BattleMaster Community
BattleMaster => Development => Feature Requests => Topic started by: Sacha on March 09, 2011, 11:47:17 AM
-
Every few months or so, I see the same old discussion in one of my realms, namely people claiming that commoners and nobles are somehow equals. This time it's happening in Sirion. An excerpt:
'And for the part of commoner and noble, i do think that no noble is of more worth then any commoner. What gives us the right to think like this about the common peasant?'
So it seems that people still think that BM is somehow set in the modern world where things like equality are widespread. And every time one of this arguments erupts, it tends to go on for days, both OOC and IC, and in the end nobody's learned a thing.
So I propose to put a stop to any confusion before it starts, and put a page on the wiki where it is clearly stated what the differences between nobles and commoners are, and how nobles speaking of equality between the two classes should be flayed alive by their peers. Have it signed by Tom himself, so nobody can say 'oh these are just guidelines by players, not rules'. Maybe that way, the players behind the 'affirmative action' nobles will change their ways, or at the very least realize just how insane their characters sound.
-
Gotta agree on this.
But i just ignore people like that, or if they are my superiors i will change realm. Another funny thing is how lootings which includes word "raped" gets horrible attention even amongst rulers how barbaric and non honorable someone is... then they see no problem at all to 1k peasants get slaughtered on battle. But if peasants scream how enemy looted their houses and killed some people... and when the word RAPE appears to screen people go frenzy.
I have humble request that mayby that rape word could be removed... replace it with abuse or something... as long as there have been wars, civil people have been abused one way or a another... that particular looting method is pretty effective and it cant be used cause over half of the players go frenzy about it.
-
So I propose to put a stop to any confusion before it starts, and put a page on the wiki where it is clearly stated what the differences between nobles and commoners are, and how nobles speaking of equality between the two classes should be flayed alive by their peers. Have it signed by Tom himself, so nobody can say 'oh these are just guidelines by players, not rules'. Maybe that way, the players behind the 'affirmative action' nobles will change their ways, or at the very least realize just how insane their characters sound.
Good idea.
Commoners are essentially slaves. they work our land, produce our food, give us their earnings, and we protect them. What nobles want to do is keep this distinction strong and keep the commoners calm.
-
Even so there are commoners who are rich merchants that exist in BM. They are sometimes those NPCs who you talk to as a diplomat (I think). Even nobles would sometimes not want to mess with those guys. But the keyword here is NPC, and I don't mean the NPC class talking corpse/teddy bear/fire lizard. Those really do not feel anything, and for the most part, any treatment to those are up to the players.
The only player character commoners that exist are adventurers. This is another story. While they are commoners and are of lower class than nobles, there remains the fact that this is a game, and we are all people. There is a somewhat vague description of what it means to be a commoner when a player clicks the "Create a new adventurer" link, and the wiki goes more in depth. But certainly I can see how it might get tiresome or frustrating if nobles really acted all superior all the time to commoners. I'm not saying anything about giving them any more rights, so please no one start going down something that I'm not actually saying. But I can understand how it may be a bit frustrating as well to get arrested and beaten up by a noble. Some players do that because they can...
-
But that shouldn't see the Noble getting fined and maybe even banished from his Realm because the commoner told on him. Yeah, it's a pain if you do get beaten up or arrested, but how often does it really happen? It shouldn't really be a problem and it's part of your life as a commoner.
-
You can say that so long as it's not your character. I think there are some adventurers on BT that may be a bit angry at a certain infiltrator who stabs every one of them he encounters just because he can get away with it.
-
Then move away and go to some other region. Preferably a City with some militia to protect you a bit. If he travels to the other side of the continent just to stab you, gloat in the fact that he's very much wasting his time. My commoner on BT sadly got killed by the Undead, but I had no incidents at all during that time, so I can assure you that not all of BT gets you stabbed 24 hours a day.
-
You might not have any problem with being seriously wounded for about 3 days. And maybe the noble would be wasting his time, but does that really provide that much consolation for being unable to hunt effectively/gather/do just about anything? I think serious wounds also decrease stats sometimes.
Now if you were to move to a city with militia or whatever, I would like to point out a very important fact: Any noble with a unit can arrest/beat up any adventurer anywhere. So...if some noble really has beef with your commoner, life can be pretty darn tough. Sure, it's part of the game, but after a while I think some people would start to throw some OOC messages asking essentially "Dude why?"
-
Although I suppose you might be right on how commoners /should/ be treated, I strongly disagree to put all of this in some sort of 'guidelines' or even 'rules' (yuck).
Of course nobles are supposed to be superior, but what if I, being a noble, decide to not do what I'm supposed to? If I'm Ruler somewhere, and I agree with my Judge to protect commoners (to whatever extent), the other noble can only accept that. If not, start a rebellion. And if the Judge acts without the Ruler's support, you need a stronger ruler :)
This is a roleplaying game, and RP should not be restricted in any way, as long as it's SMA. And I don't think being nice to commoners (hell, even liking them more than some powerful Duke) violates SMA.
If a noble decides to stand up for a commoner, and is prepared to face the consequences, why wouldn't he be allowed to do so? Especially if the noble in question is a Ruler or Judge.
-
Thus, let us focus on the noble game. :)
-
The word from Tom is that to a noble adventurers are the lowest of the low.
So, they should be thought of as little more than working animals like oxen or dogs.. but..
If another noble kicked my best hunting dog for no good reason my noble would likely be annoyed; not necessarily because the dog is in pain but because it's my bloody dog and if anyone is going to kick it it should be me. Other nobles may not care, or might invite their friends round for a drink and a game of kick-my-dog of an evening so it all depends on the noble's personality and how much their dog is worth to them whether they get annoyed or not when one of their human equivalents is assaulted without good reason.
Likewise some nobles may quite like other people's dogs and throw scraps to them as they ride by, others may just see them as hairy target practice and anyone who complains a sentimental fool.
Of course.. proving that a noble did not have good reason to abuse a particular dog would likely come down to their word against the victims; and what noble would take the word of an base animal over that of another noble.. unless that noble was known to be an egregious liar?
Regardless of all this no noble would claim any dog was their equal or should have equal rights, though. That would be plainly ridiculous.
As long as RP of action and complaint makes sense then it's all good.
-
Saying that commoners are equal to nobles? Totally ridiculous and a sign of insanity.
Saying that they should be treated kindly? Perfectly valid and at worst a sign of eccentricity.
If your adventurer is getting picked on by one noble, then make yourself valuable to a more powerful noble. Perhaps you may still be a dog, but only a fool lets someone else beat up their prize hunting dog without good reason.
-
Saying that commoners are equal to nobles? Totally ridiculous and a sign of insanity.
Saying that they should be treated kindly? Perfectly valid and at worst a sign of eccentricity.
If your adventurer is getting picked on by one noble, then make yourself valuable to a more powerful noble. Perhaps you may still be a dog, but only a fool lets someone else beat up their prize hunting dog without good reason.
what I was trying to say, thanks :)
-
My quarrel is not that people think advies shouldn't treated as piles of dog !@#$ all the time. But in every realm, there's always a handful of nobles who say advies should be treated as equal to nobles, and they hardly ever get called out for speaking such nonsense. At worst they risk a reprimand, usually they just get away with it without any problems. There have been realms where the rulers themselves spoke such drivel, or where judges have punished nobles for mopping the floor with an advy. I recall an instance on FEI where a judge sent a nasty letter about his advy brother getting assassinated, yelling about how dishonorable it was and wanting compensation.
That's just... wrong.
-
My quarrel is not that people think advies shouldn't treated as piles of dog !@#$ all the time. But in every realm, there's always a handful of nobles who say advies should be treated as equal to nobles, and they hardly ever get called out for speaking such nonsense. At worst they risk a reprimand, usually they just get away with it without any problems. There have been realms where the rulers themselves spoke such drivel, or where judges have punished nobles for mopping the floor with an advy. I recall an instance on FEI where a judge sent a nasty letter about his advy brother getting assassinated, yelling about how dishonorable it was and wanting compensation.
That's just... wrong.
The judge in Giblot passed a law (after a realm-wide vote) saying this:
Law 6 - Adventurers
* Adventurers of Giblot are not to be arrested without being accused of a crime.
* The arrest of foreign adventurers is highly encouraged!
I think we had 2 or 3 players go to other realms because of it. The way the judge framed it, basically, is that our adventurers are working for the region lords, and by arresting them without cause, the noble doing the arresting is causing harm to a region lord.
-
Commoners are essentially slaves. they work our land, produce our food, give us their earnings, and we protect them. What nobles want to do is keep this distinction strong and keep the commoners calm.
If you want to keep commoners calm, stop the slave talk. Like jaune stated in an earlier post, certain words cause people to go into a frenzy. Slave is one of them.
Adventurers understand noble arses exist in any realm; they take due note and avoid them. No adventurer signs up to become a slave.
Nobles, who are smart enough to understand that 'nobility' holds one to a higher standard of conduct, treat adventurers with due respect. "Due respect" for some nobles may indeed mean treating adventurers as dogs. Good realms and good nobles know better. These nobles reap the rewards of magical items, easy item repair and beast-free lands.
-
Ohnar West tried to do the same thing regarding arresting advies. And so did Astrum on Dwilight.
I always object strenuously to such laws. In Ohnar West we got the judge to change it so that the advies owner/employer needs to bring a complaint and prove damages, at which point the offending noble needs to compensate the lord.
Anyway, most of these laws have the opposite effect intended. They almost always trigger a rash of advy beatings/arrests. Most of them in protest to the just-passed law.
-
Arrests can be somewhat mollified if the judge is reasonable. It's just the beating up part that I don't really like. Any noble with a unit can randomly beat up any adventurer. Sure, the adventurer would know who did it, but for the most part, what good would it do? The adventurer would be wounded, or seriously wounded maybe, losing time and possibly more.
-
Arrests can be somewhat mollified if the judge is reasonable. It's just the beating up part that I don't really like. Any noble with a unit can randomly beat up any adventurer. Sure, the adventurer would know who did it, but for the most part, what good would it do? The adventurer would be wounded, or seriously wounded maybe, losing time and possibly more.
And that's what the people of Giblot didn't seem to understand--the law is easy enough to weasel out of, just invent an excuse. After all, it's the word of a noble against that of a commoner. People seem to object, strenuously, to going to the trouble of making up excuses, to the point that they spend more effort opposing the law, than they would circumventing it.
-
And that's what the people of Giblot didn't seem to understand--the law is easy enough to weasel out of, just invent an excuse. After all, it's the word of a noble against that of a commoner. People seem to object, strenuously, to going to the trouble of making up excuses, to the point that they spend more effort opposing the law, than they would circumventing it.
I find that most people feel some guilt since we no longer live in a society that accepts such prejudice. Thus, we're trained to go against what BM tries to do with the peasant and noble distinction, thus the dilemma and conflict, so it's not that people aren't trying to weasel out of the law, but people don't want to, or they are taught it is bad to do so.
Of course, they *are* doing the right thing from a RL perspective. ;)
-
If you want to keep commoners calm, stop the slave talk. Like jaune stated in an earlier post, certain words cause people to go into a frenzy. Slave is one of them.
Adventurers understand noble arses exist in any realm; they take due note and avoid them. No adventurer signs up to become a slave.
Nobles, who are smart enough to understand that 'nobility' holds one to a higher standard of conduct, treat adventurers with due respect. "Due respect" for some nobles may indeed mean treating adventurers as dogs. Good realms and good nobles know better. These nobles reap the rewards of magical items, easy item repair and beast-free lands.
Rubbish in a historical context. Nobility was often some of the most depraved, callous and cruel figures we know of. Besides Magical items are fluff, some people like to have them, but really they do very little in game terms. And with the introduction of too much peace, realms are often LOOKING for monsters and undead to fight.
-
Rubbish in a historical context. Nobility was often some of the most depraved, callous and cruel figures we know of. Besides Magical items are fluff, some people like to have them, but really they do very little in game terms. And with the introduction of too much peace, realms are often LOOKING for monsters and undead to fight.
I understand, in the history context I'd agree with you, but we are playing a game with fellow, modern, humans who have a different perspective. I'm saying (as post above) that it is very *hard* not to view things through tainted glass.
-
If we suffered from that kind of guilt, then why do we attempt to destroy each others realms? Surely that causes just suffering to the players in the opposing realm. Even just TOing a region from someone could be placed into this category.
-
Beating up another realm is "equal", in that whatever you can do to those nobles they can hypothetically do to you. Sure, things like resources and abilities and location might differ, but the point is there is no disparity mechanically. For adventurers, there is mechanical disadvantage. That isn't exactly a bad thing since it does help drive home that nobles are greater than adventurers. I have nothing against being able to arrest an adventurer, but I don't exactly agree with beating them up. If an infiltrator stabs an adventurer that's ok since it's the same risk priests and other unitless nobles run. It just seems a bit harsh by game mechanics to allow any noble with a unit to at least wound any adventurer in the same region.
-
This would be a nice addition, but I don't want to see any prohibitions on equality. Because nobles should be allowed to do as they please even if their idea will be viewed as ridiculous. Though, it should be made evident that prevailing thought of the time would have considered it abhorrent to consider a commoner as an equal.
All my characters behave as pompous nobles. However, Alpha is protective of adventurers that are in his service. Not out of any love for the adventurers, but because they have proven useful, and will likely be useful in the future.
Shouldn't freeman be held in higher esteem than regional serfs?
How does a freeman compared to a noble classified under the "outlaw" status?
-
They can also be executed without being banned, and freeman status means nothing outside of their own realm. Those are the breaks I see no reason why this is problem. Advies aren't equal, game mechanics simply support this. There was a reason you used to have to wait 30 days to even create a advy, and that is because it is an odd class, designed to be used by those that know the game and now what to expect. The change to character limits lead to a flood of people creating a advy and not understanding this.
-
It sounds like we're all talking different things now. I can only say that what I have been saying (Maybe my communication is not good enough to get across to people so I apologize but that can't be helped) is that there are differences between adventurers and nobles and those should exist. However, I am in favor of "fair" differences enforced by mechanics. Right now, that involves arresting and beating up adventurers. The results of arrests are ultimately left to the judge. For those their judgment will have to be trusted. But for beatings, an adventurer can be wounded (maybe seriously wounded, not sure) by any random noble with a unit who just happens to be in the area. I'm not saying it always happens, but maybe there are some sadistic characters who would. With the new wounding system, I'd advocate for light wounds scaling upwards depending on unit size.
-
I had some trouble with a character like this back when I was a advy. Bottom line was, after him wounding me twice, I simply used the travel advantage to out distance him. Later on when I had achieved my nobility, I duelled him to the death and buried him.
-
There can be no discussion about this. Remember the motto of the French Revolution? It had "equality" in it. What does that tell you? That the idea was REVOLUTIONARY - in 1783!!!
In the middle ages, it was unthinkable. Any Adventurer voicing such thoughts should be immediately executed as an anarchist. Any Noble should lose at least half his prestige and honor.
-
I have humble request that mayby that rape word could be removed...
No. This is not PoliticallyCorrectShelteredFromRealityMaster.
Rape was an active part of warfare for pretty much all of history. Heck, in most conflicts today it still is. And frankly, you think that's bad? Try the african tribal wars going on this century where they systematically slash off both hands of civilians in "enemy" villages. The mental trauma of rape is horrible and I wish it on no one, but at least there's a chance that you can overcome it. Losing both of your hands? How are you going to even live your life after that?
I would much rather my players engage with the facts than pretend they don't exist.
-
What about a peer review system for messages reeking of thoughts of equality? Messages would be reported and reviewed much like the vulgarity reviews, but if the messages is deemed offensive, there would be far steeper penalties. Somewhere between a quarter and half the offender's H/P would drive the point home nicely, I think. Perhaps make the messages 'anonymous' when sent for review, as in leave out the name of the noble writing it, so there is no chance of nobles taking a chance at screwing over someone they don't like when asked to review their messages.
-
You can say that so long as it's not your character. I think there are some adventurers on BT that may be a bit angry at a certain infiltrator who stabs every one of them he encounters just because he can get away with it.
Excellent! That's how enemies are made. Imagine when one of those manages to become a noble...
If a noble decides to stand up for a commoner, and is prepared to face the consequences,
"Standing up for" is not the question. You can even like those peasants. But even the thought that they are of the same kind as you is alien to people of that age. That's like saying men and women are equal - in 1700. Or that whites and blacks are equal in 1800. People would look at you and try to find out if you are insane or just failed horribly at making a joke. The thought that you're serious would cross their mind last.
It's a bit difficult for us to understand. Try to see peasants as animals. Sure you can be for animal rights, and against harming them, but very few animal rights activists actually say that animals are equal to humans. On the contrary, many of those defending them are more or less secretly believing very strongly in the difference, because the are acting protectively - in the matter you act towards subordinates or children, not in the matter you'd act towards equals.
If another noble kicked my best hunting dog for no good reason my noble would likely be annoyed; not necessarily because the dog is in pain but because it's my bloody dog and if anyone is going to kick it it should be me.
Excellent summary.
-
So in short: nobles and commoners are essentially inequal, however it is the nobles choice wether to act according to that or not?
-
So in short: nobles and commoners are essentially inequal, however it is the nobles choice wether to act according to that or not?
Unless you're RPing an insane person, no. If you treat them as equal, then you are obviously insane.
It's your choice if you want to treat them as lesser but worthy of good treatment, however. Which is something entirely different than equality.
At least, I think that's what Tom is trying to say here.
-
That's NOT what the issue was about. It might just be that the original poster is using this as a straw-man argument to further his point about the real argument (though I can't say for sure of course).
As far as I read only ONE guy was claiming for equality. And everyone immediately dissented with him. But that is not what the big discussion was about.
Here's what actually happened:
1. The judge of Sirion asked us to give him the names of anyone that was tortured and/or killed by Lady Gabriella (an infamous elf-hater who is said to collect elf ears).
2. People started providing him with names, mostly of their relatives. Some of those relatives were... commoners!
3. People got upset that commoners had been mentioned, and that people were admitting to be related to commoners.
Here's what was explained to the OP:
- Nobles *did* marry wealthy merchants (commoners). So it's quite possible that even your loved one might be a commoner. Naturally, you might be upset if someone tortured and killed them.
- Noble families start from somewhere, and BM has lots of new noble families. Some people play those new noble families as just being minor families now being more prominent, but others RP it as the founding of a new noble line, usually for notable actions. That nobility did not extend backwards (as far as I know) to your mom/pop, grand-dad/grand-mum, great-grand-dad, etc. So it's quite conceivable your mum might be a commoner (also see above about wealthy merchants).
- Adventurers become nobles all the time.
- Nobility was recognized by blood and by deeds. They key thing is that you either have inherent or demonstrated Superiority, which explains why you are fit to lead commoners.
- BM treats commoners as serfs (despite calling them freemen), so they are in fact owned by a Lord. If someone destroyed your house or killed your beloved dog, you'd be rightfully upset and demand recompense. In fact, historically if a Lord killed a serf, they had to pay the serf's owner for the damages.
-
@Corwyn: This is an issue that comes up all the time, on every island, on a regular basis. The fact that this was a message in Sirion that started it this time is really irrelevant. This isn't about Sirion, or about any one single incident. It's about addressing the issue in general, game-wide. A significant portion of the players in this game really don't understand the difference that is being modeled by the game. Personally, I think it's a combination of the modern viewpoint on equality, as well as the fact that advies are other players.
Let's face it, players that won't give a second thought to charging into battle against a 500-peasant mob and make jokes about it being training to help raise your unit's cohesion, or routinely order their men to pillage/maraud or KRB, will go into apoplectic fits when you try and assert that adventurers are not equal to to nobles.
-
So in short: nobles and commoners are essentially inequal, however it is the nobles choice wether to act according to that or not?
They are not "essentially" inequal. They are inequal. Nobles are superior to commoners. That is a known, fundamental fact of reality. No noble would even contemplate that they are equal.
You don't need to treat them like dirt. You don't need to beat them on a regular basis, or slaughter them on a whim. You can treat them nice, make sure they are protected, etc. After all, they are the source of all of your income. Your extremely lavish and luxurious lifestyle is based on exploiting them at every opportunity.
But no sane noble would *ever* contemplate that they are, in any way, equal. Because if they were equal, you wouldn't be able to keep them subjugated and exploit them for your own personal benefit.
-
Noble families start from somewhere, and BM has lots of new noble families. Some people play those new noble families as just being minor families now being more prominent, but others RP it as the founding of a new noble line, usually for notable actions. That nobility did not extend backwards (as far as I know) to your mom/pop, grand-dad/grand-mum, great-grand-dad, etc. So it's quite conceivable your mum might be a commoner (also see above about wealthy merchants).
Whatever people state in their RP, the official game explanation for all "new" noble families is that they just weren't prominent before.
Adventurers become nobles all the time.
Adventurers prove their pre-existing noble heritage all the time. They do not change from being commoners to being nobles: they change from being unrecognized nobles to being recognized nobles.
Nobility was recognized by blood and by deeds. They key thing is that you either have inherent or demonstrated Superiority, which explains why you are fit to lead commoners.
The key thing is that you have noble blood. It doesn't matter how stirring a speech a commoner is able to deliver: he's still a commoner.
-
So in short: nobles and commoners are essentially inequal, however it is the nobles choice wether to act according to that or not?
No. They are inequal, period. Whether or not to act on that is a nonsensical question. There is gravity. The question whether or not to act according to that doesn't make sense. How you deal with it can be different from person to person, but not that you deal with it.
-
The key thing is that you have noble blood. It doesn't matter how stirring a speech a commoner is able to deliver: he's still a commoner.
I think we agree more than we don't. A commoner is indeed nothing but a commoner, one that is not equal to a noble. But I do wonder if you're side-stepping the actual issue that was raised (namely that nobles are related to commoners), and that noble families came from somewhere.
It doesn't matter if BM says "all new noble families are just those that weren't prominent before" (though this is the first time I've heard this -- are we restricting people's RP of their family founding now???), it still had to come from somewhere.
And people were given noble titles for their deeds. As I mentioned, nobility was by blood or deed. Either way, your Superiority was "recognized".
Now granted some societies historically did care about how "pure" a noble's blood was. Some knight organizations required that you trace your noble lineage for for x-number of generations. But that just determined how far back you went... it was understood if you go back far it eventually stopped.
-
Now granted some societies historically did care about how "pure" a noble's blood was. Some knight organizations required that you trace your noble lineage for for x-number of generations. But that just determined how far back you went... it was understood if you go back far it eventually stopped.
Was it? Or were they simply practical enough to know that if you go back far enough, it eventually becomes really hard to come up with reliable documentation?
-
Was it? Or were they simply practical enough to know that if you go back far enough, it eventually becomes really hard to come up with reliable documentation?
No doubt some families can't trace their lineage all the way, though others were quite proud of their lineage and could. I can actually trace my IRL nobility to the point at which it was awarded to my ancestor. Either way though, the stigma was there precisely because some noble families didn't have a long 'history' of being nobility.
Since you're here and active on this thread, I'm more interested in the claim that we can't RP our founding family, and that it has to be an existing family that has suddenly become more prominent. Can you confirm this? Thanks!
-
If you want to keep commoners calm, stop the slave talk. Like jaune stated in an earlier post, certain words cause people to go into a frenzy. Slave is one of them.
Adventurers understand noble arses exist in any realm; they take due note and avoid them. No adventurer signs up to become a slave.
Nobles, who are smart enough to understand that 'nobility' holds one to a higher standard of conduct, treat adventurers with due respect. "Due respect" for some nobles may indeed mean treating adventurers as dogs. Good realms and good nobles know better. These nobles reap the rewards of magical items, easy item repair and beast-free lands.
Ays, you just said it all. Simple cause and effect. Beat and kick the peasants long enough and eventually they'll rise up. They'll also respond positively to better treatment. It's human nature and runs throughout history.
Equality is a non-issue. Game mechanics sets the rules. Nobles can arrest and beat up adventurers - adventurers can't.
However, you can tell people what to do but you can't tell them what to think. To discourage what is not wanted, have a GM start some in-game effects such as monster/undead uprising, warehouses burning down, said noble suddenly struck down with disease along with the appropriate RP saying something to the effect of the gods having cursed the lands due to the nobility spouting heresy.
Works much better for me than an in-game OOC message telling me how to think.
-
I have moved the rest of this topic to http://forum.battlemaster.org/index.php/board,6.0.html (http://forum.battlemaster.org/index.php/board,6.0.html), BattleMaster Forum => Background as suggested by egamma since the topic digressed into discussions on medieval views and historic background/basis for the original inquiry.
If any would like to continue this discussion, please refer to http://forum.battlemaster.org/index.php/topic,260.0.html (http://forum.battlemaster.org/index.php/topic,260.0.html).
Tom has stated his stance on the original request very clearly, any further discussion should take place in the appropriate forum.
Thank you.
-
The judge of Sirion asked us to give him the names of anyone that was tortured and/or killed by Lady Gabriella (an infamous elf-hater who is said to collect elf ears).
It's not torture if it's an elf. They actually enjoy it. ;)