Relationships

Questions and suggestions relating to the playing of individual characters rather than the game world

Moderators: Stormbringer, Ehlanna

Relationships

Postby Stormbringer on Tue Aug 24, 2010 12:30 am

Following the discussion on mates and bonding which took place recently, I believe we have a useful place in the game for a relationship definition between characters which is less than bonding but which is available to those who do not want to go into a master and slave partnership. Doing so allows characters to create significant relationships without undermining a religious bonding and without leaving the only other alternative as the collar. The obvious historical model for this is concubinage.

This then is the proposed format for recognised character relationships:

1 BONDING

Bonding is a sacred ritual between two characters who wish to establish a significant relationship blessed by their deity. Each religion sets its own specific guidelines on how this is achieved, the limitations and how a bond may be broken. Normally a character will only be bonded to a sngle mate at any one time as this is considered a very significant relationship.

The Empire's recognition of bonding is based upon the following:

- The bond must be created in a place sacred to a recognised major or minor religion by a priest(ess) or high priest(ess) of that religion

- At least one of those being bonded must be a follower of that religion

- In cases where the precepts of a religion allow a character to bond with more than one other at the same time, only the first of those bondings will be recognised by the empire

- No new bond will be recognised until any existing one(s) are broken under the requirements of the same religion which created that bond.

On those terms and providing the bonding ceremony is recorded in the annals (on the message board) then the Empire will recognise a significant relationship between two of its subjects. Whilst this bond does not carry much in the way of benefits and restrictions in imperial terms, the existence of it is such that a character whose bonded mate is stolen or abducted may apply to the Imperial Guards for their assistance in gaining their mate's return. This help is not automatic and it is not free. The IG Commander will consider a plea on its merits and if justified, set a fee for the IG's help. Any help will be refused if it is believed that the bonded character left of their own free will.


2, CONCUBINAGE

A concubine is less than a bonded mate and shares several common attributes with a slave. But they are also less restricted than a slave would be. The exact nature of the relationship between owner and concubine is left to the individual players involved, so they may vary from being considered minor wives/husbands to being in a relationship which mirrors slavery but without so many public restrictions. In view of the nature of roleplay in Belariath, it would be most normal to think of a concubine as trending towards the almost-slave rather than the almost-mate but that is for individual players to define for themselves.

There is no required religious ceremony to take a concubine, it is a purely temporal relationship which for the sake of convenience is administered by the ISA. Only concubines registered via the ISA are recognised by the empire.

There are a number of requirements and restrictions on the relationship in game terms:

- Concubines may be male or female

- There is no restriction upon the number of concubines a player owns apart from their ability to support such

- Each concubine requires two equip slots the same as a slave

- A concubine is considered owned and a part of their owner's harem.

- Concubines may not own other concubines or slaves

- A concubine is not required to show deference to free people

- Restrictions on a concubine's ability to carry and use weapons is decided in OOC terms between the players of owner and concubine

- A concubine does not have the same limitation over employment as a slave does

- Concubines are not collared but may be given some other indication of their status if wished. This could be anything from a pin to a brand.

- Concubines are not captured and sold by slavers and may not be traded or sold by their owner except with IC consent

- Becoming a concubine requires IC consent and would tend to be most often seen as a character giving up a varying degree of freedom in return for the physical and financial security of being owned by someone rich or powerful

- The registration fee for a concubine is 50% of the current registration fee for a slave. Waiting times for a concubine are the same as for a slave. Both owner and concubine must post OOC consent.

- Registration entitles the owner to appeal to the ISA for assistance (such assistance being given by an ISA call to the IG) if a concubine is stolen or abducted. However, the ISA will not intervene if a concubine runs away.

- Removal of concubine status also mirrors the ISA requirements for the removal of a collar

- A character can only hold one status at a time between bonded, concubine and slave.


3. SLAVERY

Slavery is the traditional way to take ownership of another character within Belariath and its details remain unchanged for the present.

TO BE DECIDED

- Does the owner of a concubine pay the same upkeep fee as a slave, since the concubine is kept in that owner's harem? Or does the concubine receive the basic allowance and pay their own upkeep?

- A way of marking concubine status in channel, the obvious being something like a slave tag but modified to {SBc}

- With concubines in play it may be possible to define slavery in more absolute terms

IMPLEMENTATION

This is currently a discussion document and I welcome feedback and requests for clarifications.

The plan would be to integrate this on the basis that it had always existed, not as a new invention IC.

Once settled, existing slaves who wish to switch to concubine would have a one month grace period when they could apply for an immediate (subject to ISA staff availability) change. No extra waiting times or fees but no refunds either. Both owner and slave would have to post consent to the switch. After that month a slave would have to be decollared and then start fresh with a concubine registration if they wished to change status.

(With thanks to laerel for some input)
Image
--------------
Charm’d magic casements, opening on the foam
Of perilous seas, in faery lands forlorn

(John Keats)
Check your baggage at the door and bring some magic through your
window onto the world of Belariath
User avatar
Stormbringer
High Council
High Council
 
Posts: 3270
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2005 3:02 pm

Re: Relationships

Postby Istoaj on Tue Aug 24, 2010 11:52 am

I have looked it over, and I like the ideas proposed. The only problems I have are, and I spoke with SB about it before, is I am worried that we will lose slavery altogether. We have too many 'almost slaves' as it is...people who want the collar without being actual slaves...they want to be more like...dominated lovers instead of true slaves. This will accommodate them, true, but I think this may see a huge dip in the number of slaves collared.

That is my only true concern.
User avatar
Istoaj
Op
Op
 
Posts: 312
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2008 4:53 am

Re: Relationships

Postby Stormbringer on Tue Aug 24, 2010 1:19 pm

I certainly wouldn't disagree with that but doesn't it just mean the proposal reflects what the community actually wants? It will obviously provide a means for people to play less restrictive slavery and 'pets' but as things stand at the moment those who do want that sort of play have to choose between bonding, slave or just shacking up together.

This is intended to give those players, or those characters a way to formalise their preferred style of play without requiring them to take on all the other restrictions of slavery. It also means that those who *do* want complete slave play will be able to do it in an environment where the other slaves and slave owners are all fully committed to what the collar actually implies.
Image
--------------
Charm’d magic casements, opening on the foam
Of perilous seas, in faery lands forlorn

(John Keats)
Check your baggage at the door and bring some magic through your
window onto the world of Belariath
User avatar
Stormbringer
High Council
High Council
 
Posts: 3270
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2005 3:02 pm

Re: Relationships

Postby Istoaj on Tue Aug 24, 2010 2:46 pm

I am not denying that at all SB...not at all. I am just worried that we will end up with a concubine-to-slave ratio of 10-1, instead of what it should be. Perhaps we should put a limit on the number of concubine a person can "own", beyond the obvious "as many equip slots you have available" limit.

As for how they should be marked, as they don't have to "defer" to free people, is there a real reason to have them marked like slaves are (with an in channel collar)? A concubine is essentially, if I read it right, a semi-indentured servant of sorts, and there is no need to really have them marked OOCly.

Just me tossing out more ideas and thoughts.
User avatar
Istoaj
Op
Op
 
Posts: 312
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2008 4:53 am

Re: Relationships

Postby lyllamarie on Tue Aug 24, 2010 3:04 pm

I like the idea of having a sort of tier system when it comes to slaves, near-to slaves and then of course the option of bonding. It provides some leverage for those who do not necessarily believe in bonding ICly, but wish a more substantial tether to those they play with, without a more restrictive slave collar.
The player of
LyllaMarie{SB} || Sutara || Ebilese || Hellian Cros || Kuma || Imogene
User avatar
lyllamarie
High Council
High Council
 
Posts: 3874
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 10:48 pm
Location: lurking on the message board.

Re: Relationships

Postby Kaytoo on Tue Aug 24, 2010 3:09 pm

Well, I think for a long time "slavery" has been abused in the game this perhaps a way to fix the problem in that many slaves are turly nothing more then concubines....As IMLTHO slavery is a very honorable choice of absolute strength, not simply a character shield, in fact if anything it should reduce the shield aspects.

I'd actually like to see "general slaves" here. Quite simply it being a rank of class/station as though owned by the realm, or independant. Yet that's off topic and another issue.

SO I say go for it....perhaps then slaves might start being more slavish, and those seeking a lovers relationship have their protection.

K2
"Call me savage, and you're only telling me how much you have forgotten of the natural world, and the nature of minds."
Image
User avatar
Kaytoo
Adept
Adept
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2005 7:37 pm
Location: Dachvst among da Ut'Kref Savages

Re: Relationships

Postby Infernis on Tue Aug 24, 2010 3:21 pm

To put it short and simple, I 'like' this idea. A lot.

I've seen, more than once, a slave/master relationship go bad because the slave's player felt restricted in what her character could achieve ICly. And often, her character felt demeaned not by the collar, but by the general reaction by the IC masses of Nanthalion.

This would remove that, or at the last, lessen it immensely.

It would, in my opinion, put greater prestige on the actually enslaved girls and create a distinct separation between lovers/friends and slaves. And since there's nothing saying that a concubine can't later be enslaves completely, that a player can change her mind down the road and go for the whole thing instead of just half..

It creates opportunity for Roleplay as well.

And at the risk of repeating myself, I like this idea.

As for the 'To be Decided' Stuff...

I think that the concubines should be allowed to keep their money and should their 'owner' decide that it's his, they can work that out ICly.


~I~
Image
User avatar
Infernis
Predominate
Predominate
 
Posts: 265
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 7:56 pm

Re: Relationships

Postby Keaira on Tue Aug 24, 2010 3:38 pm

I like this idea.

Although I do have to admit I hesitated at the involvement of the ISA. That makes it seem a little too much like slavery to me. As a something in between, I think of it more as a formal domestic partnership than an indentured servitude. I understand using the ISA since they are an existing establishment, and would be the easiest way to implement this change.

I don’t think concubines should wear a tag, that makes it too much like a slave for me. I feel that should be something special for a Master/slave relationship. And I also think they should receive the basic allowances and pay for their own upkeep. Let anything beyond that be decided between the players.

If it does diminish the number of slaves that are in the game, I think it will strengthen the ideal of what a slave is supposed to be. Those who want that total submission will still be slaves.
User avatar
Keaira
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 116
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 6:34 am

Re: Relationships

Postby Stormbringer on Tue Aug 24, 2010 4:29 pm

Personally I see concubine as being a one-way door in that the girl (or guy but lets keep it simple) chooses to step through it ICly but cannot choose to step away from it in the same way. They do effectively become owned though their treatment by the owner, their public face and whether they carry any mark is very flexible and decided OOC between the two.

As they do become a form of property it isn't unreasonable for the ISA to handle record keeping. It also simplifies things a lot as they have the systems and expertise already, so it saves setting up a duplicate location which does much the same thing.

The tags - well owners do tend to mark their property but slave collars on nicks are really just an IRC convention carried over from BDSM channels and not actually necessary either. They are a convenient OOC short cut to knowing a girl carries some mark of ownership without needing to check the description every time. So on the same basis a concubine who is wearing some token of ownership has the same justification for being tagged on her nick but not in a way that confuses them with full slaves of course.

I'm appreciating the feedback I'm getting, especially that it would achieve my aim of giving those who don't really want a full-on slave to have a rather more relaxed version of it. That way those who do opt for being a slave would gain more status because it was a choice rather than a default and it should be a lot more possible for them to play their characters without compromise.
Image
--------------
Charm’d magic casements, opening on the foam
Of perilous seas, in faery lands forlorn

(John Keats)
Check your baggage at the door and bring some magic through your
window onto the world of Belariath
User avatar
Stormbringer
High Council
High Council
 
Posts: 3270
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2005 3:02 pm

Re: Relationships

Postby Augustus on Tue Aug 24, 2010 4:36 pm

Infernis wrote:To put it short and simple, I 'like' this idea. A lot.

I've seen, more than once, a slave/master relationship go bad because the slave's player felt restricted in what her character could achieve ICly. And often, her character felt demeaned not by the collar, but by the general reaction by the IC masses of Nanthalion.

This would remove that, or at the last, lessen it immensely.

It would, in my opinion, put greater prestige on the actually enslaved girls and create a distinct separation between lovers/friends and slaves. And since there's nothing saying that a concubine can't later be enslaves completely, that a player can change her mind down the road and go for the whole thing instead of just half..

It creates opportunity for Roleplay as well.

And at the risk of repeating myself, I like this idea.

As for the 'To be Decided' Stuff...

I think that the concubines should be allowed to keep their money and should their 'owner' decide that it's his, they can work that out ICly.


~I~


in short i agree with Infernis 100%
Augustus
 

Re: Relationships

Postby Kaytoo on Tue Aug 24, 2010 6:44 pm

As to marking a concubine, that would be rather simple to keep different then a slave by simply a new style of mark be it;
-CK2
(K2)
*K2*
[K2]
...etc.

Personally I feel many/most of the slave relationships here really have been more what you're proposing as concubine. In kind I do NOTagree that a slave relationship should be entirely up to the players. Though certain aspects most assuradly, it has covered such a wide spectrum that it would be like me making a barbarian character and playing it in look, build and action like some Wemric/Chirot hybrid pacifist.....and as rediculous as that sounds we have slaves here that totally dominate their owners and act among others free as though they're royalty.

A slave character IMLTHO should take the class/station with an understanding that slavery is not just some shield or lightly played game.......I'd like to see concubines simply to firm up what a slave character should be, and master slave relationships some.

As frankly if folks were honest about it and how they want their characters/relationships to be, it would not surprise me if there was a shift from 100% slave, to 30/70% slave/concubine if not more.

K2
"Call me savage, and you're only telling me how much you have forgotten of the natural world, and the nature of minds."
Image
User avatar
Kaytoo
Adept
Adept
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2005 7:37 pm
Location: Dachvst among da Ut'Kref Savages

Re: Relationships

Postby gwyneth{StWi} on Tue Aug 24, 2010 7:09 pm

If You're going to use an ooc mark, gwyn would suggest a different type of bracket perhaps from a slave collar. perhaps the more squared ones [] instead to indicate concubinage. that would keep it from being confused with a work tag and a slave collar both?
Image
User avatar
gwyneth{StWi}
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 178
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 4:08 pm
Location: tied up in Mistress Ehlanna's pm box, in Mistress India's lap

Re: Relationships

Postby Tawny on Tue Aug 24, 2010 7:58 pm

I personally dont see where the ISA needs to be involved in such a thing. The term concubine mean a willing partner that is simply a live in thing. The ISA is for Slavery not lovers. If the ISA starts handing out 50 off to a lover I think the game will lose it slavery altogether. If one wants a concubine that is fine but I think it should be on the players own terms and not have the ISA involved in it at all. If the concubine is a willing subject, as it should be, then why should the ISA have anything at all to do with it? Leave the ISA to slavery and let players call their live in lovers what they wish. Slave are not lovers or mates and never should be. Bringing the ISA into such a thing is opening the door to just that.... The Imperial Slave Authority involved in the matter of lovers and mates and I personal dont believe it should be there at all. Is this not a ""almost a slave, or sort of a slave or the I am not really a slave""? Slavery is for slaves. Concubines are willing lovers. I think it needs to stay that way for the sake of the game and the slavery part of it. In game one can already defend whoever they wish so again I dont see any need for the ISA to be involved in this at all.

From the website its self comes this quote.... ◦There is no such thing as a protective collar or an 'I'm not reeeealy a slave' collar. You are either a slave or you are not a slave.

Concubines are NOT slaves and the ISA should not be involved in it.
Image
User avatar
Tawny
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 696
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 2:16 am

Re: Relationships

Postby Augustus on Tue Aug 24, 2010 9:26 pm

Some will agree, some with disagree-- such is life.

I think the ISA would control registering a concubine on paper, as it is not a slave, it is also not JUST a lover. Its a chosen lover who is simply not going to be bonded due to the IC ideal of bonding, Also a person can have more than one. Its just an administration duty, as most slave registrars are nowadays. I don'y mind this idea simply for the fact that it will evolve with our base of players, as well as differentiate the true slaves from the matrimonial slaves.


We cannot force people to be real slaves, or force people to say bonding is a very rare ordeal IC. We cannot force certain things as they have a very OOC nature and real emotions and boundaries. If we open this idea, we are not forcing and are letting people play their character as they will without forcing them into a bracket or ideal or character they don't like 100%, There is a need for this, as the characters and the people behind them are a lot less likely to change.
Augustus
 

Re: Relationships

Postby Tawny on Tue Aug 24, 2010 9:48 pm

Again I say the ISA dont belong in anything that is matrimonial. The ISA is for slavery. One should not lose equipmnet slots to have a mate IE... concubine. There for there is no reason so the ISA to be involved in this. There is no rule anywhere saying you cant have a lover. Choosen or not a lover is a lover not a slave. Tho i dont see how a lover could not be choosen. It just dont make alot of sense to involve the ISA in personal affairs of the heart which is how I see this. I have seen plenty of chars have many lovers in the game and there was not a need for the ISA to be involved. There is no rules on a concubine, so why would the ISA need to have anything to do with it? So the IG will protect a concubine? If that is the only reasoning then let a concubine be known to the IG by a Tag that dont resemble a slave tag. Instead of using the Normal { } use ( ) Or : : as the tag.
Image
User avatar
Tawny
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 696
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 2:16 am

Next

Return to Characters

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests