Quick RP Questions

[Erythil]

Some form of codified, ritualistically or legally recognized pair-bonding with an eye towards the creation of familial or clan units is not the exception, but rather the rule, throughout all of recorded human history, in the East and Near East as well as the West.  I stand by my opinion that it's not especially believable that there would be a large urban mercantile society that does not have a cultural establishment allowing for this kind for the transmission of property and lineage.  I believe that the lower classes would seek to imitate the higher. 

However, I am okay with it among tribal societies.

Also, Raptor Dan, I find some weird cognitive dissonance between your celebration of the superiority of the 'Ages of culture' leading to an absence of marriage practice and your previous assertion that your 'lack of tradition' is a virtue of your non-married common-law relationship.

[Raptor_Dan]

Also, Raptor Dan, I find some weird cognitive dissonance between your celebration of the superiority of the 'Ages of culture' leading to an absence of marriage practice and your previous assertion that your 'lack of tradition' is a virtue of your non-married common-law relationship.

You keep using that word marriage, and it's jarring to me. There's plenty of pair-bonding practice in Zalanthas, so much of it, that there is no real standard. It's not 'Ages of Culture' leading to an absence, it's Ages of Culture leading to an established norm you don't readily believe. Mate is the accepted term, sharing an apartment is basically normal city tradition when you're serious. I swear, I've overheard this argument you're making IG, as more educated nobles commented on the practices that Zalanthans have being a mimicry of their superiors. So, there's definitely not an absence, there's an abundance, it's just not what you want it to be. I applaud that, and you find cognitive dissonance between that, and my RL relationship, which I tried to use as an example of how lack of tradition doesn't mean lack of importance.

Btw, as someone who has been diagnosed as having bipolar affective disorder, and schizophrenia, you're going to find a LOT of cognitive dissonance is EVERYTHING I do. Take it with a grain of yellow salt, please. Tomorrow I'm going to be an entirely different person who might disagree with everything I've said or done before.

Edited to reread my responses, Erythil's:

Actually, now that I look at this, I don't think maybe you read my post very well. I didn't allege an absence of anything.

Despite all that, I've seen and played those who have varied traditions, unique relationship backgrounds, parents of 'one mother, six fathers' or 'one father, many women to breed with, who keeps the children, and the mothers leave'. I've also seen ring giving, or tattoos shared, blood rituals.

Don't box me in with your fifty years or less of experience when Zalanthan culture has had Ages to progress, and they're richer and more cultured and more varied that most of America, imho.

But that doesn't fit your desire for a 'codified, ritualistically or legally recognized pair-bonding' in Zalanthas, so i can see how it would be easy to ignore.

You're pointing out what you expect from a large urban mercantile society, and I think instead of thinking it as that, you could also think of it as a post-apocalyptic world ruled by dominating sorcerers who don't /want/ their lesser subjects to transfer property or lineage, OR imitate higher classes. /my input...?

[Miradus]

I only respect the ancient dwarven ceremony of Kapluk, where we gather four hundred of our relatives and descend upon the nearest bar where we will drink all of the ale and take turns forcibly sodomizing the other patrons.

Fun fact: Next one starts in 30 minutes.

[Delirium]

So dwarves are klingons? Everything makes so much sense now

[TheGoose]

So, I've been wondering about this for a long time. On the human tribals page, all of them have this line: " Not okay to use as background. "

Does that mean that if I wanted to explain my character's virtual tribe as an offshoot of one of the documented tribes, that isn't allowed? I've been holding off on naming and sort of fleshing out my character's tribe until I can get that answered.

[Tisiphone]

So, I've been wondering about this for a long time. On the human tribals page, all of them have this line: " Not okay to use as background. "

Does that mean that if I wanted to explain my character's virtual tribe as an offshoot of one of the documented tribes, that isn't allowed? I've been holding off on naming and sort of fleshing out my character's tribe until I can get that answered.

The best thing to do in this situation would be to drop a line to staff in the request tool, using the Question category. They'll sort it out.

My gut feeling is that they're okay with people creating virtual tribes, and probably wouldn't have a problem with this idea, but it depends in part on what the virtual tribe is like, how the offshoot happened, that sort of thing. And they'll probably be willing to work with you to find an acceptable position.

What the 'Not Okay to Use as Background' definitely set-in-stone means is that it's not okay to make a character who is from one of those tribes, because they're closed for some reason. It might be that they were wiped out, or moved out of the Known, or are closed temporarily in an attempt to consolidate the playerbase or to give staff a chance to revamp their tribal documentation, or for any other reason. It doesn't (necessarily) mean that any and all association with them must necessarily cease.

But you'll want to check with them to be sure.

[chrisdcoulombe]

Junk baby

[TheGoose]

Junk baby