Vulgar?

[Scarlett]

Well you are wrong here. Previously in this thread it is confirmed that the letters are sent to random characters, NOT players

That's not how I read it. It is IC - meaning that it is 'is this IC message vulgar' - but it is not IC like 'does your particular character happen to find it vulgar,' because those are two different standards. The latter is totally subjective because I can't tell you how vulgar your character should be, but the former, while not absolute, is at least open to evidence and argument, and we even have some basis right in the text, i.e. 'don't act like a peasant.'

The challenge is that, no matter how educated we are today in 2013, most of us talk like peasants.

As to your definition of vulgarity, do you believe nobles ever leveled insults at others or only ever treated others with full respect?

Of course not. 'Not vulgar' doesn't mean 'nice,' just as the in-game message says - you can (and should) offend your enemies. Doing so while not looking like a peasant is the job.

In addition, you CAN insult a noble while still showing them respect. That's the point of letters like mine.

You can do this but it is harder than most people think, because to be insulting but not vulgar requires effort and wit. I'm not setting myself up as an example here, or you as a counter-example - on my good days I've come up with a few good lines but it is legitimately tough to do! To walk into a noble court in 1300 and insult someone else in the court would be viewed as bad manners. To do it gracefully and make the other guy look bad (presumably the point of a good insult) you had be more inventive than sex and beer jokes, which, as has already been pointed out, is what your letter amounts to.

I've seen a lot worse but if the point was to insult while showing respect, I'd say (along with whomever agreed in-game that the message was vulgar) that you missed your mark.  I'd have a very difficult time re-writing that letter to not be vulgar because the whole premise of the thing is sex and rape jokes, and you have to be a lot more clever than I am to get away with those without being vulgar.

[Penchant]

Scarlett, what do you think of this? http://forum.battlemaster.org/index.php/topic,3741.msg89950.html#msg89950

[Scarlett]

Two things make that exchange a bit of a different equation.

The first is that it's private correspondence. Running into the court and yelling 'Queen so-and-so was vulgar to me in a letter' is likely to make you look just as ill-mannered for sharing private correspondence - and if it didn't (because everybody hated the author, for instance) then they probably already think so poorly of her that vulgarity isn't going to add to the shame of it.

The second is that there is a religious zealotry element at work, and medievals can and did make an exception to normal rules when it came to treating with infidels. We get away from this in BM because we have lots of religions and we mostly tolerate them, as opposed to few religions (but many heresies) and very little tolerance going on. One Turkish Sultan famously used a Byzantine Emperor as a footstool. Calling names would seem a bit trivial at that point.

I would still answer the question of 'are these letters vulgar' with a definite 'yes' because of both the graphic threats and the bedroom talk, but given the context of rivalry in private correspondence, I would probably click on 'not vulgar' if it had popped up with the question.

[Dante Silverfire]

Scarlett,

"rape" is a game mechanic which our nobles orchestrate. How can it be considered vulgar to simply mention it?

[Penchant]

Ah yes, I should have clarified, what do you think of purely on Brom's letters? As in I don't want Alice to be judged but Brom in this situation. Also, as soon as sex is mentioned does it become vulgar in your mind?

[Scarlett]

"rape" is a game mechanic which our nobles orchestrate. How can it be considered vulgar to simply mention it?

Our nobles also disembowel people and torture them. That doesn't mean you mention it in polite society. The fact that the second estate is dedicated to the protection of its subjects can be mutually exclusive with ideals like noblesse oblige or chivalry, where you are also trying to be a sort of 'ideal man' - you have to be bigger and better and stronger and that means having the ability to do awful things when the situation requires it (only to prevent your innocent subjects from having to do them) but you certainly don't want to advertise those things.

Also, rape and pillage was quite a hot button topic in the middle ages, and some monarchs outlawed them on military campaign (and weren't very popular with their soldiers because of it). So I wouldn't assume that because BM has a 'rape peasants' button that it's accepted.

Ah yes, I should have clarified, what do you think of purely on Brom's letters?

I have a pretty similar view of both sides. Alice is more explicit with the graphic threats while Brom is more explicit about the love/sex side.

Also, as soon as sex is mentioned does it become vulgar in your mind?

Of course not - it depends on the context and how you mention it. If you say 'I've had your cousin' you're being vulgar. What you'd want to say if you were trying to avoid vulgarity would be something like 'It has been my privilege to observe that your cousin is a woman of many talents,' where you get a sort of shield of ambiguity even though it doesn't exactly take a genius to figure out what you're talking about. It's all about plausible deniability.

Shakespeare is great at this stuff with puns and double entendres, though some of them are vulgar (as they're said by unashamedly vulgar people). It's also pretty stupid to hold everyone to that standard. My own approach is just that I am careful about where and when my characters publicly insult people and when I have time and inclination I try to raise the bar with some literary devices - I'm no pro at it but one of the things I like about BM is that it's one of the few places you can practice such things without fear of any real-life consequences!

[Indirik]

That is very well-said. I usually ignore all the post-battle trash-talking, as most of it is... well... trash. It takes talent to write a really good insult that's more than the usual "that's what she said" or "yo mama" joke.

[Penchant]

That is very well-said. I usually ignore all the post-battle trash-talking, as most of it is... well... trash. It takes talent to write a really good insult that's more than the usual "that's what she said" or "yo mama" joke.

As you say though it takes talent. Should everyone be considered vulgar because they can't or don't want to spend the time to make their insults witty enough? Also, related to Bowie, you mentioned Shakespeare and that there were times that the characters in his plays were vulgar. Do you consider Shakespeare vulgar because of it? I doubt it, and that should also be applied to Bowie's situation.

[Scarlett]

Should everyone be considered vulgar because they can't or don't want to spend the time to make their insults witty enough?

If they don't care to invest any effort into it and the subsequent result is indeed vulgar, then yes, they should be considered vulgar. This is hardly much of an impediment.

Also, related to Bowie, you mentioned Shakespeare and that there were times that the characters in his plays were vulgar. Do you consider Shakespeare vulgar because of it?

Shakespeare is one of the most vulgar playwrights I've ever read. But he was writing characters, just as we are. The fact that I could write a vulgar character doesn't make me vulgar. It just makes me aware of what vulgarity is. It's just a tool.

I doubt it, and that should also be applied to Bowie's situation.

What you are essentially saying is that 'because none of us can be Shakespeare, why should any of us be penalized for not trying,' and this is certainly a good question. But why do we bother with any medieval trappings? Why don't we just play the game as team Caglia vs. team Dakra? We've decided to dress it up as a medieval-ish game and this is a small part of it. Vulgarity doesn't ruin characters and you won't lose anything from being vulgar that you can't get back from fighting a battle or two. The 'crowd-sourcing' of the definition of vulgarity is one of BM's brilliant moves, IMO, in that Tom is saying 'here is a basic definition, now you decide whether it applies.'

Most people I know in real life aren't as clever as Shakespeare, but most of them can also crack a joke without taking about sex, rape, and being drunk. There is a lot of room in between these things and a really sharp wit. I'd much rather try, fail, and land in that space than not try, because it doesn't improve me as a human being to be good at Battlemaster. It improves me to have an opportunity to deal with situations I will never deal with in real life and to do so in a manner I will probably never experience in real life. It may seem totally irrelevant to us in 2013 but you can learn a lot about people today by looking at how and why people in 1300 did things, and to the extent that that requires effort, yeah. Most worthwhile things do.

[Penchant]

To your third paragraph, not at all. You don't consider Shakespeare vulgar for using vulgarity but Bowie got one of his messages flagged as vulgar because he released another play and the play was linked in his message and considered vulgar. Though I do disagree with your last sentence in the third paragraph as you basically said Tom is saying, "You guys all kinda know about vulgarity, right? Well if you think someone's message is vulgar by whatever definition you use, feel free to flag it so they lose some honor." If its supposed to simply be by if our characters/the cultural of our realms and such find it vulgar, fine but announce it because no one knows what the heck is going on with vulgarity for certain.

[Scarlett]

You need to separate the author from the character, and also look at the context.  Shakespeare was late 16th century - by that point it was fashionable to patronize plays and be involved with theatre, though some aristocrats would still consider Shakespeare vulgar because of his association with the theatre.

One of my characters has seen letters about Bowie's play and I've read one of them, and I don't flag them as vulgar because nothing is served by making the point that medieval nobles wouldn't dally in the theatre. On my list of things to make more 'authentically' medieval about BM, 'doesn't write plays' doesn't even make the cut.

Sex, rape, and drinking are pretty fast tickets to vulgarity. Making the leap to 'vulgar pasttimes' as a Renaissance noble would use the term is really a different idea - closer to what you see in Downton Abbey where the Dowager and the Earl both disapprove of the 'professions' of lawyer and doctor in a manner we'd find absurd today. They did so because it was considered 'vulgar' for a gentleman (least of all a noblewoman) to have a job. Similar basis -- 'this is beneath us' - totally different idea though.

[Dishman]

Shakespeare is one of the most vulgar playwrights I've ever read.

Aristophanes would disagree.

[Indirik]

Shakespeare wasn't a medieval Duke, Ruler, Lord, Etc., etc. Shakespeare wasn't even a noble, was he? (Sorry, medieval and/or Shakespeare are not my strong suits...)

[Scarlett]

No, he wasn't noble.

[Anaris]

There's a big difference between including vulgarity in a play or other work of fiction because it's appropriate for the context or makes a point, and including it for its own sake.

The vulgarity in Shakespeare's plays is there because it fits.

The vulgarity in Bowie's play is there because he wanted to be vulgar and insulting.

Regardless of the relative nobility of the two authors, that is what makes the difference between it being appropriate to criticize one for the vulgarity in his play, and laud the other.