ThorLarge |
|
Moderators: Stormbringer, Ehlanna
Dalahlaleeah wrote:Perhaps I am looking at this too much like what history has depicted of concubines/harem living - but I do not think concubines should be allowed to work. That was not what they were for. I also have to say if concubines are being considered in the sense of a harem.. those women had no freedom of movement outside of the harem itself unless guarded (usually by eunuchs). I understand fantasy adds a twist that real life would not have - but the kept women (and men in this setting) should at least adhere to the general idea of them being kept.. ie no working. It is an interesting dilemma to try to work out and fit in without demolishing the bonded mate or the slave.
Tawny wrote:As far as behavior outside of the home, since they are not governed by the rules of slavey it then falls to the desires and wants of the owner. How does the owner wish for their house to be represented by the concubine while in public? They will be marked so all would know who the concubine belonged too and in such their behavior would reflect upon the owner and the owners house and name much like a slaves behavior does I would think.
RazyCal wrote:So can I just ask a quick question, just sum up some stuff for me? Concubines would be like Mistresses? That hasn't been said but "kept woman" has and I wanted to just ask real quick...Thanks my tli buds!
Freelance wrote:As I was reading through this, I was very... this: and then I was getting closer to this:
Let me add my own two cents in. I am very... hesitant to have this added It seems almost superflorous. Seriously, tagging and marking a concubine? That's not ISA duties. Heck, I'm not even sure why the person cannot be bonded in a normal ceremony as they would be considered (lower-class) mates. To take up an equipment slot for a mate? That's just silly. They become property? That's what the slave roll is all about. I could talk about the actual history of the concubine, but this idea seems to be of the idealized/popularized view of the harem, so it's probably moot.
Those who become a slave and then complain about how restrictive the position is completely miss the point. Slaves ARE property. They may be precious and valuable to the owner, but at the end of the day, they are nonetheless items to be used. They can be cared for and nurtured, or they can be ordered by their masters to be a doorstop. Owners and slaves current and to be need to recognise and remember this fact. If those restrictions are not your cup of tea, then make the slave a secondary character and create a free person.
The idea that concubines are property as well seems moot. That they would have more rights even as property seems to defeat the purpose of them being property in the first place.
On the bonding, well, It could be summed up as follows: Hahahahahahahahaha! No. Seriosly? There are hundreds of characters in the game, and not even a handful of churches established here. Not everybody follows them, but their own personal gods of their homelands, or no gods at all. By saying that in order to marry, you MUST marry in by at least one of the pair being part of that religion, that means that say, those who don't must convert or not be recognised. Eff. That.
Additionally, this one bonding rule seems to be in order to shoehorn in concubines just so that it can be a viable option. That is poor planning. First off, some of the races practice multi-bondings, either out of necessity (catfolks' lopsided gender births), tradition (torians' life style), or personal culture (humans in various locations (RL evidence)) as examples. Personally, I would see RP limitations itself would control this naturally--we would only bond with those we were extremely close to and spend most of our time with; the more mates, the less time you would have for each and the more stressed the bonding becomes. Besides, as I once joked in the game, "Having two wives just means getting told, 'not tonight; I have a headache' twice as often."
Additionally, this one bonding rule seems to be in order to shoehorn in concubines just so that it can be a viable option. That is poor planning.
RazyCal wrote:So can I just ask a quick question, just sum up some stuff for me? Concubines would be like Mistresses? That hasn't been said but "kept woman" has and I wanted to just ask real quick...Thanks my tli buds!
Avarwraith wrote:Now, this character would not fit into the area of Concubine, she is not her Master's lover, she does not profess to love him, she is his slave, she devotes herself to him, and he considers her his property, not his lover. IE, he does not use her only for sex, and she is fully submissive to him, not just sexually submissive to him.
Slaves in TLI are not completely in line with their traditional role either and would you really expect to see a Viceroy / Baron selling erotic underwear in a bazaar?
Now IC, I can see this giving a new dimension, a concubine may not need to defer to free people who are not their Master, but that doesn't mean everyone else won't treat them like chattel. They almost become half- a citizen, or second-class. Slaves are hardly counted as a citizen at all, if at that, they are akin to work mules and the cart which that mule pulls.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest