Coming Soon: Arx, After the Reckoning
-
My character does not hit on Luca. Because they are related. Sadness.
-
@Roz said in Coming Soon: Arx, After the Reckoning:
I am pretty sure that neither of the two recent bans (or any others that I've heard about, really) were really only because of one single conversation with no prior history of conflict. There's usually a final straw in instances like this, but it's rarely the first straw.
My objection about this is not all straws are the same. Just from reading this thread there's an atmosphere of... well, I won't call it fear but there seem to be people who don't like to rock the boat too much in case they get slapped down. This is not being debated; it has been a common sentiment. It's not right.
In that kind of atmosphere what constitutes conflict? Disagreeing is not conflict. I believe @lordbelh looked as objectively as he could at his actions and that when he says he sounded more passive aggressive than he perhaps should (I'm paraphrasing) it was just that; I am also willing to bet it wasn't an explosion of profanity, an abusive remark or some kind of personal insult that in most books would constitute a bannable offense. I don't know if you'd agree, but that's my feeling of the situation.
What I'm saying is that this wasn't a case of a chronically disgruntled player who went out of his way to be snide and hurl petty challenges at staff. It was someone who spoke his mind constructively - as we are accustomed to doing here - and got made an example. I am also saying that in this environment, unless something changes, why would anyone make their thoughts public unless they were in complete agreement with the administration?
And how conductive to the MU* is it that the only players who have staff's ear are those willing to whisper 'yes!' to them?
I'm not saying that because I dislike the game but because I like it, I am playing there, and it's a shame.
-
@saosmash said in Coming Soon: Arx, After the Reckoning:
I can't believe we're on page 47 of this thread and the prostitution conversation is happening again. Hold me, somebody.
-
@stabeest Honestly that wouldn't stop me. But it's been established that I'm a weird duck.
-
@Roz said in Coming Soon: Arx, After the Reckoning:
I am pretty sure that neither of the two recent bans (or any others that I've heard about, really) were really only because of one single conversation with no prior history of conflict. There's usually a final straw in instances like this, but it's rarely the first straw.
What are you basing this on?
-
@Meg Oh.. This is a favorite topic of mine. You know where to hit me up if you need assistance with this.
-
I haven't seen anything about incest. Just sayin'.
-
@Shincashay I have.
-
@Shincashay You can marry like second cousins but closer is incest taboo.
-
This is the Inquisition's stance on sex. -
First: Thanks for the kind and polite replies, I never know what I'ma get here.
@saosmash : I don't see it all the time; I'm just afraid to RP about sex because I keep thinking I'ma get it wrong per the game, despite me-the-player being an SJW libertine. Sorry about hitting the prostitution argument again. I think that's actually part of my SJW thing because I have known a lot of sex workers in my lifetime and the idea that they should be innately stigmatized bugs me, and I need to let go of that.
@Roz , @Cupcake : That'd be fine if there weren't (a) an anti-PVP community AND (b) players who seem to occasionally fetishize the idea of being pirates/capturing thralls/etc and support it. I get that some of them are roster characters chargenned that way. But if we're so enlightened about sex, one would imagine that beating the crap out of slavers would be right up there. Especially when Thrax is outnumbered by 4:1 and we've had a thousand years of internecine warfare with them. Also, I haven't seen where sex for money can happen in the helpfiles? Can I have a cite so I stop freaking out? As for the polyamory thing: I recognize my fault in that matter and frankly don't blame Ainsley or anyone for their reactions after the second post; it was his initial response and reaction to my initial post--the thing that caused the duel--that bothered me; and I don't even blame that on the PLAYER, who I like. It's why my problem is with the societalcultural aspects and implications, not individual issues. As for the bi-erasure, I was not actually even aware that Ainsley was bi; I thought he was gay; and I was attempting (POORLY) to point out that I supported that and his choice so why wouldn't he support mine in a sexually free society. But I did it poorly.
@surreality : You're right; I should just suspend disbelief. Which would be easier if the acceptance of thralldom wasn't there as a contrast. Because, well...thralldom ain't exactly all that different from pimps forcing whores to earn money if they ever want to be free, and then moving the goalposts.
@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.
-
@Shincashay Supposedly the 'rule' is cousins are a no no and even second cousins are iffy. That was said to me months upon months ago and I don't know if anything has changed. I asked if something could be put up on the website regarding this because more than one person has wondered about cousins.
I've told Fidantes that if the person's name shows up @family <name>, don't woo them.
-
-
@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?"
-
"We do not and will not support PCs designed with no personal agency. This means: no prostitute characters, no Thralls of House Thrax, etc."
Something must have changed since Alpha if no Thralls is a thing? I seem to recall some noblewoman who was a Thrall.
-
Former thralls are OK, current thralls are not.
-
@Arkandel If we can't be human and, you know, constructively butthurt about things in our community hobby, it will make it more difficult to speak up when we see something we know is //not right//, because we're afraid of being punished for doing the right thing and having it misconstrued.
Or worse yet, saying something to staff about a player cheating or abusing the system and finding out later that said player was in the good graces and/or a friend of staff. The anxiety then centers around being cut out from RP or the game because you're now a 'troublemaker'.
Does this encourage an environment where known friends of staff are avoided or catered to, even if they abuse the friendship with staff to do things they clearly shouldn't? Or even if they're just assholes who want their way and throw tantrums when no one else wants to play like they want to?
This is mostly hypothetical. It's the kind of questions bred from fear and previous MU* baggage, and I know I suffer from a weird kind of Firan PTSD for it.
I will state again that I do love Arx, the idea of being kicked from it scares me enough to keep all of my interactions IC from now on, and that feels wrong too. I don't know.
-
@saosmash : My fault entirely. I haven't read this page in detail (if I ever read it at all), at least past the beginning; or I didn't recall it. Thank you very, very much for pointing this out to me; it answers a lot of my questions about prostitution and sexuality, and I should've looked first.
-
@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.
-
@Shayd said in Coming Soon: Arx, After the Reckoning:
First: Thanks for the kind and polite replies, I never know what I'ma get here.
@saosmash : I don't see it all the time; I'm just afraid to RP about sex because I keep thinking I'ma get it wrong per the game, despite me-the-player being an SJW libertine. Sorry about hitting the prostitution argument again. I think that's actually part of my SJW thing because I have known a lot of sex workers in my lifetime and the idea that they should be innately stigmatized bugs me, and I need to let go of that.
Are you saying that you think the profession would be innately stigmatized in Arx? Because that's not the case. Any stigma discussions have probably come up in regards to how deepset the stigma is in our society, which is one of the things that makes it a hard concept to integrate.
@Roz , @Cupcake : That'd be fine if there weren't (a) an anti-PVP community AND (b) players who seem to occasionally fetishize the idea of being pirates/capturing thralls/etc and support it. I get that some of them are roster characters chargenned that way. But if we're so enlightened about sex, one would imagine that beating the crap out of slavers would be right up there. Especially when Thrax is outnumbered by 4:1 and we've had a thousand years of internecine warfare with them.
@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.
Well, I mean, sure, all the other houses could try to get together and defeat the greatest naval power in the Compact by way of their own navies. They outnumber Thrax, sure, but do their ships?
But even just in a larger sense -- going to war with one of the other kingdoms is a big deal, and it basically sets up a dynamic where, like -- "if one kingdom doesn't like what another is doing within their own lands, we're going to gang up and steamroll you into destruction." It's not that it could never happen, but from a political and military standpoint that's not really the type of thing you want to do except for the most extreme of reasons. We're based in a system where a lord's word in their own domain is paramount, from baronies up through the high lords. This is a Big Deal. It's a Really Big Deal to try and mess in someone else's domain who is not in your line of fealty (and even there, politics dictate a certain amount of diplomacy).
It is absolutely heinous that Thrax has been allowed to continue doing this for hundreds of years. I think that's part of the point. But I think it's also pretty accurate to human nature in regards to how major political powers interact with each other.
