg-men and ass-men, because that wouldn't be obvious with the clothes most of my characters wear.  A J-Lo butt might be worthy of a mention, but how likely is that?    If I planned to have the character wearing light, clingy skirts or Blackwing thong-skirts it might be appropriate to waste a line of the main desc describing her legs because they would be visible most of the time and some people would notice.  The don't have to be "good" to be noteworthy, you could describe your hairy legs and heavily scarred, knobby knees.

Likewise I wouldn't feel the need to decribe general size/shape my male character's "package" unless he was going to go around in a very revealing loincloth or tight leather pants all the time, or it was freakishly large and noticeable under normal clothes.  (Wasn't there a bulging crotched elf once?)

It is information other characters can use.  Is she a buff but curvy warrior-princess or a mannish-looking square-jawed broad?  You can hint at this without actually mentioning the breasts, but I don't think mentioning them should necessarily lable the character as a f-me.  You have breasts, they are big, small, or somewhere inbetween.  (Unless you were an idiot that had your breast(s) removed so it/they wouldn't get in the way when you were using your longbow.)  Mentioning your figure doesn't mean you intend to use it.

AC

There's nothing that we guys can do about the subserviance of women.

If they want to play a big-breasted, demure aide instead of a burly, foul-tongued warrior, there isn't a lot that I can do besides roll my eyes.

So yeah.  Girls, its all your fault.

Perhaps...but if blame must be placed (and it shouldn't in a fantasy RP environment) I'll lay an equal share of it (or greater) at the feet of the numerous males that have chosen to create these gals.

[ShaLeah]

The first issue I have is the battle of the sexes and, if its just me or, is the trend now to have women in a subservient role in game?  According to the docs... both sexes are equal, yet I'm finding a lot of inequality given to women in game.  It just seems like a majority of women in power are only there (can only –get- there) by sleeping around or being "arm jewelry" to some man.  

Unless you're with that female 24/7, I think it's safe to say that you are assuming that she got there by fucking whomever. Truth is, no one knows for sure but for arguement sake, let's say that's true of every female in power.
So I fuck my way to a trusted position.
My noble dies suddenly.
Now what?
Now I have two choices, I either fuck the new lord/lady in charge or prove the last lord/lady did not make a mistake in trusting me.
Sex is a means to an end, thinking like one of those who uses sex as a tool, I would have to say that it only gets you so far, right? What are the chances you're going to be lucky enough to hold the grace of a noble for an entire lifetime? Pretty slim, I think. At some point or another it becomes do or die.

Also, almost all the female slaves I see are sex slaves... however, almost none of the males are.  Nor do I see many of the noble women taking sex slaves, whatever.

Agreed. I'd love to see a male pleasure slave in game, a human-female combat slave (for which I have only ever seen muls). Things like this aid in the whole western mentality thing. While on Zalanthas we are equal despite of gender, we, as players, have control in what we choose to play. So if you're a male playing nothing but hunters, guards, assassins and thieves, you're falling prey to stereotype.
More men should make dainty type roles. Shit, can't stand aides? Make a female warrior/hunter/etc.
Afraid you'll get hit on? Make a lesbian.  
I think females do quite well in making hunters, guards, assassins and thieves.

Why does it make sense in a world of multiple partners that people get upset as if they have been "cheated" on?

I have to agree with AC on this. Jealousy and possessiveness are human nature and very hard to roleplay out of. Maybe when going through character creation we should decide from the beginning what we believe in that matter?  
-I- find it becomes hard to believe in multiple partners when love becomes involved. Your character trusts this other person implicitely, they rock your mercenary-ass, they're funny, smart, strong, successful and you find yourself in love. In comes the silky, fuck me aide, and you're but a dirty merc yourself, out come the claws and you feel threatened. You can't help those feelings, you don't want to lose the person you love, you don't want to stop being the preferred one... why can't they just all go away and leave us alone?!?
change objective To kill any pretty bitch that looks at my man.
Your new objective is To kill any pretty bitch that looks at my man.
Saving Ubermerc.
I like to think the more common it actually is in game (among PC's, not NPC's), the more we see it happening, the less shocking it will become and it will be easier to accept.
Next time, make a dwarf with the objective to gain himself twenty wives of all species. Maybe that'll help.  

Finally,  I have a question about sexual power vs. real power.  Sure, as the docs state any type of girlfriend/boyfriend/concubine would probably have –some- say and could be able to suggest a few things to their lover.  However, it should not go to the extent of being able to totally dominate a superior's decisions.

I disagree. I'll tell you why in a minute.

An example... Say a noble lady keeps a 'pet'.  Now this guy may have a great deal of influence over a few things... however if he starts to creep up and try to have real power over the noble, that noble would/should get rid of him.  Sex is cheap and no commoner would/should EVER have the slightest influence over a noble's true power.  IF that noble is dumb enough to actually allow such a thing... the rest of the house should be putting an end to it.  This goes for ANY socially-unequal relationship.   Everything in the world revolves around social status.  With sex as a mere past time/production method, sex would/should NEVER get in the way of or bypass social status.

Let's look at this from a real world perspective.
If I do a good job, I expect to be rewarded.
If I do a shitty job, I expect to be fired/reprimanded.
The truth is, there are many more commoners than there are nobles and while nobles deal with the shit that matters intelligence/powerwise, it is the commoner who takes care of not only the day to day things but all the dirty work too!
No fucking way in hell is a noble going to assassinate someone, he or she will hire someone else to do it or have one of his own people do it.  Working someone into a locked office full of trained guards and jumping in on the fight it not assassinating someone, in my humble opinion, that is aiding and abetting.  
You have an employee who shares your bed with you, he or she keeps you very happy in the four poster baobab bed -and- is extremely trusted and remarkably capable with his/her job... why -wouldn't- you wanna keep them happy? Why wouldn't their opinion matter?
You attract waaaaaaaaaay more bees with honey than with vinegar, you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours. It's -all- about what people can do for you. Wow... I certainly went all cliche, heh.

Virginity.  Would finding a virgin be so rare it is considered valuable... or would it simply suggest a cast-out unwanted type person?

I think people would tend to lose their virginity a whole lot faster on Zalanthas but I don't think being one would be revered or looked down upon.
I do think, however, that popping a cherry would be something... maybe not valuable, but definately... cherished?  A pleasure slave trained from birth and untouched would be astronomically high priced, whereas an older, experienced pleasure slave might not be. So I think yes, in certain situations being a virgin would be a good thing.


All this said, I'd love to see more hulking warrior types dressed in silks, speaking eloquently, sipping tea and arranging nobles schedules...  blending the lines of gender that we the players have imposed into the game. I think that would rock.

ShaLeah
-who seems to be unable to shut up today.

[My 2 sids]

Just to answer a few statements and again all I'm saying is that this is what I'm picking up on.  The discussion is weather or not others feel the same.

Monogamy What I should have stated better is that there are two very different definitions for monogamy, as used in game.  There is marriage/life-long commitment (which most agree there is little of in game) and then here is "The practice or condition of having a single sexual partner during a period of time."  My observation is that monogamy does happen a lot in game.  Jealousy, trust, alliances, all seem to point that many players/PCs feel one should only have one partner at one time.  The alternative to this would be to have polygamy and/or the zoogamy.   (Personally, I see the alternative as a better match for the game world... but just because of how players function I see more monogamy taking place or a few one night stands)  The main thing is for players to enjoy role-playing relationships and for players to be able to role play their characters according to the norms of the society.

Percentage of PCs vs. NPCs and VNPCs  It has been mentioned that players do (and should) role-play the types of society members they wish to represent.  You are right.  I was just bringing up something but you're right that it is not up to players to be responsible for keeping things in game at equal balance as far as representing the public is concerned.  

Sexual vs. Real power  The example I will bring up is King Henry VIII and his wives.  Wife number two was one of two wives Henry did not have executed.  Why?  Because she remembered her place.  What I'm really trying to get at is that sexual partners should have no more sway on nobles or betters than a trusted advisor or wet nurse or nanny.  Even if only in rumor, a noble or better that (supposed or not) allows himself to be lead by a sexual partner is allowing someone beneath them to rule over them.

[Raging hormone]

Who cares?

Honestly.

Who really cares?

If you wanna have sex - go right ahead.  If you need lube, keep it by the keyboard.  But why have these drawn out 'discussions' that don't change anyone's opinion?

[Malifaxis]

Who cares?

Honestly.

Who really cares?

If you wanna have sex - go right ahead. If you need lube, keep it by the keyboard. But why have these drawn out 'discussions' that don't change anyone's opinion?

You know, I hear they sell clues in Allanak's bazarr for about 30 sid each.

Look in to it.  

This discussion, unused hormone, is actually rather poignant, and I for one hope it continues.

[Carnage]

But why have these drawn out 'discussions' that don't change anyone's opinion?

Says who? I've deliberately aimed characters towards polygymy because it's the norm that I've learned from discussions such as this. Not only that but should I choose to play a noble who does take on a concubine or whatever, I'm going to keep some of these views and insights in mind, such as tossing out the one that can't stay in their place and so on. Just as I hope future nobles will take my advice and learn from my story.

[Impska]

On jealousy/possessiveness and how to handle it given the "acceptability" of polygamous relationships (my take) -

I'd be pretty sad to see jealousy and possessiveness go the way of the wind on Arm, given that it's another source of conflict, which is great. I also agree that it's human nature. So how should a person handle it on armageddon?

Well, in my opinion, even in a sexually free society, there's a sound difference between having a polygamous relationship and whoring it up.

Being in a polygamous relationship doesn't equate with being promiscuous. This is something people seem to be having problems with. Sleeping with everyone in town doesn't equate with polygamy, which can often be the basis of a productive family unit.

For example: I am a female Byn Sergeant. I am engaged in a relationship with a male Byn Sergeant. Now it doesn't seem very convenient for me, or even possible for me to take a leave of absence in order to go giving birth. Given the nature of my job, I'd have to take almost the entire pregnancy off, or have a high risk of miscarriage. However, there are obvious advantages to raising children - they make great allies for one. So maybe my partner and I go out trolling for a good candidate to give birth to children for us, and take care of them. Taking care of children is a full time job though, and what if the candidate we agree on is also a Borsail House Aide? Well, you know what would be great, if that house Aide had a partner (male or female) who did have time to take care of our young kids. Suddenly we have a working family unit of at least four adults - all of whom contribute to the good of the whole in their own way. There is access to all manner of jobs for their children, and a secure unit should one or two die.

So if my husband the Byn Sergeant starts screwing all of his female Runners, why shouldn't I be jealous? It's not as if they were part of our agreed upon family unit. Not to mention, they threaten the stability of our unit, because maybe they'll start having children and begin demanding part of our resources.

So that's just my point of view. But then again... maybe I just don't want it pressed upon me that all of my characters must find the local Lieutenant who sleeps with all the House aides, or the merchant who beds anything that moves to be acceptable. I doubt it's even possible for me to get far enough away from real life values to be able to respect that sort of person, no matter how sexually free Zalanthas is supposed to be. I can do polygamy, I can do homo/hetero/bisexuality, but for some reason promiscuity just isn't clicking for me, ic'ly. There just doesn't seem to be much logical justification to make it fit in with the game world.

And I don't buy that business (from another thread) about mimicking nobles in their promiscuity. For one, they have a safe and secure unit in which to engage in their sexual activity. And for two, they're rich enough to afford to make part of their polygamous unit based around sexual pleasure. It's a luxury most normal commoners just don't have.

[Morninglight]

Okay, everybody, not everyone who mentions bust or hip size is a male IRL. I happen to be female, and I usually describe my PCs' figures in a general way (modest curves, slight figure, yadda-yadda.) I don't make bed-me PCs but I don't make hags either.

If someone, male or female, wants to play the PC that rises to power via mudsex, that's their business. Good RP'ers are good RP'ers, no matter what they do.

Just my two 'sids,

[Barzalene]

Often I play women in positions of power, and men instead of coming to my characters and suggesting business deals and alliances try to seduce them. Why aren't men more imaginiative?

[Malifaxis]

I am *SO* going to club you over the head and drag you back to my cave in order to get a promotion.

[naatok]

Sexuality is probably the most powerful behavioral force in animals after fear.  It has been observed in nature that animals will often forego the possibility of food in favor of having sex (at least males of a species).

To say that a noble or templar's boy or girl toy would have no 'real' influence over the decisions of their Liege is going too far in the opposite extreme, imho.

There are many examples from RL human history where a powerful individual's lover made or broke that leader or his or her plans.  This goes far beyond Catherine the Great of Russia who was literally 'broken' by her lover...her favorite stallion she was having lowered to her bed by rope and pulley when the wench (no pun intended!) system broke and the horse fell on the Czaress, crushing some of her internal organs.

Sorry folks.  I just love that story.  hee hee!!   :twisted:

Anyway, lovers of powerful people DO have influence on the decisions those in power make.  It all depends on how emotionally close the powerful figure is willing to come to the concubine, but sometimes and with some people...it just happens.

I wholeheartedly agree that noble and merchant great house families would take a dim view of a concubine having an 'unseemly' amount of influence with one of their members.  Such a family might threaten to have the concubine killed or enslaved and sold off if the noble/powerful merchant couldn't keep his or her priorities straight.

[bloodfromstone]

I thought the documents said that taking multiple partners was not unusual, especially among nobles. I always assumed this meant it was similar to homo/hetero/bisexuality. As in, accepted and common, but no more than taking a single partner. Am I wrong here?

[Raesanos]

Deleted some posts and locked because someone decided to ressurect a 2-years-dead thread with some trolling.

[edit] Above post was made before I managed to lock it.  In response, the answer to that question is here: http://www.armageddon.org/intro/quickstart.html (its not uncommon)