Pleasure Slaves, Noble Sex, still no "official" an

Started by Bestatte, July 21, 2003, 07:34:33 AM

Well we have Ashyom stating that nobles do not have sex with slaves or commoners, and several players under the impression that this has always been the general policy for the northlands.

We also have Vendyra quoting Laeris saying that nobles -do- have sex with slaves, and several players under the impression that this has always been the general policy for the northlands.

Considering the fact that some people -do- enjoy RPing physical intimacy/gratification/insert polite term here...

I don't think there's any room for ambiguity on this issue and I think there should be an actual statement by the game's Admin. Either it's allowed or it isn't. I think this has been the cause of much confusion in the past, particularly when it comes to Nobles crossing a line they didn't know existed.

My personal opinion is that slaves are chattel and objects, not people, and other than drawing my bath and scrubbing my back and wiping my ass when I take a shit and *possibly* allowing one to be my food-tester to make sure I don't get poisoned, I would *never* allow a slave to touch me in any way, shape, or form if I was a northern Noble. I would sooner fuck an elf if I was that desparate, and not give it a second thought.

But then, I also think that a Northern noble would consider a commoner to be a few steps up the foodchain from a slave, and therefore potential concubine (NOT consort!) material. Belly-warmer, but not slave. Indentured servant perhaps, but still considered a person. That was shot down and though I disagree with it, I accept it.

But if a noble would never even consider fucking a real actual person who doesn't have noble blood, he damned well wouldn't consider fucking a non-person THING that talks and walks on two feet.

So which is it? CAN they have pleasure slaves, thereby putting an owned object in higher esteem than a real person (commoner)? Or can they not?
A definitive answer seems to be needed.

Please note: I do not play a Northerner, nor do I ever intend to play a northern Noble or pleasure slave. I just think the issue is extremely confusing since we have the staff giving conflicting information.

***EDIT***- Sorry to post, didn't read Nessalins post until it was too late. Last time I make this mistake, seriously. Ask the Staff is for Staff  :twisted: Responses, not definitive explanations by normal people  8) - consider this an opinion and comment.

Simply put...

All northerns believe the Chosen are better than them. Just as all Chosen believe they are better than the common folk. It is an accepted fact for -almost- all notherners that the Chosen are better than them, (im sure some pc in the north doesn't think this way, or something, etc...) and consorting with a Noble outside of the purest respect for their title and birth right is asking to be killed. Even if you someone managed to get into bed with a noble as a commoner, expect someone to take a liscense out on your head for various reasons.

Think of it this way, Northerns are "brainwashed" to believe that the Chosen are better than them, and vice versa. So the thought of getting into each others pants probably doesn't even enter into it. Example, a supermodel walks up to me, I might be like "Oh shit, she is beautiful!" but on the same hand "I'd never stand a chance of getting with her, why try?" Meanwhile this supermodel may be thinking, "Dan is so handsome, smart, charming, rich, sexy, sensitive, giving..." Ok ok ok... more like, "Dan is just some guy, im a supermodel, I don't -think- so..."

Anyway, just the way I see it. As for pleasure slaves, I don't think there should be any PC pleasure slaves, and as such, the VNPC ones would be kept held up in the compounds, so the subject matter would never have need to be openly rp'ed out. Thus making it a null topic of discussion.

I could be wrong, as is often the case... I need some coffee anyway. Work, bleh.
It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate:
I am the captain of my soul.

Okay, some might think this crude but look at it this way.

Slave = object

Dildo = object

Blowup doll = object

Commoner = person

Dildo/blowup doll can be used and tossed aside till the next need without
any being the wiser that it's been used. There are no battery operated
tools to simulate being with a person. There is the standard Rosie and her
five friends that comes standard with every model.

Slave is an object, plain and simple. Perhaps a favored object like a pet.
Just a pet that can provide gratification also. A slave is -trained- to fill it's
master/mistress' every whim and want without expecting anything in
return. It's loyalty would be expected and complete in almost all
circumstances. It was raised to be what it is. The master/mistress would
know that it's pet was their toy. They would know that no one else is
playing horizontal bop with it. The slave would be careful to not do anything
to displease it's owner due to the knowledge that it could/would be
replaced at any whim. Personally, I dont think a noble would keep a slave
or concubine once they started to sag. I mean, whom wants a worn out
tool in bed when they can afford the very best.

Now, a commoner, on the other hand, is an unknown. The noble wouldnt
know how many were dipping in there or if a male, how many he was
dipping into. You are talking about a complete trust in getting naked and
exposed with someone whom they dont know where their loyalties totally
lie. That might have just come from screwing elves or sleeping in the
flea ridden Gaj. Commoners would have to be flattered/catered to in a
sense as no commoner would be trying to bed with a noble out of love that
wasnt returned. The noble would have to know that said commoner wanted
something. Their death perhaps? Their trust and reliance on them? Do you
honestly think a noble would trust an outsider over those raised within the
employ of their House? The only commoners I could -possibly- see a noble
sorta trusting would be ones whom have worked all their life for the House.
Not someone -just- hired in a few years ago but those known to be loyal
due to their whole family being employed for generations within the House.
I dont really see someone taking in an outsider and trusting them over
those of long standing in their House. To me, that would be a bit ooc but
that is just my opinion on things.
color=violet]If life was like a box of chocolates we would spend all day inside being poked and eaten.[/color]

I can understand that Midland but it still doesn't answer the question. There are two IMMs saying two completely different things. One says sex with anyone other than another noble is bad. One says sex with a pleasure slave is acceptable. One bases their statement on a statement of an IMM who is no longer an active IMM (for the time being) and not around to explain their statement. I'm not sure what the other one bases her statement on, but her statement is the same as I was told held true back when I played a northern house employee. Employee, not slave, so once again this doesn't apply to me anyway. It doesn't negate the fact that there is conflicting information being handed out by the staff and that someone should clear it up.

While two imms did disagree, I think the answer is pretty clear here.

Northern nobles do have pleasure slaves which they will have intercourse with.  To my knowledge, not only has this been the position of all the imms who have run the North over all, as well as the Tuluki organizations and houses, but there has also been IC precedent for this.

However, as seen from the quote from Laeris in the other thread, these slaves do not go out in public, and therefore would not be seen.  In other words, I doubt anyone is going to want to take up the PC role of a Northern pleausre slave as they wouldd realistically be stuck inside the noble estate for their entire lives.

Regardless of what anyone may think of this policy, I'm relatively certain that it -is- the policy.

So, when it comes to Northern nobles wanting to RP out sexual encounters with another PC, unless they can manage to find another noble or someone to take up a ridiculously boring and limited role, in that regard they are most assuredly screwed...or not screwed as it were.

I, of course, am not staff, but I have been around this issue and engaged in this discussion more times than I can count.
iva La Resistance!
<Miee> The Helper Death Commando is right.

First off I'm glad someone made the Dildo/blow-up-doll to slave analogy finally, I was going to.

QuoteSocializing with commoners is an odd thing for a noble, much like talking to a household object or their kank.

This also apply to screwing.  It does not however apply to slaves, because they are not commoners, they are objects.  Given the ways of Tuluk, a Tuluki Noble, would take pride in how well their slaves are trained, an possible show them off to visiting nobles.  Much in the same way you would show off a work of art or a talented slave-bard.

A slave is a thing, a pleasure slave is typically a very beautiful, very talented thing.  It's not something I see a Tuluki Noble not talking about, but taking pride in.  'Nakki Nobles I could much more easily see keeping the slaves out of site.  But with the Tuluki appreciation of Art and Talent, the best slaves would be on display, not shooed away and hidden.

~Drunken Salarr, advocate for education about true slavery, in game or out.
When we found her Marnlee mornin',
Hoofprints walking up her back
There were empties by her war braids
And sixty-five dead carru in a stack.

~ Unknown - Heru Got Runover by a Carru

While I am mildly befuddled by the intense interest in the pleasure of Northern nobility (vs. Southern nobility), and noting that I personally have little interest or knowledge in this specifically, I will say that the discrepancies are being looked at and an answer will be forthcoming.  This answer will also be incorporated into the appropriate docs, if not already, and updated for clarity if that's where the confusion lies.

Feel free to email me if an HL+ has not posted a definitive answer to your satisfaction (not necessarily to your agreement) in the next couple of days and I'll put one together.  Meanwhile, it seems to me like a lot of the player debate is moot and the main controversy already raised.  But feel free to raise a new point/question if it has not been thus far.

i]May the fleas of a thousand kanks nestle in your armpit.  -DustMight[/i]

Quote from: "Bestatte"Well we have Ashyom stating that nobles do not have sex with slaves or commoners, and several players under the impression that this has always been the general policy for the northlands.

We also have Vendyra quoting Laeris saying that nobles -do- have sex with slaves, and several players under the impression that this has always been the general policy for the northlands.

If I'm not mistaken, I believe Laeris was the Immy in charge of the Northlands.  This isn't me saying Ashyom doesn't know what she's saying.  I'm just pointing out that if you wanted an "official" answer, that's pretty much it.  Although it -is- possible things might be changing on this topic under Naephet and that's where Ashyom got her answer.  Another possibility is that Ashyom's answer was meant for the majority of us playing commoners since, like people never really talked about who Teddy Roosevelt was boinking, the northern commoners aren't going to talk or even -know- about Lord Happybum Winothrol playing with her slaveboy.  Unlike the south, where your nobles are feared and respected and knocking boots with their trophy concubine/courtesan/catamite/cancallitwhatyoulike.  The northern noble players may know differently.

 wish I was witty enough to have something here.  Alas.

Why do we care?  Because our minds are in the gutter and we're curious about sexual relations.  We're primates, that's what we do.  Casual sex between nobles seems unlikely and perilous.  It's possible that Tuluki nobles bop eachother out of wedlock all the time, it just feels  . . . wrong somehow.  There is nothing to indicate that Tuluk nobles marry at a young age.  So either they meditate, practice enormous self-control, take some herbal mixture to subdue sexual urges, or they are getting their rocks off somehow.  They seem too calm for people who have never gotten any.   :P  So what do they do for sexual release?  It isn't that we want to RP it out, we just want to know, 'cause we're pervets or interested in human behavior.

I'm not sure if it has been brought up, but there is a difference between sex and love.  And for that matter, several kinds of love: fraternal love, infatuation, romantic love, affection, the comforatable warm feeling of a couple that has been together a long time (but aren't totally in lust anymore), family love, jealous-obbsesive love, and so on.  In our culture we have the ideal that sex _should_ be linked to love and affection, which contributes to our distaste for masturbation, prostitution, arranged marriages, etc.  

It is possible that Tuluki Nobles are taught to -appreciate- the differences between desire, love, affection and sex.  So you can appriciate and desire a shapely commoner without acting on that desire, desire itself is a pleasure.  A noble might even have affection for a favorite servant or slave that has served well, but not romantic love.  A noble who claimed to be "in love" with a commoner or slave would probably be considered mentally ill.

It seems sensible for nobles to get uncomplicated sexual release via the "assited masturbation" of using pleasure slaves.  When the Chosen Lady is "finished" the encounter ends, regardless of the condition of the slave.  Male pleasure slaves  might be trained to keep going and going and going, without ejaculting, specifically to prevent the unplesantness and embarassment of a pregnancy. Or they might wear thick condoms, be nuetered or given vascectomies, because the comfort of the slave is of no consequence.  You aren't "having sex with" the object, you are simply using it.  There is no "with".

Treat the other man's faith gently; it is all he has to believe with."     Henry S. Haskins

I kinda like AC's explanation best. And yeah, part of my question was a result of the normal human obsession with sex :)

The other, is just a wee bit deeper with regards to the dimensions of roleplay in the game. A very emphatic disclaimer: I'm not asking about this because I want to know how a northern noble player would mudsex. My question applies even for the northern noble player who insists on fading to black every single time.

So here it is: human relations, the emotional -and- physical intimacy that often go together, is not unheard of in Zanthalas. You bump into it wherever you go. Commoners form relationships with other commoners, Merchant house members form relationships with each other, southern nobles and templars form them with each other -and- with commoners alike. We're surrounded by PLAYER characters who form such intimacy with each other. So I'm not talking about NPCs and VNPCs. I'm talking about interactive RP, even (as I said) if the actual "deed" is fade to black.

I believe these intimacies help bring depth to our characters and should not be discouraged by virtue of game policy. It -seems- to me, however, that the northern noble *players* are being informed that they are not being allowed to bring this aspect of the human depths into their roleplay, and it saddens me. It's one thing to "fade to black" with another PC because a policy says northern noble players are required to do so. It's another thing entirely for the northern noble's player to not even be allowed to have the kind of relationship (with their character) that would merit a fade in the first place.

What I would rather see - is a minor change in the dynamics of northern socialization, in that the northern noble might be known to have a discrete liaison with a well-bred servant (house aide, high ranking guard, etc), however the *game* policy would require that all such liaisons be the "fade to black" type when it comes down to the nitty gritty of the whole sex thing.

This would allow players of noble characters in the north to give their characters more than just the 2-dimensional feel, and give their characters more interesting things to think about, provide for the gossip mills, and still keep the players on the "up and up" with regards to mudsex.

I just don't see how keeping a very limited portion of players away from the "touchie feelie" aspect of living can possibly add to roleplay. And that is what it *seems* is happening with this situation.

Correct me if I'm wrong but not too long ago a Winrothol Noble paraded up and down the streets of Tuluk with their pleasure slave in tow, often stroking and caressing this slave in public.

That shows me that Tuluki nobles do in fact bed pleasure slaves.  I'm more of the southern mentality in that Nobles should have the right to bed anyone they please should they find them pleasing or useful.  Maybe if a Tuluki noble finds a commoner doable, why not ask that commoner to become willingly enslaved?  Worst that can happen is they say no, I can't see a noble getting upset if a commoner would rather not become his or her personal slave, I mean, they have a crap load at their disposal, right? I also can't see a commoner getting upset or offended at being requested that but be honored at such a request. That a Chosen finds you pleasing enough to think you'd be a nice addition to his or her harem would to me (trying to think of an average Tuluki commoner) be a great compliment. That commoner would have the rest of his or her life paid for, food, shelter.  Might get a little boring but I'd still consider it a nice compliment to my beauty and charm.

Maybe we have a bit of a psycho noble who wants this commoner so bad he or she is willing to enslave that person come hell or high water. You talk to a templar, give a little bribe and have a majorly pissed little spit fire until they get conditioned.  I don't think most people wanna do something like the latter.

Is there anything in the documents that says that commoners can't be slaves?  Typically, a concubine will stay in his or her Lord/Lady's service until such time as they become bored with the concubine or die. They then usually remain part of the household in some way or another, serving their liege family till the end of their days. If a commoner is enslaved because of a noble wanting their bedding talents/or any other talents, they would remain a slave long after their master either bores or dies, thereby increasing not only House numbers but giving it new blood to mingle in with the bloodlines of the slaves, maybe (a commoner turned sex slave) can act as a nanny/conditioner for other sex slave destined children, or a groomer for the sex slaves, or, if really trusted, a recruiter for other sex slave possibles.  I think it'd be pretty cool.. voluntary enslavement to serve one lord or lady as their sex toy.  I'd do it, those northern people are sexay.   :wink:

I'm still wondering about a slave staying completely locked up... I can see keeping it quiet which slave is and which aren't Lord Hardbottoms pleasure slaves, but keeping them all locked up in their compound isn't going to really be benificial. Most people wouldn't THINK of touching someones slave, yet alone a slave of a Choosen of their savior... That same someone could easiely have you killed. It seems to me I remember reading about a few RL societies that were similar to the North, and pleasure slaves although kept quiet, were common, but also normally had other skills even if it was just to be an addition to the maid staff. If a pleasure slaves ONLY duty is to pleasure... They well have ALOT of down time, specially when someone might have several slaves.

Now, I still think nobles would have pleasure slaves. It's understandable that they wouldn't have sexual relations with commoners, but a slave isn't a commoner. It's a basic fundamental of the society that nobles don't have sex with commoners. It was because of Allanak holding Tuluk, and that led to nobles not having sex with commoners. I imagine before Allanak invaded and held Tuluk, it was something common, but when nobles were down in holes with Commoners and such... and in low numbers... If sex continued with commoners, noble blood would have been rather diluted... And most people thinking like northerners would think, would prefer noble blood to become non existant, instead of having a bunch of "half-bloods". In regards to this, I don't think it'd be possible to "make a small change" in Northern dynamics... As it wouldn't be a small change, it'd have to change the whole history... I've seen a few posts here and there that this social aspect should change, or this should change as well. Even the tiniest change well probably have HUGE problems. Like if you take out the Way or make it very very hard to use, the populace would have never really become dependant on it, and would have to have been dependant on some other form of communication, making other magicks or mindbenders useful... Or making complete illiteracy uncommon even with Templars running about... As society couldn't exist without communication. Small ripples make big waves... And making it so Northern nobles would have sexual liasons with commoners... Would start out as a big wave as it is.

Creeper who still feels a slave is an object, not a person, certainly not a commoner. I feel that alot of my personal possessions are more important then human beings, and I don't feel they are below me in any way, it'd be much easier if I was raised to think that.
21sters Unite!

Okay, may have said I'm not going to post here, but my take on the whole thing going with Laeris's past opinion on the subject, using a real life example.

Nobles = Humans
Commoners = Intelligent Apes
Slaves = A useful tool

Now, most humans well think playing with apes, no matter on what level isn't something you should do, specially when it comes to some sort of sexual thing. Most nobles, specially northern nobles, would think that'd be something incredibly filthy and something thats not done, and even if they didn't think it was "taboo" they'd still find it rather pointless. Although the noble well get pleasure out of it, no other good can come from it, and lots of bad can come from it.

On the other hand, a human well make use of a tool. From very useful things that can work on their own, like computers, to basic things like a pointed stick. Rather your making something, or getting pleasure from that object doesn't really matter. Now sometimes this also is "looked down upon" but it isn't anythink like fucking a filthy ape. You know where your tools have been, you know they have skills, you know they aren't going to try to kill you or set you up, you know they are clean, you know everything.

A slave is in it's own social class, it's no longer a commoner or any other caste. A slave can be higher or lower on the social ladder then a commoner, but is still an owned thing. Just because a slave doesn't hold the same, or higher social rank then a commoner doesn't mean having sex with the slave is considered worse then a commoner. People are comparing apples and oranges as one thing. You have to use two seperate scales to take into account they are two seperate things, commoner and slave.

Now this whole rambling, doesn't really matter on rather or not northern nobles will have sex with slaves, but if they are allowed... It can make since. Even if a slave is lower on a pecking order then a commoner doesn't make that act any more vulgar. Now if you put more trust into your pleasure slave then a commoner advisor that has been in your family for decades, that might be considered more vulgar... It just depends what the act is on rather or not it would be proper.

21sters Unite!

I would agree with creeper's ramblings...unfortunately, still no official word from on high.
Quote from: MalifaxisWe need to listen to spawnloser.
Quote from: Reiterationspawnloser knows all

Quote from: SpoonA magicker is kind of like a mousetrap, the fear is the cheese. But this cheese has an AK47.

Quote from: "spawnloser"I would agree with creeper's ramblings...unfortunately, still no official word from on high.

The thread was locked for a reason.

You can find the official, from up on high answer here:

We are what we think. All that we are arises with our thoughts. With our thoughts, we make the world."