BattleMaster Community
Community => Background => Topic started by: Igelfeld on March 18, 2011, 08:50:58 PM
-
PART of the fourth is intended. Rights and freedoms. That bothers me some, but not tons. What DOES bother me is the highly modernized sexuality of especially women, but some male characters as well.
Another thing that bothers me:
The infrequency of marriage.
What time period are you referring to here? and what do you mean by modernized sexuality?
There was never a time when everyone followed some rigid code about sex. It is true that in the middle ages the topic was more hushed up than it is now, but people have never been particularly virtuous.
So you can say it is inaccurate to go around boasting about your exploits. That simply wouldn't be done in most societies (Vikings excluded?). But throughout all of time there have been philanderers.
One of my characters (Ulrich) is a bit of a womanizer. This comes out in his RP's, never anything beyond illusion to the fact. But it is always in RP's and never in letters. RP's provide a glimpse into the character, Letters are the public face. As part of that public face nobody would ever admit to having adulterous relations, but that wouldn't mean that the person didn't have them.
So I guess it really comes down to what you mean by modernized sexuality.
-
What time period are you referring to here? and what do you mean by modernized sexuality?
There was never a time when everyone followed some rigid code about sex. It is true that in the middle ages the topic was more hushed up than it is now, but people have never been particularly virtuous.
That is partly true. Obviously, yes, there were philanderers. But it is rare that I see RPs of conventional marriages, stable relationships, or anything like that. Every RP is some horribly complex drawn out romantic love affair. Which is just bogus.
You are right that not everyone followed their moral code, but they were mostly discrete about violating it. Consider even the Arthurian legends by Mallory: Lancelot will NEVER confess to actually banging Guinevere, and that's even in a popular hyper-romantic novelized form. Courtly love at least pretended to be chaste.
However, you are also partly wrong. There is no evidence to suggest that "philandering," or any sexual activity, is consistent across time and culture. Quite the contrary, we have good reason to believe that cultural mores play a very, very large role in regulating behavior. Does that necessarily mean the middle ages were more chaste? No; quite possibly the opposite. But to simply suggest that our sexual behaviors today would translate to previous times in terms of their functionality or frequency is untenable.
-
My first experience in BM with something called a "tavern" was closer to a great hall created to give the nobles of the duchy a place to base their RPs and generally show off to the rest of the realm how superior their stronghold was to the capital city. From that I've always assumed that, when mentioned, "the pub" was not actually meant to be that place on the corner filled with peasants and a bar made from odd wooden planks over empty kegs?
On marriages, I think we'd have more of them if people realized that obtaining a marriage doesn't necessarily require long months of romantic roleplays. Treat it more like a familial alliance and the concept of marriage is much less daunting.
But, to the point, the thing that bothers me most about roleplays (and by this I mostly mean it makes me sad) is reading an OOC message to the effect of "if a noble did that-thing-you-did in the middle ages, they'd be exiled/laughed out of town/burned at the stake!!!" and seeing *none of those* attempted by the character IC. It isn't the poor RP choices that upset me, it's the way that we as players generally fail to correct objectionable behavior through in-game demonstration.
-
However, you are also partly wrong. There is no evidence to suggest that "philandering," or any sexual activity, is consistent across time and culture. Quite the contrary, we have good reason to believe that cultural mores play a very, very large role in regulating behavior. Does that necessarily mean the middle ages were more chaste? No; quite possibly the opposite. But to simply suggest that our sexual behaviors today would translate to previous times in terms of their functionality or frequency is untenable.
It seems we have stumbled upon a much deeper debate than I had intended, and I am more than willing to discuss it if you like.
I admit to overstating and oversimplifying my case in the first instance, as our modern understanding of sexuality is far different than it has ever been in the past. The sexual revolution has affected our outlook on sex far more than I think we realize, and these social influences highly affect how we view sexuality. Yes, translating our current cultural habits to past societies would be highly ethnocentric.
But I would argue that regardless of the time or society, people are the same. The rules they will play by change but they will still seek to satisfy their instinctual desires. Just as we have people today who conduct activities that society considers wrong, so did the medieval societies. The 'evil' we see today is not new to our society, it may be desires manifesting themselves in different ways, but the conduct of people does not change.
So I guess this is a bit much in arguing for historical accuracy in philandering nobles, but hey, I don't want to be accused of being historically inaccurate.
Regarding happily married RP's I agree, it would be nice to see more of those, but I know that it is far easier to make interesting RP's about somewhat depraved individuals.
-
But I would argue that regardless of the time or society, people are the same. The rules they will play by change but they will still seek to satisfy their instinctual desires. Just as we have people today who conduct activities that society considers wrong, so did the medieval societies. The 'evil' we see today is not new to our society, it may be desires manifesting themselves in different ways, but the conduct of people does not change.
You argue that people ARE the same. I argue that people COULD be different. Burden of proof on you.
-
I, personally, am not comfortable roleplaying marriages because my RL wife would find that objectionable. That's why my characters either have an NPC spouse, or no mention of the subject.
The one character I have that had an IC relationship and marriage was female. My wife helped me write the RPs. ;D
-
The one character I have that had an IC relationship and marriage was female. My wife helped me write the RPs. ;D
She's a keeper!
I've had two characters get married. Neither was very awkward. Then again, one of them was basically a completely political marriage (Hireshmont and Retravic).
-
You argue that people ARE the same. I argue that people COULD be different. Burden of proof on you.
I don't know what rules of engagement you are referring to but my position cannot be proven just as I cannot prove the sun will rise tomorrow. I can make very strong inductive arguments about it, but an inductive argument never constitutes a complete proof. Uniformity cannot be proved, but it can be disproved.
What would be proof would rest squarely on your side as if you could prove that at some point in the past people were different than it would mean that they have not always been the same. You could use deductive arguments which are by their nature proof establishing entities.
I can provide a preponderance of evidence for my viewpoint, but proof is only in your court.
-
Argument in support of people not having changed very much at all in the past 1000 years:
This sort of argument about logic and rhetoric could be taken directly out of any university or academy from Pre-christian Rome to medieval Paris to renaissance Bologne.
Argument in support of people having changed a fair bit of the past 1000 years:
The chances of one of you cleaving the other in half with their sword is, from rudimentary observation, far smaller.
-
National Survey of Family Growth indicates that, even in the last five years, rates of sexual activity have changed significantly; notably abstinence in the US has risen, while exact preferred sexual acts have also changed.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nsfg.htm
Change is confirmed in data from National Survey of Sexual Behavior:
http://www.nationalsexstudy.indiana.edu/
QED.
-
National Survey of Family Growth indicates that, even in the last five years, rates of sexual activity have changed significantly; notably abstinence in the US has risen, while exact preferred sexual acts have also changed.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nsfg.htm
Change is confirmed in data from National Survey of Sexual Behavior:
http://www.nationalsexstudy.indiana.edu/
QED.
This change can be attributed to a wide variety of factors, chief among them economic considerations. You also have abstinence education being taught in more schools. These kinds of societal influences will change the way people behave but will not change their nature, and if the culture reverts back to the way it was five years ago, so will the populace. As I stated earlier, culture and social norms highly influence the way people act, and what you have just provided is an example of that.
To look at the kind of sexual change you have indicated simply shows that people's behaviors change over time, it does not show that their nature changes. The sex studies are micro level changes in society and what you would need to demonstrate to show that people change is a macro level change, something that wouldn't revert back if the surrounding culture changed. Show me a time when most of the people in a society didn't have sex, that would be a proof.
Here are some other areas that demonstrate how people have always been the same: Morally, people have always thought it best to not be strictly selfish. The culture in which a person resides will go a long way in influencing their beliefs about who one should be unselfish towards and to what level, but selfishness has never been seen as a good trait. Along those same lines, people have always thought that one should look after their offspring and care for the future generations. Honesty has always been considered a virtue, and cheating another person is never so. These are the kind of things that underlie human nature and they are the things that simply do not change.
-
This change can be attributed to a wide variety of factors, chief among them economic considerations. You also have abstinence education being taught in more schools. These kinds of societal influences will change the way people behave but will not change their nature, and if the culture reverts back to the way it was five years ago, so will the populace. As I stated earlier, culture and social norms highly influence the way people act, and what you have just provided is an example of that.
Doesn't matter WHY they changed. Only matters THAT they changed. People respond to, as I said, cultural mores and institutions. Economic considerations can drive changes in behavior, duh. That's what I said. You disagreed.
I'm quite unsure what you mean by a person's "nature." Perhaps you could define it more clearly, apparently without reference to behavior?
Here are some other areas that demonstrate how people have always been the same: Morally, people have always thought it best to not be strictly selfish. The culture in which a person resides will go a long way in influencing their beliefs about who one should be unselfish towards and to what level, but selfishness has never been seen as a good trait. Along those same lines, people have always thought that one should look after their offspring and care for the future generations. Honesty has always been considered a virtue, and cheating another person is never so. These are the kind of things that underlie human nature and they are the things that simply do not change.
Apparently you don't read much anthropology.
Some (admittedly few) cultures glorify simple selfishness, consider lying a gift, exhibit wildly different child-rearing practices, have different mores regarding murder, etc. I have a hard time imagining any moral precept to which all cultures in all times assented. All had SOME moral precepts, had SOME idea of right and wrong, a sort of moral nature... but there is no central "human" moral compass on which all cultures can agree. Even supposedly basic instincts like truth-telling and kinship bonds are conditional based on cultures (evinced by the fact that some, admittedly very rare, cultures have extremely different moral and social conventions for those things).
Finally, my point was not that people's behavior would completely reverse. My point was that it would be different. You can't seriously be telling me that you think the moral behaviors of Medieval people are readily analogized to those of modern people. We just don't believe the same things, and our beliefs actually do have an influence on our actions. Now, maybe not enough to make a society of 90% adulterers become a society of 5% adulterers, but a shift from, say, 60% to 40% is significant and plausible, given that we have seen shifts of comparable size in just the last 60 years.
-
When considering the percentage of population that acts in accordance with the morals of the time period and place, regardless of what they are, if we are talking about 40% versus 60%, or even 20% versus 80%, it somehow seems wasteful to be upset about the habits of a fraction of 1% of the population?
-
I pulled those numbers out of thin air; and you could call "nobility" the population of concern.
-
PART of the fourth is intended. Rights and freedoms. That bothers me some, but not tons. What DOES bother me is the highly modernized sexuality of especially women, but some male characters as well.
Another thing that bothers me:
The infrequency of marriage.
This relates to what I alluded to in the topic on Noble dress: if you grant a society that has complete equality of men and women, you can't then just plug real life medieval mores onto it and say that's how life /should/ be.
Is it more or less likely that an equal society would have "modern" views on sex? Consider particularly how much of historical "rules" about sex related to the concept of wives as property and being sure that some other man's baby didn't inherit. How might those things be treated differently if (most) inheritance doesn't run through the male lines only?
A big part of the reason that I believe that the sexual mores would be more relaxed than those of medieval Christendom is that it is unlikely that BM's equal society could have developed unless there was some method of highly effective, readily available birth control. Effective birth control may not necessarily lead to greater sexual permissiveness, but it certainly seems to have been part of that trend in the modern era.
As I said in another thread, I've seen quite a number of marriages on the FEI and been party to several. Likely there would be more, but RPing relationships makes some people uncomfortable (or makes their partner uncomfortable!) It would be nice to see a bit more being made of the opportunity to gain politically by marriage, though. I don't think that people really usethe idea of allying with another house enough.
-
Let me ask that we keep this civil, let's just discuss the argument. I may be misreading things or presenting things poorly and if so I apologize.
Doesn't matter WHY they changed. Only matters THAT they changed. People respond to, as I said, cultural mores and institutions. Economic considerations can drive changes in behavior, duh. That's what I said. You disagreed.
Let me state that disagreeing with someone does not mean you necessarily take the contradictory point, of course I don't think that external factors have no influence on behavior. If you want to stab at that strawman feel free, it won't fight back. The way I see this is that you are arguing that cultural mores and institutions govern human behavior. I am saying that mores and institutions influence human behavoir and are one factor in the determination of behavior along with human nature.
I get this from you original post that stated,
PART of the fourth is intended. Rights and freedoms. That bothers me some, but not tons. What DOES bother me is the highly modernized sexuality of especially women, but some male characters as well.
Now I know, and I assume you know some women characters who do not have highly modernized sexuality, and apparently many male characters that don't ether. So it seems to me that you are arguing that the social mores predominant during medieval time should be strictly followed by all characters because the social mores and social institutions govern behavior.
I could be mistaken here, but if you accept that mores and institutions only influence behavior and do not determine it, than you also shouldn't have a problem with some characters, discretely through RP's being sexualized. As I stated earlier:
But I would argue that regardless of the time or society, people are the same. The rules they will play by change but they will still seek to satisfy their instinctual desires. Just as we have people today who conduct activities that society considers wrong, so did the medieval societies. The 'evil' we see today is not new to our society, it may be desires manifesting themselves in different ways, but the conduct of people does not change.
I admit that the final phrase is poorly executed, it should state the human nature does not change, but I believe the intent is understood from the rest of the paragraph and if this has mislead you to understand that I am arguing that social influences have no baring on behavior I apologize.
Regarding a definition of human nature I feel most people have a basic understanding of the term. to define it further would simply open a new vein of debate as it enters the realm of religion and presuppositions, lets try and keep things as focused as possible.
Regarding anthropology you are correct, I have not read much. My education involves much more classical Greek and roman literature, philosophy, and rhetoric. So although I do not know about the selfish society you speak of, I am quite aware of the recorded teachings on morality from ancient Egypt up through Islam, and from the eastern philosophers to the western ones. So although you might be able to point to some isolated village, I can show the breath of history and can tell you that all of these cultures have moral codes, and the codes seem highly correlated.
But before we discuss this, lets first make sure that we are understanding what each other are debating for. I am stating that human nature influences behavior along with social mores and institutions. And I think you may agree with me given your previous statement. But what I originally saw you stating is that you believe mores and institutions govern or dictate human behavior. If you could clarify your position it would be most helpful.
-
I split this thread from the following:
http://forum.battlemaster.org/index.php/topic,200.0.html (http://forum.battlemaster.org/index.php/topic,200.0.html)
I tried to make the split make sense, although it took a few posts for the thread to go too far offtopic.
-
But before we discuss this, lets first make sure that we are understanding what each other are debating for. I am stating that human nature influences behavior along with social mores and institutions. And I think you may agree with me given your previous statement. But what I originally saw you stating is that you believe mores and institutions govern or dictate human behavior. If you could clarify your position it would be most helpful.
It would take forever to continue a point-by-point response. So I'll just go from here.
I don't argue in the abstract. Rather, my position is that because I believe that (Proposition 1) human behavior in the aggregate and on individual levels is influenced/governed/determined by cultural mores and institutions, (Proposition 2) behavior of BM characters should reflect /those institutions which BM contains and is based on/, and (Proposition 3) that, in fact, BM characters in general /do not/ reflect those institutions.
Proposition 1:
There is no difference between "influenced by" and "determined by," unless you mean "determined exclusively by." But I don't think that's what you mean by "determined by" given that you seem to conflate it with "governed by." I would use influenced, determined, and governed interchangeably. "Pre-cultural" behavior (though of course no such thing exists) is non identical to "post-cultural" behavior. Output does not equal input, therefore, there is a function, a change. Perhaps not a perfectly mechanical one, but still some kind of function. Moreover, different cultures (different "functions") likely yield different results from the same inputs. Beyond even this, I am skeptical as to whether inputs are consistent (whether "human nature" has a determinable "content" to it, rather than merely a cognitive framework plus mutable but basic instincts). In sum, I argue that, whether or not human nature has any consistent content, certainly different cultures could produce different behaviors.
Outside of my proposition, I would suggest that different behaviors are what matter. Human nature, if it exists in a content form, is certainly buried so deeply as to be unavailable to our conscious decisions. As far as we are aware of our own nature, we are not a "nature" but a "culture," in terms of our "self-ness."*
Proposition 2:
Given this, and assuming that BM characters originate in the BM world, it seems necessary to expect that BM characters will, in general have behaviors that are somehow reflective of the BM world. While it is a valid point that the BM world has greater sex equality, I am of the opinion that, unless well-defined RP or necessities of playability dictate otherwise, we should default to the appropriate medieval model. So, for example, human sacrifice and wanton murder: not okay. Why? Not because of some epistemological commitment to "human nature," but because, lacking strong RP to the contrary, we default to medieval europe. Of course, two examples, Outer Tilog and the Blood Cult, prove my point: we do allow deviations from historicity, certainly, /when it gets specific justification through roleplaying./
Proposition 3:
However, BM characters do not live up to this model. And it isn't ignorance! Most BM players that actively RP have some idea of medieval society, and even many that don't fake it well enough. Rather, BM characters go to great lengths to be outrageous: everyone and their mother is a member of some strange sect, obscenely courageous, lacking in sexual morality, etc. Notably, I do not think characters /should be moral./ I only suggest /they should be conscious of the moral./ That is, unless a BM realm has specifically RPed itself as a realm of libertines (Vice, in Beluaterra, comes to mind), or individual characters can individually explain (and feel a proper moral shame at) their hedonism and history, characters should default to Medieval standards. That does not mean they all become monks; hardly. It just means that /if/ they are adulterers, they don't broadcast it, they feel some kind of disapprobation for their deeds. /If/ they secretly sacrifice baby kittens in their estate, they can explain what brought them to that point (a pretty huge cultural shift), how/why, and they recognize themselves as "outside the norm." Moreover, /most/ characters should not be like that. And not just most /characters,/ but most /RPed/ characters. Though I do wonder what it says about us that, it seems to me, characters with extensive RPs are disproportionately homicidal, corrupt, disturbed, and angry.
---
*Note that I am not here disputing a biological component at all. I am arguing within the confines of our "cognitive world." Obviously biology necessitates certain things, like eating and sleeping; and even drives many higher faculties. My comments are aimed not at whether we have biological impulses working in our life, but how we mediate them into human society.
-
Proposition 3:
Rather, BM characters go to great lengths to be outrageous: everyone and their mother is a member of some strange sect, obscenely courageous, lacking in sexual morality, etc. Though I do wonder what it says about us that, it seems to me, characters with extensive RPs are disproportionately homicidal, corrupt, disturbed, and angry.
I think what that says is that people are not very interested in roleplaying 'boring' characters. For example, here are some roleplays I could broadcast about my trader, currently sailing from Paisly to Madina, with 12 caravans:
Day 1:
Gornak set sail today, with his flotilla of 12 vessels, bound south for Madina.
Day 2:
Gornak sails south.
Day 3:
Gornak sails south.
Day 4:
Gornak sails south.
Day 5:
Gornak sails south.
My point is, a roleplay is often a rumor that you hear about another noble. You're not going to hear that another noble is brushing his teeth. You're going to hear juicy gossip.
-
Well put. My only point of disagreement is that I believe that human nature is definable and can be seen in action across time and culture, but in regards to what you have said about this specific case. I cannot disagree. The culture of most realms is defined as medieval and many players RP outside that without solid justification. But when you stated the consideration so matter of fact, I thought that you were of a different opinion. I was defending the way I RP one of my characters: Ulrich.
So what do you think regarding my character Ulrich. He grew up as a spoiled nephew of his rich uncle, and his family is insanely wealthy. He has always had a very high opinion of himself and believes that he deserves anything he wants. Along those lines, he is an arrogant, selfish young man who is also a womanizer. He is also a bit of a coward, and commands archers because he is afraid of the front lines of battle. That is his character, and it only shows up in RP's. When he sends letters or reports to the realm, he portrays himself as brave, noble, and moral. In your eyes is this a fair Medieval character? or is his rogue character to far from historical accuracy?
-
Well put. My only point of disagreement is that I believe that human nature is definable and can be seen in action across time and culture, but in regards to what you have said about this specific case. I cannot disagree. The culture of most realms is defined as medieval and many players RP outside that without solid justification. But when you stated the consideration so matter of fact, I thought that you were of a different opinion. I was defending the way I RP one of my characters: Ulrich.
So what do you think regarding my character Ulrich. He grew up as a spoiled nephew of his rich uncle, and his family is insanely wealthy. He has always had a very high opinion of himself and believes that he deserves anything he wants. Along those lines, he is an arrogant, selfish young man who is also a womanizer. He is also a bit of a coward, and commands archers because he is afraid of the front lines of battle. That is his character, and it only shows up in RP's. When he sends letters or reports to the realm, he portrays himself as brave, noble, and moral. In your eyes is this a fair Medieval character? or is his rogue character to far from historical accuracy?
Your character sounds like a typical BM, and probably historical, noble. My chancellor spends his time away from the front lines to keep from losing is position. Of course, he also uses his gold to sponsor 2 armies, so he can't afford to keep his own unit--or at least, that's what he tells the realm-members.
-
So what do you think regarding my character Ulrich. He grew up as a spoiled nephew of his rich uncle, and his family is insanely wealthy. He has always had a very high opinion of himself and believes that he deserves anything he wants. Along those lines, he is an arrogant, selfish young man who is also a womanizer. He is also a bit of a coward, and commands archers because he is afraid of the front lines of battle. That is his character, and it only shows up in RP's. When he sends letters or reports to the realm, he portrays himself as brave, noble, and moral. In your eyes is this a fair Medieval character? or is his rogue character to far from historical accuracy?
Seems reasonable enough given:
1. Your family actually is very wealthy, so it makes sense to RP that way
2. Your character is going to some length to look like the civilized, chivalric, dignified noble which "Default Medieval Atmosphere" would pay lip service to.
However, the devil is always in the details. So your character is a womanizer; okay. In what way does he fulfill that trait? Seduction itself differs culture-to-culture. So, for example, going to a gala and finding a woman to take home for the night after dancing with her is strikingly modern (we like to imagine Medieval balls, but in reality such things were likely extremely rare). Being a womanizer among noble women would also be relatively difficult.
But if you do it by picking up nuns off the side of the road (Medieval England had to establish special laws against the seduction, kidnapping, and/or rape of nuns), entirely plausible. Or maybe by creeping around the peasant festivals and waiting for a vulnerable young lass to have a bit too much to drink. Or, do the classically Medieval thing, and just rape her, and deal with the backlash later (backlash such as: unhappy peasants, bitter vendettas by claymore-wielding Scotsmen, angry illegitimate revenge-seeking heirs)
I'm not arguing characters have to be nice and good (though I dispute the idea that RPing a virtuous or conventional character is boring). I'm arguing that the manner of their behavior, good or bad, should manifest itself in relation to Medieval (or effectively RPed original) cultural standards.
This isn't just about characters' personal morality. I levy the same complaint against:
1. Democracies
2. Voting in general
3. Blanket religious freedom
4. Appeals to liberalism
5. Appeals to nationalism
6. Appeals to centralized authority
7. Outlandish dress
8. Modern ideas of justice
9. Modern ideas of spirituality and ethics (most common examples: IC atheism and utilitarianism)
10. Low regard for oaths and claims
11. Many, many others
You will note that my description of myself on this forum is "Stodgy Old Man in Training." There's a reason for that. I'm a grumpy, picky person.
-
Seems reasonable enough given:
1. Your family actually is very wealthy, so it makes sense to RP that way
2. Your character is going to some length to look like the civilized, chivalric, dignified noble which "Default Medieval Atmosphere" would pay lip service to.
However, the devil is always in the details. So your character is a womanizer; okay. In what way does he fulfill that trait? Seduction itself differs culture-to-culture. So, for example, going to a gala and finding a woman to take home for the night after dancing with her is strikingly modern (we like to imagine Medieval balls, but in reality such things were likely extremely rare). Being a womanizer among noble women would also be relatively difficult.
But if you do it by picking up nuns off the side of the road (Medieval England had to establish special laws against the seduction, kidnapping, and/or rape of nuns), entirely plausible. Or maybe by creeping around the peasant festivals and waiting for a vulnerable young lass to have a bit too much to drink. Or, do the classically Medieval thing, and just rape her, and deal with the backlash later (backlash such as: unhappy peasants, bitter vendettas by claymore-wielding Scotsmen, angry illegitimate revenge-seeking heirs)
I'm not arguing characters have to be nice and good (though I dispute the idea that RPing a virtuous or conventional character is boring). I'm arguing that the manner of their behavior, good or bad, should manifest itself in relation to Medieval (or effectively RPed original) cultural standards.
This isn't just about characters' personal morality. I levy the same complaint against:
1. Democracies
2. Voting in general
3. Blanket religious freedom
4. Appeals to liberalism
5. Appeals to nationalism
6. Appeals to centralized authority
7. Outlandish dress
8. Modern ideas of justice
9. Modern ideas of spirituality and ethics (most common examples: IC atheism and utilitarianism)
10. Low regard for oaths and claims
11. Many, many others
You will note that my description of myself on this forum is "Stodgy Old Man in Training." There's a reason for that. I'm a grumpy, picky person.
Well, now that list belongs back in the other thread, and I more or less agree with all those points.
I agree less with the democracy point for gameplay reasons--democracies tend to be more fun, in my experience, and increase new player retention (although I don't have much evidence to back that up, and there are exceptions, such as the Barony of Makar).
But if you think democracies are evil or whatever, why not play a character who plots to destroy them? I'm not sure how much success you would have, but I think you could find others who want a particular democracy destroyed. Deal with them one by one, make it the life's work of your family. You could become known for such a thing.
Or, pick a different cause. For example, religion. Work to outlaw certain religions, or not belonging to certain religions. That would have to be enforced on a realm-by-realm basis, but hey, all you got is time, right? Put a character on each continent and purge it from one end to the other. I think I may have my chancellor and priest (same realm, two characters) start pushing to have certain religions outlawed.
As for oaths, I think there was a feature request on adding some features to them--I suggest you make your way to that thread and give it some life, as I thought there were some good ideas there.
-
Well, now that list belongs back in the other thread, and I more or less agree with all those points.
I agree less with the democracy point for gameplay reasons--democracies tend to be more fun, in my experience, and increase new player retention (although I don't have much evidence to back that up, and there are exceptions, such as the Barony of Makar).
I agree. Many of those things are acceptable for playability reasons. Doesn't mean I LIKE it that way. Just means it has to be that way.
But if you think democracies are evil or whatever, why not play a character who plots to destroy them? I'm not sure how much success you would have, but I think you could find others who want a particular democracy destroyed. Deal with them one by one, make it the life's work of your family. You could become known for such a thing.
Done it. Irombrozia exported monarchy via political marriage to the Republic of Fwuvoghor, and attempted to export it via religion to Old Fronen (succeeded at first, but counter-rebellion succeeded). Shored up monarchy via religion and political alliance with Heen, attempted to export via political alliance to Khthon. Fought long-term wars against Enweil and Riombara, the two primary archons of anti-Medievalism on Beluaterra. Later participated in secession against Riombara.
Believe me, my character Hireshmont was pretty deliberate about trying to tear apart democratic institutions. His son is more of a democrat, but not entirely, and his reasons are explained.
-
That is partly true. Obviously, yes, there were philanderers. But it is rare that I see RPs of conventional marriages, stable relationships, or anything like that. Every RP is some horribly complex drawn out romantic love affair. Which is just bogus.
One of my characters fell deeply in love, and eventually got married, and had a stable relationship with her husband.
However, they weren't really able to "settle down" and have a normal married life until they ceased to be actively played characters. They left the continent and settled down outside BM, where they weren't being constantly interrupted by the craziness that is life here.
I think part of the problem is that conventional, stable relationships are boring to roleplay about! There's just not enough conflict. And if you can get one going, there's a good chance it will be upset by one thing or another, BM being what it is. Maybe your wife will be deported. Maybe your husband will be executed.
Maybe there will just be a war, and you won't have time to RP about anything for three months, and then the player playing your husband will have gotten busy with school, and the character gone completely inactive.
And, of course, because there is no game mechanic to model marriage and children, and no consensus whatsoever about how many IG years make up one RL year, there are constant problems figuring out when and whether to have children, how to handle them, etc.
It's certainly not impossible, but there are a lot of perfectly good reasons not to see normal, stable relationships in BM.
-
I think part of the problem is that conventional, stable relationships are boring to roleplay about!
I disagree.
However, even in unstable relationships: there are many ways to be unstable. Some make more sense medievally than others.
But it's not really just about relationships. Take religion. It seems like well over half the religious RPs I see are extremely abnormal hyper-ritualized settings; that is, not rituals in which I can see thousands of people participating.
-
I disagree.
However, even in unstable relationships: there are many ways to be unstable. Some make more sense medievally than others.
But it's not really just about relationships. Take religion. It seems like well over half the religious RPs I see are extremely abnormal hyper-ritualized settings; that is, not rituals in which I can see thousands of people participating.
I have seen some stable relationships which, alluded to in roleplays and displayed in the manner both parties support one another in the realm itself, add a vital atmosphere. You know that the couple are going to stand with each other quite firmly, and it is especially interesting when they do not, or when one acts as a mediating (or radicalising) influence on the other. It doesn't even have to be stated quite explicitly.
As for religious rps... I had a stint not long ago where I roleplayed a priest with a heavily intellectual bent who made an effort to make converts of the nobility by demonstrating the more civilised aspects of his religion and personal abilities. He would even hold lectures on certain elements of human nature and how the world may be intepreted through his faith. Unfortunately at the time I was doing this the religion was already falling into a very sheer decline with a patriarch who didn't even know the basics of the religion and priests who never talked. The rest of the elders who should have done something were either doing nothing or busy roleplaying in ways that were completely detrimental to their positions. Eventually I gave up on the faith and from what I've seen now they have gone from having around 100 noble converts to 40.
-
I think that religious tolerance (which should not be confused with religious freedom) was more common than some may think in medieval times. One only has to look towards the Kingdom of Sicily in the 1200's.
-
I think that religious tolerance (which should not be confused with religious freedom) was more common than some may think in medieval times. One only has to look towards the Kingdom of Sicily in the 1200's.
I don't think so. Jews were outcasts, not owning land--that's why they got the reputation as city-dwelling jewelers, doctors, and other urban professions. Muslims in Spain were driven back to North Africa in the 1200s.
-
I don't think so. Jews were outcasts, not owning land--that's why they got the reputation as city-dwelling jewelers, doctors, and other urban professions. Muslims in Spain were driven back to North Africa in the 1200s.
Jews I think are a special case. That said, crusaders seeking to kill Jews in the Rhineland during the First Crusade did come up against opposition from the many Bishops in the area who gave them protection, notably the Bishop of Cologne. As for the Muslims, they were not driven back to North Africa until the fall of Grenada in 1492 following over two centuries of existence as a tributary kingdom of Castille. This status as a tributary kingdom was very much in the tradition of the Muslim lords who owed tribute to Christian Kings, and vice versa, in the earlier medieval period. There are plenty of examples that show to us that Spain was perhaps the most tolerant of different religions, seeing as muslim, christian and jew existed in relative harmony and cultural primacy, though decidely more so in the 10th century and in the Muslim side. It was by the beginning of the 16th Century that the last Muslims were either converted or exiled from Spain... and of course that leads onto the proposition that the Reformation was a far more intolerant time than any period before or after. Spanish Inquisition, Bartholomew's Day Masacre, 30 Years War, English Civil War...
Yet I'd rather give more examples of... not so much tolerance and everyone living side by side in harmony, but examples of the incredible variety that existed in medieval Europe. Always include the Byzantine and Islamic world in that, since we are all children of the Roman Empire (whether we like it or not). Norman ruled Southern Italy, though often embroiled in conflict, managed to have Muslims, Orthodox and Catholic Christians without one side genociding or converting the other. The presence of the Normans meant especially that, as outsiders, they had little interest in supporting one side over another.
After around three hundred years of Muslim rule, much of the "Holy Land", from Jerusalem to Antioch and Edessa, was in fact quite evenly mixed with Christians and Muslims. Of course there would be more Christians in Antioch than in Jerusalem, the stipulations of the Bishop of Jerusalem when it was conquered originally still held sway even after various mad Caliphs and oppressive Jews (who took advantage of the Sassanid war against Byzantium beforehand to massacre the Christians of the city) had their way with the populace. One Caliph of Egypt even had to make huge concessions to the Christians, whose churches he had all recently demolished the roofs of and then had rebuilt, because he had annoyed the Muslim population of his realm. That it was even considered as an alternative, and that his mother was a Christian, shows us that it was not a black and white division.
Christians were also learning from Muslim texts, who were learning from Christian and Pagan texts, before, during, and after the Crusades. These texts usually ranged from commentaries on classical sources to commentaries on the nature of god and faith itself.
Finally of course there are the huge number of heretics living rather peaceful lives, the existence of pagans in centres of monotheistic religiosity and the presence of incongrueties within the faiths themselves that give support to a theory that the Middle Ages were not as intolerant as popular imagery depicts. But this is not purely tolerance on the part of medieval people. In addition to values of tolerance in peace time, it helps a great deal that for most their religiosity and ethnicity were not defined in the same way they would be in another few hundred years. Christianity enforced a popular identity following their experiences with heretics in the middle ages, and with a need to identify themselves they clashed with those who were clearly not what they were.
... and oh dear I went on a rant.
-
At the same time you can counter what I said by pointing out just how inhumane people could be to one another in the middle ages. Sieges in Italy during the wars of the HRE involving the wholescale slaughter of prisoners of war, the blinding of the entire Bulgarian army by Basil II (aptly named "The Bulgar Slayer"), the classic tales of savagery from the Crusaders in the Holy Land -- although interestingly enough those accounts are exaggerated by the Christians and often excluded from the Muslim sources on the recieving end. Of course the German colonisation of the areas we now know as Eastern Germany involved a great deal of butchery and warfare against the local Slavs. Yet my point is that tolerant societies as we know them were present in the medieval world. Greek and Turkish communities existed in both countries for hundreds of years without genocide or some great oppression/disaster forcing migration until the current century. Perhaps it is merely that we have better tools than we did then, but Europe was not a homogenous entity and communities could not have existed if they were at constant conflict with themselves.
What I would love to get a hand on, however, are examples in written sources and legal documents which tell of small-scale conflicts -- say the size of a village brawl or distrust between villages of different religions.
-
... and oh dear I went on a rant.
But a good one.
I would agree with everything Haerthorne said.
The Middle Ages weren't "tolerant." Even in societies like Moorish Spain or Norman Sicily, there were still squabbles, religious feuds, fanatics, and even some legal discrimination. However, that doesn't mean every Medieval society was bent on eradicating their neighbors. Maybe when the Plague comes through we'll blame the Jews and have a few pogroms, but a few weeks later we'll still sell them cabbage. There was intermarriage, conversation, and, yes, hostility.
It does not easily map onto our modern ideas of tolerance, because tolerance was not what Medievals were looking for. Order is what Medievals were looking for.
What I would love to get a hand on, however, are examples in written sources and legal documents which tell of small-scale conflicts -- say the size of a village brawl or distrust between villages of different religions.
Hmmm.... have you checked Medieval Sourcebook? That seems like an implausible source to find, but you might find some reference to Germanic tribal feuds, or some kind of juristic document.
-
She's a keeper!
I've had two characters get married. Neither was very awkward. Then again, one of them was basically a completely political marriage (Hireshmont and Retravic).
That one was superfun! Was that in Irombrozia?
-
Hireshmont was in Irombrozia, Retravic was in Fwuvoghor. Iro was at war with Rio, and Fronen was marching south... so an extremely political alliance.
-
Hmmm.... have you checked Medieval Sourcebook? That seems like an implausible source to find, but you might find some reference to Germanic tribal feuds, or some kind of juristic document.
From what I remember, the inquisition rooting out the Cathar heresy following the crusade was very thorough in its documentation of the questioning. Typically they'd uncover the relationships of village life through them - who saw who on weekends at the church, which family had a grudge, where this person came from and why they were mistrusted. Because of those things I think I'd have the best luck looking into those kinds of sources. Other forms of legal documents in the same vein would be useful too.
Eurgh, but I should be sleeping and getting ready for my Byzantine class tomorrow...
-
Eurgh, but I should be sleeping and getting ready for my Byzantine class tomorrow...
You lucky dog. I wish my uni offered a class in Byzantine history. It's probably my favorite time period.
-
You lucky dog. I wish my uni offered a class in Byzantine history. It's probably my favorite time period.
I came to the conclusion today that the reason why Basil II never married is because he didn't want to have an empress getting horny over those hairy blonde Varangians and having him murdered so she could sleep with them.
-
I came to the conclusion today that the reason why Basil II never married is because he didn't want to have an empress getting horny over those hairy blonde Varangians and having him murdered so she could sleep with them.
Or because women don't actually find eye-gouging very attractive.
-
So, how do you make a medieval-based environment patriarchy-free? And should we?
-
Or because women don't actually find eye-gouging very attractive.
Apparently not the case with Byzantine women. Hell, its practically a gesture of affection. Chopping the heads off husbands, gouging their sons eyes out...
So, how do you make a medieval-based environment patriarchy-free? And should we?
Depends what you see as an expression of a patriarchical environment. The way that Tom has set up the game means that the game itself registers no distinction between males and females aside from title. There is no mechanic stopping women from recruiting and leading units, from fighting in tournaments, or from taking positions of high command. All of these could be considered to be traditionally jobs restricted to the realm of men, and yet they are available to either gender in the game. As for roleplaying, that is mostly up to the players themselves - discriminating someone solely on the basis of gender on the other hand is something frowned upon by the community.
So as far as I see it, Battlemaster is already very much removed from "the patriarchy". If you think otherwise then please feel free to dispute my point.
-
The gender equality is one of the few exceptions from the medieval atmosphere. Asking "why are women equal to men in BM" or anything resembling that question is much akin to asking "why are you supposed to throw the ball into the basket in basketball" (Using rough terminology here. Besides it really was a basket originally).
The answer: Because probably very early in the development, very likely even before public release, this guy named Tom Vogt decided that, similarly to why religions should not resemble real life religions too closely. They are decisions meant to be considerate to the players, as some people may be sensitive to topics like gender and religion.
Now before someone goes to me and says "But this is the Background section, we're supposed to discuss the Background!", I'll concede that such an observation is quite correct. And yes, men were pretty much the ones fighting, leading, making money, and so on. That's great, and have fun talking about that. But that doesn't hold in trying to enforce it in the game, one in which almost every player has been raised in an environment with little or no gender discrimination.
-
This is interesting.
What makes a female character authentically female and not just a male with a female name and refered to as "she"?
-
If you want to play a crossdressing medieval noble, then more power to you. But try asking whether the majority of players assert that their characters are really female or transvestites.
-
As for roleplaying, that is mostly up to the players themselves - discriminating someone solely on the basis of gender on the other hand is something frowned upon by the community.
Is it really? I don't think I've ever seen anyone really try to set up a religion or realm that was gender-biased, towards either male or female. Personally, I think it would be interesting to see how the players respond to it. So far as I know, it is not forbidden in any way, so long as the bias is toward the character, and not the player.
Thee was a DList thread about this. I really don't remember the outcome... I'll see if I can find some reference to it.
-
This is interesting.
What makes a female character authentically female and not just a male with a female name and refered to as "she"?
Some women want to play the damsel just as much as some men want to play up to the manly man. Do you think a woman has to be concerned with make-up and children to be a woman, or that a man must get drunk and bluster about with a sword to be a man? People are varied, and although there may be more gossips amongst girls and more fist fights between boys, a woman is able to keep her femininity whilst acting whatever way she likes.
In my personal opinion though, there's little nuances in the way women act and think that seperate them from men, even if it was a woman who for all purposes was treated like a man.
-
This is interesting.
What makes a female character authentically female and not just a male with a female name and refered to as "she"?
Probably the same thing that makes a male character authentically male and not just a female with a male name and referred to as "he".
In general, I have always tried to play my female characters as authentically female. Not being female myself, I don't consider myself fully qualified to judge the results; however, I have been told by people who are that they are some of the more believable females played by males that they've seen IG. I couldn't tell you what I actually do; I just try to play them as I think they should actually be if they were real.
It seems to me, though, that a great deal of what we think of as "authentically female" is informed by our culture, which is not necessarily in existence to shape the women of BattleMaster's worlds. In a society where women truly are considered equal to men, would they be worrying about balls and makeup, and other stereotypically feminine things? Specifically, would the type of women who make up the quasi-military noble elite—that is, our characters—be worrying about such things?
I think that worrying too much about conforming to modern social norms for the genders, or even perceived or historic medieval social norms for the genders, is not only likely to be an exercise in frustration, it isn't even particularly relevant.
-
Is it really? I don't think I've ever seen anyone really try to set up a religion or realm that was gender-biased, towards either male or female.
I think I once played in a FEI realm that was all female and the where the men were castrated. If it was not in my dreams, the realm was the Highland Empire.
-
I think I once played in a FEI realm that was all female and the where the men were castrated. If it was not in my dreams, the realm was the Highland Empire.
They did some really odd things in there back in the day...
I wonder if Daniel (player of Sadi) would be interested in coming back...
-
They had this Gymnitism religion or something where everything was naked women. There was something about badgers, and Anaris has told me that I was not original in thinking of an enmity against squirrels. There was this "I Can't Believe It's Not Butter!" realm. Order of the Doughnut. I hear that the early days of Coimbra were weird, especially Doc.
-
Gymnistism wasn't just naked women. It was naked people in general. The censored version of the wiki page was hilarious. :P
Order of the Doughnut turned into an actual religion in Yssaria: Dunkontology. Thankfully it died.
The squirrel thing was from one of the south islands. Search the wiki for Nergal, I think.
-
It was a tradition for a while in Arcaea that women were predominantly in power, with all Duchesses and mostly women on the Council for quite a while. Jenred quietly phased that out over the years, but it was known (if not talked about a lot) when he joined.
-
Is Arcaea now where the HE once was? I remember Unotosa being part of it. The first time I played a Baroness it was in Unotosa...
-
Is Arcaea now where the HE once was? I remember Unotosa being part of it. The first time I played a Baroness it was in Unotosa...
I don't really know where the HE was. Of course, go far enough back, and everything north of Anacan was Arcaean ;D
-
Is Arcaea now where the HE once was? I remember Unotosa being part of it. The first time I played a Baroness it was in Unotosa...
Its split between Arcaea and Ohnar West. Akanos was the capital if I remember correctly...
-
The primary belligerents who destroyed HE were Lasanar and, I believe, Sartania. Maybe Arcachon as well. Arcaea was neutral. HE's old lands are mostly now controlled by Ohnar West, with some being Arcaea.