@Tempest said in Coming Soon: Arx, After the Reckoning:
Something must have changed since Alpha if no Thralls is a thing? I seem to recall some noblewoman who was a Thrall.
People referred to Margot at one point as a Thrall on channels which was just -- not correct. But it might be what you're thinking of?
@Cupcake said in Coming Soon: Arx, After the Reckoning:
@Shayd: I'm...not really sure what thralls or Thrax has to do with this? Yeah, you ICly and OOCly made an assumption that didn't work out well for you. The lesson of that incident is: don't make assumptions. The bi-erasure was not on purpose, but it still happened. I It doesn't make you "bad" it's just a lesson, you've learned it, time to move on.
Oaths are taken extremely seriously in Arvum, so much so there is a deity dedicated to oaths. Polygamy (NOT polyamory) is anathema. So honestly if your fellow expressed how much he loved several people and that had been that, I doubt he would have had much reaction from anyone, at least not publically. People's personal opinions of polyamory are just that, personal, and are not relevant to the broader social morals.
But he mentioned wanting to MARRY all of these people, after which he asked for the hand of one of the most elligible, high ranking women on the continent. Basically, it's like he decided to appear on Sister Wives announcing that he wants to live by the Principle, and then turned around, called Obama and was like, "Hey, can I marry Malia?"
@Cupcake : Your point is taken and I own my problem in the matter. The thrall thing has less to do with polyamory than it does with the view of prostitution.
I've observed that the institution of thralldom is one that pretty much all of the other sub-kingdoms of the Compact find anathema, and that most likely it has been an institution long overlooked for the necessity of political and martial advantage.
Vocally speaking out against thralldom has not been something many people want to risk doing until recently, and even more recently there may be greater legitimization for ending the institution sooner rather than later, which would more or less fuck Thrax up. Even my radically liberal character doesn't want to see Thrax destroyed for doing what she believes to be the righteous thing.
(God, if we had PvP I suspect Thrax would have had her murdered months ago!)
"If you stand for nothing Burr, what will you fall for?"
-- Hamilton: An American Musical
@Cupcake Yeah, the other thing is that steamrolling over Thrax would also involve murdering a lot of innocents along the way.
@Arkandel said in Coming Soon: Arx, After the Reckoning:
@Shayd said in Coming Soon: Arx, After the Reckoning:
@Arkandel : To be honest, I feel uncomfortable probably more because I think it's just me bringing up issues which are considered settled and overdiscussed and overargued. Also, I fucking hate slavery and thralldom A LOT. I don't want to look at it as an opportunity for roleplay when in reality if I discovered someone was holding thralls and had the weapons and political tools to stop it, I damned well WOULD, by force, and the idea that all the high and mighty noble houses that are "good" have been around for a thousand years and NOT rolled on Thrax like a Mack truck over a gopher makes all of those houses at the least complicit considering the fact that they're in an alliance. Which with the current threat makes sense to make uneasy allies, and that's how I'm roleplaying it; and willfully ignoring that for hundreds of years these houses have been sitting at the same table with a bunch of goddamn slavers.
There are a few ways to look at this. Let me go over ones which are not specific to Arx.
For starters, saying "I fucking hate slavery" in that manner seems to imply those who play character that support it are, in some way, okay with it OOC. I hope I don't need to explain the impropriety of that. We are all playing characters who are flawed in a lot of ways; I've played Werewolves who thought nothing of murdering a bunch of people to get their way, yet I assure you I don't condone murder.
Secondly it's very dangerous to use so many instances of the phrase "I would" when you are referring to roleplay. That's the idea of, well, playing a role. If you can't separate your own feelings from those of your characters' - or if a topic is sensitive for you for whatever reason - then yes, I would say it's best if you avoided playing about it. But please, for all that is holy, avoid putting your OOC voice into play. It's a really bad idea for all concerned parties. A quick rule of thumb is if you ever find yourself having to justify your character's actions to another player ("but he is RIGHT!") you are already straying off the path; whether your PC is 'right' or not is utterly irrelevant.
Again, please note none of this has anything to do with Arx. These are fundamental concepts.
@Arkandel : I agree with you on the first point. I do not think that people are okay with it OOC; and my passion here obviously overflowed. Let me rephrase it slightly by saying: I don't understand how a House so firmly associated with Honor and Good which my character is a part of hasn't gone on a crusade to wipe them from the face of the earth.
On the second point, see the first point. I was speaking more ICly there than I should have.
@Shayd said in Coming Soon: Arx, After the Reckoning:
@Arkandel said in Coming Soon: Arx, After the Reckoning:
@Shayd said in Coming Soon: Arx, After the Reckoning:
@Arkandel : To be honest, I feel uncomfortable probably more because I think it's just me bringing up issues which are considered settled and overdiscussed and overargued. Also, I fucking hate slavery and thralldom A LOT. I don't want to look at it as an opportunity for roleplay when in reality if I discovered someone was holding thralls and had the weapons and political tools to stop it, I damned well WOULD, by force, and the idea that all the high and mighty noble houses that are "good" have been around for a thousand years and NOT rolled on Thrax like a Mack truck over a gopher makes all of those houses at the least complicit considering the fact that they're in an alliance. Which with the current threat makes sense to make uneasy allies, and that's how I'm roleplaying it; and willfully ignoring that for hundreds of years these houses have been sitting at the same table with a bunch of goddamn slavers.
There are a few ways to look at this. Let me go over ones which are not specific to Arx.
For starters, saying "I fucking hate slavery" in that manner seems to imply those who play character that support it are, in some way, okay with it OOC. I hope I don't need to explain the impropriety of that. We are all playing characters who are flawed in a lot of ways; I've played Werewolves who thought nothing of murdering a bunch of people to get their way, yet I assure you I don't condone murder.
Secondly it's very dangerous to use so many instances of the phrase "I would" when you are referring to roleplay. That's the idea of, well, playing a role. If you can't separate your own feelings from those of your characters' - or if a topic is sensitive for you for whatever reason - then yes, I would say it's best if you avoided playing about it. But please, for all that is holy, avoid putting your OOC voice into play. It's a really bad idea for all concerned parties. A quick rule of thumb is if you ever find yourself having to justify your character's actions to another player ("but he is RIGHT!") you are already straying off the path; whether your PC is 'right' or not is utterly irrelevant.
Again, please note none of this has anything to do with Arx. These are fundamental concepts.
@Arkandel : I agree with you on the first point. I do not think that people are okay with it OOC; and my passion here obviously overflowed. Let me rephrase it slightly by saying: I don't understand how a House so firmly associated with Honor and Good which my character is a part of hasn't gone on a crusade to wipe them from the face of the earth.
See: the long history of "good" world leaders refraining to interfere in other countries committing atrocities.
@Roz The problem here? Not the current situation, the historical background of this game would seem to indicate that SOMETIME within the last 1,000 years Thrax would've been rolled over.
@Shayd Except that if you look at the history files, consider who was doing the rolling.
@Shayd I feel like you're underestimating the cost of this kind of war and the value of political alliances. As soon as one kingdom gets steamrolled for doing something the others don't like, it opens thew hole can of worms. What happens when Valardin does something the other houses don't like?
@Shayd I see it like this, even if other countries/houses are disgusted at the practice of thralldom, which is something that isn't brought to the main city and kept to their islands only, everyone has trade relationships with one another. I believe I read that the Thrax were pretty much bullies to everyone and have done some invading in the past. Now that everyone has to play nice, the Thrax can still have their thralls but it's unreasonable to even bring them on the mainland where :
I thought I saw, somewhere, that it was Thrax who did a lot of steamrolling over people? Am i remember the history stuff wrong?
@Shayd Could also look at it as for political reasons, despite massive disapproval, tyour bit does not try too. Maybe he tries to go about claiming up former Thralls for Valardins so they are 'properly' free (it has been indicated in the thrall file that they are not often summoned to Arx because of fleeing and sheltering under another fealty) or he makes discrete actions of trying to get the thralls out of debt or setting up an underground railroad.
@Shincashay Thralls can be brought into Arx, but only to remain in the Thrax Ward. Because the Wards are basically like embassies. They run under their high lord's law.
@Shayd said in Coming Soon: Arx, After the Reckoning:
@Arkandel said in Coming Soon: Arx, After the Reckoning:
@Shayd said in Coming Soon: Arx, After the Reckoning:
@Arkandel : To be honest, I feel uncomfortable probably more because I think it's just me bringing up issues which are considered settled and overdiscussed and overargued. Also, I fucking hate slavery and thralldom A LOT. I don't want to look at it as an opportunity for roleplay when in reality if I discovered someone was holding thralls and had the weapons and political tools to stop it, I damned well WOULD, by force, and the idea that all the high and mighty noble houses that are "good" have been around for a thousand years and NOT rolled on Thrax like a Mack truck over a gopher makes all of those houses at the least complicit considering the fact that they're in an alliance. Which with the current threat makes sense to make uneasy allies, and that's how I'm roleplaying it; and willfully ignoring that for hundreds of years these houses have been sitting at the same table with a bunch of goddamn slavers.
There are a few ways to look at this. Let me go over ones which are not specific to Arx.
For starters, saying "I fucking hate slavery" in that manner seems to imply those who play character that support it are, in some way, okay with it OOC. I hope I don't need to explain the impropriety of that. We are all playing characters who are flawed in a lot of ways; I've played Werewolves who thought nothing of murdering a bunch of people to get their way, yet I assure you I don't condone murder.
Secondly it's very dangerous to use so many instances of the phrase "I would" when you are referring to roleplay. That's the idea of, well, playing a role. If you can't separate your own feelings from those of your characters' - or if a topic is sensitive for you for whatever reason - then yes, I would say it's best if you avoided playing about it. But please, for all that is holy, avoid putting your OOC voice into play. It's a really bad idea for all concerned parties. A quick rule of thumb is if you ever find yourself having to justify your character's actions to another player ("but he is RIGHT!") you are already straying off the path; whether your PC is 'right' or not is utterly irrelevant.
Again, please note none of this has anything to do with Arx. These are fundamental concepts.
@Arkandel : I agree with you on the first point. I do not think that people are okay with it OOC; and my passion here obviously overflowed. Let me rephrase it slightly by saying: I don't understand how a House so firmly associated with Honor and Good which my character is a part of hasn't gone on a crusade to wipe them from the face of the earth.
On the second point, see the first point. I was speaking more ICly there than I should have.
The answer to basically all those questions, as others have mentioned, is politics. Especially during an all-out war about to break out - if the Compact sent their navy to settle the score, other than that it might lose, it would also basically guarantee the Gyre's easy triumph.
But that you can't have gritty grimdark themes without introducing hard choices like this doesn't mean your character can't roleplay about it. Play him as righteous and indignant as you think he should be; milk it for scenes. Go wild.
I get less traction from my PC's nature when he goes around talking shop with those who agree with him. But interacting with fantasy versions of super wealthy, extra murderous, good looking SJWs? Gimme. 
@Arkandel : Perhaps I'd have more fun (if perhaps a briefer life) if I didn't let my fear of breaking theme or PvP and getting kicked out stop me from roleplaying my character and letting the chips fall where they may. (P.S.: Who do you play? I think I missed it somewhere; I'm Tristram.)
I kind of feel compelled to point out that this isn't a static issue. Thrax IS evolving.
Several members of Thrax and their vassals have either openly or quietly indicated their desire to remove the institution.
Political and trade alliances have been made to aid in releasing significant portions of the thrall population.
Vassals now have the ability to modify the institution in a variety of ways, such as no longer imposing the debt of a parent on a child, minimum age requirements to be placed in thralldom, etc.
The goal with this is to abolish the institution without destroying Thrax economically, as well as be able to guide those in thralldom slowly into their rights and freedoms. And it is happening at a measured rate. Whether it's happening fast enough for all parties is a matter of IC discussion.
"If you stand for nothing Burr, what will you fall for?"
-- Hamilton: An American Musical
@Cupcake said in Coming Soon: Arx, After the Reckoning:
I kind of feel compelled to point out that this isn't a static issue.
I kind of feel compelled to point out that, while many of you have expressed seeing @lordbelh go, few seem to be intent on why this occurred.
I also kind of feel compelled to point out that, while at least one has expressed the fear of saying anything contrary to the status quo, no one has given many fucks as to why, or what will be done to fix that.
“It is better to live doing the things that you like. It is foolish to live within this dream of a world seeing unpleasantness and doing only things that you do not like.” -- Yamamoto Tsunetomo.
One factor as well, regarding the Thrall question, I am pretty sure that all of the other houses practice Serfdom. Now serfdom is not as bad as slaves/thralls in many ways, you cannot just buy or sell people, etc, the degree of labour they owe is likely very sharply constrained through law and custom, but they are still tied to the land and unlike with thralls it is generational and inherited.
So there is probably a degree of not wanting to start throwing stones when you live in a glass house.
Added to that it is not as if the Crown can really make one of the great houses do something if they do not want to, the Compact is very much an alliance of necessity and convenience against the far more numerous Abandoned, who outnumber the Compact about two to one in overall population.
Added to that just how would people invade Thrax? Redrain is entirely land locked, Valardin is literally the other side of the continent, you would basically be limited to the Crown, Grayson by extension then maybe some of the Lyceum if you could get them to be interested. Given Thrax would be defending and on islands, with sieges of castles being drawn out and hideously expensive things, I do not find it surprising that nobody has ever done it.
Remember that Redrain does not even follow the same religion as the rest of the Compact, despite wars fought in the past over that very issue.
@Shayd said in Coming Soon: Arx, After the Reckoning:
@Arkandel : Perhaps I'd have more fun (if perhaps a briefer life) if I didn't let my fear of breaking theme or PvP and getting kicked out stop me from roleplaying my character and letting the chips fall where they may. (P.S.: Who do you play? I think I missed it somewhere; I'm Tristram.)
I play Castiel.
I don't think it's worry about PvP rules that keeps me from engaging in it. As mentioned in a different thread I find the idea of stabbing political opponents in the eye disagreeable; at best it deprives me of RP partners.
@Ganymede Discussing one topic does not mean I give no shits about another. I've simply kept the majority of my thoughts about it (@lordbelh's situation in particular) off the general boards.
I realize you're probably just using my post to leapfrog, but it kind of came off like that was a direct snark at me. If it wasn't, I apologize for assuming.
"If you stand for nothing Burr, what will you fall for?"
-- Hamilton: An American Musical
@Cupcake said in Coming Soon: Arx, After the Reckoning:
I kind of feel compelled to point out that this isn't a static issue. Thrax IS evolving.
Several members of Thrax and their vassals have either openly or quietly indicated their desire to remove the institution.
Political and trade alliances have been made to aid in releasing significant portions of the thrall population.
Vassals now have the ability to modify the institution in a variety of ways, such as no longer imposing the debt of a parent on a child, minimum age requirements to be placed in thralldom, etc.
The goal with this is to abolish the institution without destroying Thrax economically, as well as be able to guide those in thralldom slowly into their rights and freedoms. And it is happening at a measured rate. Whether it's happening fast enough for all parties is a matter of IC discussion.
Which I think is awesome!
@Tempest said in Coming Soon: Arx, After the Reckoning:
Something must have changed since Alpha if no Thralls is a thing? I seem to recall some noblewoman who was a Thrall.
People referred to Margot at one point as a Thrall on channels which was just -- not correct. But it might be what you're thinking of?
