BattleMaster Community
BattleMaster => Locals => Dwilight => Topic started by: Karnen on June 21, 2011, 11:41:10 AM
-
I read on the wiki that Dwilight is basically meant have a serious medieval atmosphere and theres one thing... well two things... but one thing thats really bothering me atm. i have a character in Fissoa called Tristan who I admit is not really active since I have really had much time recently... I plan to start playing a lot more though. Anyway, I'm getting annoyed at how some characters respond to religion, especially those in power. People should be wanting religion! ANything should be better than pagan peasantry! However I've noticed certain people are very repulsed by religion in my realm! They talk about all it's dictatorial tendencies (yeah obviously but medieval people loved that !@#$)
Theres even one guy who's talked about institutionalising religious freedom apparently. Not sure if it's true.... but I know he definitely doesn't want a religion at all.
Anyway just saying... what shhould I do about this? How should I react?
-
I agree with you, and I believe that the idea of following the game-mechanic "pagan" beliefs or the idea of religious freedom (=! tolerance) does not fit in SMA, nor, in my opinion, anywhere else in Battlemaster, given it is a European setting and not an Asian (where religious tolerance/freedom was more common but also more complicated).
What you can do yourself? Either join a strong religion and try to convert other characters, or join a weaker religion and try to make it stronger. Climb up slowly but have your character a determined religious view. I have learned that when you play your character with a rigid religious view, people, after a while, will respect the idea of only "one true religion" and many will even join you in that thought after a while... but keep in mind, that religion must offer something in return too. Plain RP will not be enough. But priests are very powerful, so they should be able to do the trick.
-
Allowing religious 'freedom' doesn't necessarily have egalitarian motives. Amaury is allowing a certain measure of freedom as King of Luria Nova, not because he's pro-egalitarianism, but to ensure that no single religion can ever dominate the realm and pose a threat to his power. Divide and conquer, buddy.
-
I think Karnen is talking about actual egalitarian ideas. I know this because I'm in Fissoa as well and I've seen the same thing.
I'm not too worried though. The players in Fissoa are honest guys and a good OOC discussion should sort everything out.
-
Fissoa with its advy guild looks sketchy on many levels.
But I agree that the whole SMA aspect of Dwilight seemed to have died off. I don't think anyone really bothers with making new oaths such big deals, for example. The zealotry of the start is no longer, and it feels like most other continents now. Minus the more obvious offenses, though, which in itself isn't a bad thing.
-
Fissoa with its advy guild looks sketchy on many levels.
We already had a huge spat about that. My character was denouncing anyone who sided with commoners as ignoble and the other side was basically calling me a fascist.
In the end I wrote this and everyone was happy: http://wiki.battlemaster.org/wiki/Grand_Duchy_of_Fissoa/Law/Protections_of_the_Noble_Interest:_Commoners
-
Speaking of SMA in Fissoa... is there really a place for a guild called 'The Verminators'? It sounds rather... silly.
-
Speaking of SMA in Fissoa... is there really a place for a guild called 'The Verminators'? It sounds rather... silly.
Well yes. It does. ;D
The player who made it, Karel, doesn't have english as a first language (althought you'd never be able to tell.) I'm sure the intentions were good.
I think the only problem in Fissoa, that stands out from other realms, is the religion part. Nobles are stangely hostile to it.
-
...pagan doesn't mean peasant. thing is... religion is very ooc. it's like if it's not founded on an island, the religion doesn't exist ic, so to speak, when we all know that's not true.
so pagan is sort of like a coverall term that means something and nothing.
take for example a family that is based on another island. it follows a religion of that island. it send a young family member to a new island, what does he believe? eh.. apparently not the family religion. well.. he does follow that religion, but it's so insignificant that the game doesn't recognise it and requires the religion to be founded on the new island. why would that noble want to join another religion or for that matter found the same religion over?
-
Ah yes, I agree. It's just that there are some characters that appear to have no religion. I believe a character should always be able to answer on the question: "What are your beliefs?" He should be able to form some logical religion in his explanation. It doesn't have to be an official religion for all I care, but it has to be something.
-
"I believe you are annoying me by asking something that I have no need to answer to you because you obviously do not share my faith. Begone."
-
i think that there should probably be a list of bullets for dwilight that sets out certain things.. that a new hero (or advy i guess) must read upon creation. and a link for reminders.
and i don't mean a link to the wiki.
-
Hm, I once got a complaint about not addressing someone as "Sir". What's really funny is that the complaint most likely came from the guy who kept signing his angry letters ICly to me with a period. No, seriously, like this would be an example:
"Garret,
You are grasping at straws. You will lose and I'll laugh over your grave. I have nothing more to say to you.
.
[Dude Who Doesn't Matter]"
-
Well, I'm the "Karel" who's referred to. I suppose "Verminators" wasn't the best name I could have come up with, but hey... I'd change the name if I could, provided I'd come up with a better alternative. I proposed the guild name IG first, and there was no objection then. :)
My character has indeed been opposed to any state religion in Fissoa. Main reason is that I think it's stupid to have a religion, just to shut out hostile religions, like many realms seem to have. However, my character has never declared he himself is atheist or anything. I think I've had him say several times how he strictly separates religion and public life. The way I see it, he's part of the "pagan beliefs", according to game mechanics. I have, however, been considering to have him join a religion, and check it out (as I've never been part of any religion in BM), so I'm not really opposed to religions either. I just haven't seen the merit so far.
It's true that I came up with the idea of a Church of Tolerance, as was discussed in a different thread (a while ago), and I now see how non-SMA that would be. I believe that matter has been solved.
@Tristan Karnen's player: if you have problems with Skyndarbau in Fissoa, write a nasty letter and try to sue him for peasant-hugging, like Shane did. I'll gladly participate! ;) And if you want religion to be part of the realm, just go for it. But don't expect me to be all zealous and sh*t. :)
-
And on-topic: and SMA Dwilight seems kind of utopious (is that a word?). Wether we want it or not, we are just too influenced by the world we live in today. For starters, we don't even know for sure how people thought back then. Of course we can have a guess, and our knowledge is ever improving, but I think it's hybris to say a medieval commoner said this or a medieval noble said that.
I for one believe that people haven't changed all that much in 1000 years. If there's people coming up with a 'Church of Tolerance' today, why not in Medieval Times? Can you honestly say that items as freedom of speech or religion were totally off the map before the Enlightenment? Sure they were repressed, but that doesn't mean those sentiments didn't exist.
And another thing: we all have our own ideas on how medieval society worked. I suppose many of us base their opinions on movies or books, or even scientifical 'evidence', even though it can be hopelessly outdated. As an archaeology student I can testify how I hear of a new developement in an archaeology class, radically altering some view on some medieval item. And then I'm in a history class where the old vision is still supported.
SMA should not be about recreating Medieval Society, because we cannot, and will not ever succeed in doing that - for numerous reasons. I believe SMA should make sure BM doesn't turn into LOTR or any other niche, and stays true to certain values and rules that we create ourselves.
-
History = Batman
Archaeology = Robin
'Nuff said.
-
History = Batman
Archaeology = Robin
'Nuff said.
I suppose this is not the place to disagree with you, but it is exactly that attitude that is preventing a lot of new items to be discovered.
Quick example: a book dated around 1917 is found, describing how soldiers should be buried. History cannot find any conflicting sources, and thus proclaims proudly: in WWI soldiers were buried in this and that way. The idea is set in stone, and generally accepted for decades.
Then Archaeology comes along, and decides to check the information. Appears almost none of the soldiers were buried in the way proposed by the chain of command, showing the idea proposed based on historical sources was too generalised at best, and simply false at worst (that sounds very un-english)
The main problem is that most historical sources were written with a specific reason, and that reason was (usually) not to inform us today. Archaeological finds, on the other hand, rarely lie.
I'm not trying to turn this the other way round, though. I'm not saying Archaeology is better than History. However, the time where A was H's sidekick, is long past.
BUT: let's not turn this threat into an A vs H discussion, because I don't think it would interest anybody. So eear reader, I'd pay you back your wasted time, but sadly - this is free. ;D
-
Well we'll soon have Vellos swoop in and tell us about the proper medieval context but I can say one thing.
Religion was extremely important to a noblemans identity. I think a huge problem is that we have areas of pagan beliefs. I mean I'm not saying it could have been avoided, but it has certainly created a weird situation. In Medieval times there was always areas that were dominated by pre-existing religions (obviously the world wasn't created just before the medieval times.) The problem we face here is how should nobles react to starting a religion?
What I mean is I want to bring religion in full force to have a greater medieval atmosphere. Religion should be a very important part in politics. However at the moment there is no dominant religion in Fissoa and to make one there needs convincing. Now I know Rob will jump in here and say "omg try harder, look at me and SA, you get what you deserve, it's team game etc etc" (sorry rob) but it really isn't that simple.
The bottom line is: players should not have to put in massive amounts of effort to bring the game into a medieval sphere. It, in fact, should be the opposite. If you want your character to do something against the medieval atmosphere, you should then be met with fierce scepticism and hostility.
EDIT: Shizzle just rickrolled me... :'(
-
EDIT: Shizzle just rickrolled me... :'(
Shhh. ;D :-X
-
Shizzle, you study archaeology, I study history. You know well this is just a "thing", but there's no truth to it. ;)
And yes, history constantly changes. That's true. It's the first thing they told us when I started studying it.
-
Shizzle, you study archaeology, I study history. You know well this is just a "thing", but there's no truth to it. ;)
And yes, history constantly changes. That's true. It's the first thing they told us when I started studying it.
Hehe, so you're in Louvain and studying history, and I'm in Ghent for Archaeology. You don't happen to be a right-wing, female and ugly, do you? ;)
-
Hehe, so you're in Louvain and studying history, and I'm in Ghent for Archaeology. You don't happen to be a right-wing, female and ugly, do you? ;)
Throwing insults, are we now?!
-
Throwing insults, are we now?!
Why would being female be insulting? ::)
Better bring this back on topic somehow. :(
-
What topic? ;D
-
And on-topic: and SMA Dwilight seems kind of utopious (is that a word?). Wether we want it or not, we are just too influenced by the world we live in today. For starters, we don't even know for sure how people thought back then. Of course we can have a guess, and our knowledge is ever improving, but I think it's hybris to say a medieval commoner said this or a medieval noble said that.
I for one believe that people haven't changed all that much in 1000 years. If there's people coming up with a 'Church of Tolerance' today, why not in Medieval Times? Can you honestly say that items as freedom of speech or religion were totally off the map before the Enlightenment? Sure they were repressed, but that doesn't mean those sentiments didn't exist.
And another thing: we all have our own ideas on how medieval society worked. I suppose many of us base their opinions on movies or books, or even scientifical 'evidence', even though it can be hopelessly outdated. As an archaeology student I can testify how I hear of a new developement in an archaeology class, radically altering some view on some medieval item. And then I'm in a history class where the old vision is still supported.
SMA should not be about recreating Medieval Society, because we cannot, and will not ever succeed in doing that - for numerous reasons. I believe SMA should make sure BM doesn't turn into LOTR or any other niche, and stays true to certain values and rules that we create ourselves.
Well, things like freedom of speech an equal rights are, ideologically speaking, completely at odds with the traditional feudal European society we are supposed to be emulating here. A cornerstone of that society was the superiority of nobles over peasants. That is how rule by the nobility was justified. They were *better* than commoners, and so they deserved to rule them. You take away that assumption, you remove the basis upon which noble rule was founded, ideologically speaking.
Of course, the Middle Ages were also highly sexist in a way that BM is not, so it can certainly be argued that there's a double standard going on here. In the end, Tom is the only rule. He doesn't care about male and female nobles being treated the same (an obvious break from medieval realities), but I believe he has been quite explicit on the subject of the inferiority of peasants and also on the subject of religion. I am paraphrasing from what I remember, and thus I may get it wrong, but I believe he has stated that Paganism should not be a respectable religion for *any* noble to follow. Paganism is essentially peasant superstition, and therefore beneath any self respecting noble. Similarly, atheism is unthinkable.
-
Well, if a noble is no follower s.s. of any religion in BM, he must fall under 'paganism', unless he is atheist (which is impossible). Or would you force people to join religions?
-
Well we'll soon have Vellos swoop in and tell us about the proper medieval context but I can say one thing.
Faster than a speeding misconception, it's Vellos!
The bottom line is: players should not have to put in massive amounts of effort to bring the game into a medieval sphere. It, in fact, should be the opposite. If you want your character to do something against the medieval atmosphere, you should then be met with fierce scepticism and hostility.
This is an excellent way to phrase it.
i think that there should probably be a list of bullets for dwilight that sets out certain things.. that a new hero (or advy i guess) must read upon creation. and a link for reminders.
and i don't mean a link to the wiki.
Yes. Absolutely. I keep meaning to write a brief list (less than ten items; maybe just 5) of "Basic SMA," then we can argue about it here until we're blue in the face.
Well, things like freedom of speech an equal rights are, ideologically speaking, completely at odds with the traditional feudal European society we are supposed to be emulating here. A cornerstone of that society was the superiority of nobles over peasants.
Let's be clear about this. Passionate advocates for freedom and equality probability did exist in the Middle Ages. They were called peasants, and were executed for sedition. Most of us are descendants of peasants, and we have peasantish beliefs. This is a darn good thing.
Our BM characters should NOT represent feudal society. They should represent the top 1% of feudal society. By my count, Dwilight has about 1,500,000 peasants. Revisit that number for a moment: one-and-a-half million peasants. Our players represent the most prestigious, powerful, and elite people among them. They are the ruling 500-odd nobles. Look at those numbers again: we play 500 or so nobles in a population of over 1 million. We are not the ruling 1%. We are the ruling 0.0003%. We are violent, aristocratic landholders who regularly exercise in brutal police actions, tally each others' prestige and honor based on our ability to lop off the heads of our foes, and have state-sponsored blood sports. We have civilizing influences and refinements of course, and religions, and art, culture, and moral restraints.
It's not that ideas about equality couldn't exist in the middle ages. It's that they wouldn't have existed at the level of BM characters.
Or would you force people to join religions?
For the thousandth time, yes!
-
"I believe you are annoying me by asking something that I have no need to answer to you because you obviously do not share my faith. Begone."
Hehe, this is basically what SA gets every time they try to start "theological discussions" with VE.
-
Yes. Absolutely. I keep meaning to write a brief list (less than ten items; maybe just 5) of "Basic SMA," then we can argue about it here until we're blue in the face.
This will probably be necessary. At least regarding this current discussion on religion.
-
Hehe, this is basically what SA gets every time they try to start "theological discussions" with VE.
In order to combat the fanatical theology of SA. VE became more fanatical... :o
-
Well, yeah. Happens in the real world too.
-
In order to combat the fanatical theology of SA. VE became more fanatical... :o
Fanatical?
I don't consider "If the gods hated heathens, they'd have destroyed them themselves already" to be fanatical. Unless you mean fanatical apathy.
-
Fanatical?
I don't consider "If the gods hated heathens, they'd have destroyed them themselves already" to be fanatical. Unless you mean fanatical apathy.
Perhaps Radical fundamentalist was the right wording... ;)
-
Perhaps Radical fundamentalist was the right wording... ;)
I think all people in medieval times were radical fundamentalists by modern standards.
-
I think all people in medieval times were radical fundamentalists by modern standards.
Why would you think that? I don't think the average peasant cared more for the Church than about his next meal. Of course he'd thank the Lawd for that meal, but that's happening today still.
Look at today's muslims. I don't think the majority is fundamentalist, though you could consider the Islam as being pretty hard-core.
-
Why would you think that? I don't think the average peasant cared more for the Church than about his next meal. Of course he'd thank the Lawd for that meal, but that's happening today still.
I think that based on the social strucure they accepted (or were forced to accept.) i.e. total domination from the hierarchy with the backing of whatever religious power that hierarchy decided portrayed the truth. What was imposed upon medieval people is akin to what is now called islamic fascism.
Look at today's muslims. I don't think the majority is fundamentalist, though you could consider the Islam as being pretty hard-core.
Perhaps it's cheeky of me to dispute this after making reference to islamic fascism, but I would say on the whole that Islam is not a hardcore religion but rather radical elements have been spurred by a changing political landscape in a newly globalized world.
But that is a discussion for another time.
-
Shane put it really well. Nothing about Islam is inherently more "hardcore" than say Judaism or Christianity. It's a matter of complicated socio-political circumstances that a minority of Muslims are radically fundamental. ( remember Islam is by far the worlds most common religion, most Muslims are just as peaceful and progressive as other religions)
Obviously this is way off topic but to say that islam is more hardcore than other religions is misguided at best and dangerously ignorant at worse.
Not that it matters but I'm an atheist
-
I'm athest too, for that matter, and have nothing at all against the Islam. That wasn't my point.
Thing is that many people have a narrow view of the Islam (seeing it as totalitarian and fundamentalist) perhaps in the same way as we view Medieval society. After all, historic sources are written by and for the important folks, so they often give a wrong image of what peasants said or thought. Also, I believe, many nobles weren't fundamental because of their faith, but because they saw the political advantages of zeal.
-
Thing is that many people have a narrow view of the Islam (seeing it as totalitarian and fundamentalist) perhaps in the same way as we view Medieval society. After all, historic sources are written by and for the important folks, so they often give a wrong image of what peasants said or thought. Also, I believe, many nobles weren't fundamental because of their faith, but because they saw the political advantages of zeal.
The fact is we play nobles and not peasants and as Vellos pointed out, we don't play average nobles. We play the elite of the elite! The upper echelons of power mongering! I think your last line really sums up how it should be. Sure nobles may not have all been truly religious, but they would certainly have pretended to have been. I really don't want to draw this parralel too close because I don't think it's very close, but you could sort of compare it to how politicans nowadays in America go around praising god. I think it's likely Obama is an atheist but we will likely not see his true colours as long as he is a politician..
Ah! We're getting off topic! 8)
-
I like the point you made about how even if a noble didn't truly believe in a religion he would pretend to. Anything less and the peasants, who because of their lack of education were deeply indoctrinated by the church, would cry out at their lords lack of faith. This was the case in many places where a ruler was thrown out because he did not have the beliefs of the majority of the population ( Moorish Spain is one example that comes to mind)
Also the obama exampl is pretty illustrative. If Obama was to make a case that America as not a Christian nation, but rather one of no particular faith, he would have zero chance of re-election. ( off topic: the founding fathers never intended America to be a "Christian nation"
-
If Obama was portrayed as Atheist as well as 'communist', he'd never get re-elected no :P Although I think his chances at re-election are slim anyway.
On topic: I follow Shane's argumentation, but I could easily bounce that back at you: if a noble upholds his 'faith' in public to maintain the population's support, would he need to uphold his faith in the same way towards his peer (elite of the elite) nobles? Wouldn't there be some sort of silent agreement like "we all know we're using religion for political gains, so why pretend when we're amongst each other"? I am sure Obama doesn't "God Bless America" when he gives a speech to the higher echelons of the States' society.
I would like IR political discussions on this board, though. Nothing too extreme, but it might be interesting to use our 'BM knowledge' of politics, and use it to evaluate real life issues :)
-
Atheist is merely the lack of belief in god... There are many other gods to fill that void. ::)
-
Atheist is merely the lack of belief in god... There are many other gods to fill that void. ::)
I hope that was a troll comment...
-
Atheist is merely the lack of belief in god... There are many other gods to fill that void. ::)
Que?
-
On topic: I follow Shane's argumentation, but I could easily bounce that back at you: if a noble upholds his 'faith' in public to maintain the population's support, would he need to uphold his faith in the same way towards his peer (elite of the elite) nobles? Wouldn't there be some sort of silent agreement like "we all know we're using religion for political gains, so why pretend when we're amongst each other"?
So you're assuming that every high noble is a cynical, duplicitous, atheist that only uses religion as a means of social domination of the proletariat?
-
I think that it would be an unsaid understanding if that. If anything the conversation wouldn't come to religion and if it did it would be politely and subtly steered away.
For example my character is a Triunist, but more as an association than as a belief. If someone SA, VE or whatever demanded upon my beliefs he would simply say that the Triun is what it is and move on to issues that mattered to him, like spilling monster blood.
(off topic: obama's re election chances are slim? Pray tell who has a real chance beating him? Mitt,pawlenty, bachmann? The GOP candidates are a who's who of unelectable characters. Truthfully if I had to pick a republican I'd say Ron Paul. And if I had to pick who had the best chance, scarily enough I would say bachmann... )
And I think what glaumring was referring to is that atheists make tv/alcohol/sports/science/art/whatever their god. Which isn't entirely untrue.. In a sense... I guess...
-
(off topic: obama's re election chances are slim? Pray tell who has a real chance beating him? Mitt,pawlenty, bachmann? The GOP candidates are a who's who of unelectable characters. Truthfully if I had to pick a republican I'd say Ron Paul. And if I had to pick who had the best chance, scarily enough I would say bachmann... )
Can we try and keep the OT US Politics stuff to a minimum, please? If you want to discuss it, there's a perfectly good General Talk board for that.
-
So you're assuming that every high noble is a cynical, duplicitous, atheist that only uses religion as a means of social domination of the proletariat?
In a way, yes. I mean: look at the Pope. Look at Medieval monasteries where nobles' kids just had a playground away from society. "Ora et labora", yeah right. I am sure the Catholic Church has a basis of faith, but that basis lies not at the top. ;)
In-game that would be: yes some nobles show true zeal and faith, but face it: most of them joined a religion to gain influence, not to spread the truth.
IR: Prophets don't prophetise the truth, they spread their influence. Or they became a prophet involuntarily (~Jesus)
-
I think that it would be an unsaid understanding if that. If anything the conversation wouldn't come to religion and if it did it would be politely and subtly steered away.
I agree with that though. No use to brag about your lack of faith to a rival noble, only to see he uses the people against you :)
-
I think that tends to vary by region and state.
Clearly the Medici's were not a very religious bunch, and they installed a couple of Popes (there is one great letter in which instructions are given on how to make sure the Pope pays his bills). The nature of any given state probably influences just how cynical the lords are likely to be. Nobility in England or Italy were in constant danger and thus the "fiddly bit" in religion were glossed over in favour of practicality. In later Spain, there were not the same concerns, so leaders would naturally become less cynical and "stabby".
Wonkspeak: True faith is probably like absolute morality and can be expressed as a luxury good in the personal consumption matrix.
-
I think many people here misunderstand, religion in BM is about connections and power. I am sure there are some devouts, but you'd be a fool if that is what you think your religion is the only thing about. Its about power and influence and working with like minded people. I think you are doing yourself a massive disservice by roleplaying an Atheist etc in BM, you are cutting yourself off from some great opportunities to interact with people and shape the history of Dwilight. Being non-religious in BM is silly, with SA/VE and the myriad of other little churches and cults Dwilight would be a drab place. Get involved and shape the history of Dwilight, if you are sitting on the fence you are only reading half of the book being written in this game.
-
You don't have to get into religion at all to enjoy the game. I'm fairly certain most players do just fine without being part of any religion. Someone with access to the player database can say for sure, but I will gamble on an estimate that there are at least 1.5 times more characters with no in-game religion selected than those who have.
It's just not something that is typically up front and with usefulness. Sure, it can sometimes get power and influence. Now ask again: How many people actually care? Don't make the mistake to think that all, or even the majority, of BM players give a hoot about positions and power and "writing the history of BM". Most could probably care less whether their names are etched into the pillars of BM glory, and rather more care about their own enjoyment, which does not necessarily require, nor necessarily enhanced, by more power and influence.
And so...onto a different, sort of, point: Way too much fluff in BM nowadays. For Dwilight to really be SMA, I'd suggest toning down some features a bit if only so we have more time to focus on actually, you know, roleplaying, rather than spending the time we have logged in to deal with food pushing and monster fighting, and treaty maintaining, and treaty writing, and policing regions and doing courtier work because of those monsters and...you get the point. The game can probably work fine with a more abbreviated economy, estate, treaty, system. That would place the focus more then on fighting, and preaching, which seems to be a key element of Dwilight: religion.
Here's actually a chance to get religion more focus, which is something some people have been screaming to have. Well? It's right here.
-
You don't have to get into religion at all to enjoy the game. I'm fairly certain most players do just fine without being part of any religion. Someone with access to the player database can say for sure, but I will gamble on an estimate that there are at least 1.5 times more characters with no in-game religion selected than those who have.
You miss the point. We are talking about how to do SMA properly and that involves taking religion seriously.
Should we make using correct titles not necessary because nobles use titles incorrectly at least 1.5 times more than characters who use them correctly?
-
um.. atheists believe there's no such thing as god. not believing in any particular religion, especially any of the existing ones in the game is something totally different from atheism. there's no such thing as atheism in the game. being atheist is against sma.
irl, religion meant something and nothing. religion matters because your inheritance depends on it. if the church doesn't sanction your marriage your children will be bastards. your title might depend on the church sanctioning it or your war might require the church's blessing, etc. it means nothing because people bribe and scheme their way to become pope. they become bishops and what not because that position is paid for and in a way is not all that different from being any other lord. 1st son inherit the father's title, other sons might get stuffed into a church role or service elsewhere, so they can advance. they might not care much about the details of the religion or just pay lip service to it.. but they'll all go to church and attend mass, seek confession
food pushing is made all the more easier nowadays with the new auto caravans, no?
-
Artemesia is just sore from his days back in the church and then getting kicked out. Religion is very important in Dwilight and I stand by what I said before, it is another way to interact and build the story in Dwilight. Many of the people who are not in religion probably are putting some RL slant on why they don't join a religion.
Atheism is lack of belief in god...The Christian god does not exist in BM. Lack of belief in the Bloodstars would be Antihypernymastrum or something goofy like that.
-
Well, to get one thing clear: it's not because a character follows no religion strictu sensu, that they are atheist! None of my characters are in a religion, because I haven't found any to my liking so far, and building one myself isn't something I want to do. I tend to avoid atheism by claiming their family has their own secret cult thing nobody else knows about, and they never talk about it.
Having no religion strictu sensu on Dwi is not anti-SMA. Atheism would be to go around saying that there's no gods and troll the other religions. That would be non SMA
-
Artemesia is just sore from his days back in the church and then getting kicked out. Religion is very important in Dwilight and I stand by what I said before, it is another way to interact and build the story in Dwilight. Many of the people who are not in religion probably are putting some RL slant on why they don't join a religion.
Atheism is lack of belief in god...The Christian god does not exist in BM. Lack of belief in the Bloodstars would be Antihypernymastrum or something goofy like that.
The wonders of google
a·the·ist (th-st)
n.
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.
a·the·ism
[ey-thee-iz-uhm] Show IPA
–noun
1.
the doctrine or belief that there is no god.
2.
disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
Origin:
1580–90; < Greek áthe ( os ) godless + -ism
-
You miss the point. We are talking about how to do SMA properly and that involves taking religion seriously.
Should we make using correct titles not necessary because nobles use titles incorrectly at least 1.5 times more than characters who use them correctly?
And now you're the one going to a different point. I hit the point: How can one take religion seriously when it is very likely that the majority of the PLAYERS do not even take it seriously, much less any of their characters?
Titles are things that are right there in the freaking message. If you're an idiot (even if you're blind BM has support so you can hear what their titles are) or really that lazy, then there's no help for you.
But religion? That's not in your face. Never has been, and hopefully never will be. I suspect that would be a turn-off for more players than it would be a turn-on.
Artemesia is just sore from his days back in the church and then getting kicked out. Religion is very important in Dwilight and I stand by what I said before, it is another way to interact and build the story in Dwilight. Many of the people who are not in religion probably are putting some RL slant on why they don't join a religion.
Atheism is lack of belief in god...The Christian god does not exist in BM. Lack of belief in the Bloodstars would be Antihypernymastrum or something goofy like that.
Trolololo away, my good penguin sir.
-
Umm I'm pretty sure quite a few people one dwi take religion seriously. Even if it's an alliance system more than a faith.
I think people are confusing real world religion and game mechanics religion. You don't need to rp yourself as a zealot, but clearly there are more advantages to being part of a religion than disadvantages
-
And now you're the one going to a different point. I hit the point: How can one take religion seriously when it is very likely that the majority of the PLAYERS do not even take it seriously, much less any of their characters?
Titles are things that are right there in the freaking message. If you're an idiot (even if you're blind BM has support so you can hear what their titles are) or really that lazy, then there's no help for you.
Yet people still use titles incorrectly. People still say "Sire" instead of "Lord" etc. I suppose everyone is just stupid then, or blind.
Where are you pulling this "majority of players don't take it seriously"? Players take any powerbase seriously and will take religion seriously when it threatens to rid them of their power (e.g. The gigantic SA bloc.) The current problem the original poster has mentioned is that some people wish to stop organized religion because of religion will become a new player in the power structure of realms. This is only a problem in areas where religion has not already penetrated.
This is a problem because medieval times were pretty much characterised by religion being a major player in politics.
But religion? That's not in your face. Never has been, and hopefully never will be. I suspect that would be a turn-off for more players than it would be a turn-on.
There are plenty of islands that don't have SMA. Maybe you are better suited to one of them.
-
Where are you pulling this "majority of players don't take it seriously"? Players take any powerbase seriously and will take religion seriously when it threatens to rid them of their power (e.g. The gigantic SA bloc.) The current problem the original poster has mentioned is that some people wish to stop organized religion because of religion will become a new player in the power structure of realms. This is only a problem in areas where religion has not already penetrated.
This is a problem because medieval times were pretty much characterised by religion being a major player in politics.
There's a huge, enormous difference between "taking religion seriously" as a political power, and actually taking religion seriously.
No matter how cynical and power-hungry the medieval nobles and religious powermongers were, they really believed in God. All of them. Atheism or even agnosticism was just not even a concept in the minds of the time.
The problem with religion in BM isn't that people don't take it seriously as a political institution. If your religion needs help doing politics, that's your problem. The problem with religion in BM is that a great many people don't have any notion of just how serious religion was as religion in the milieu we are trying to represent. Many of them barely even pay lip service to the Gods they purport to worship. Or not even that.
That is the problem with religion in BM. It's nothing to do with politics.
-
There's a huge, enormous difference between "taking religion seriously" as a political power, and actually taking religion seriously.
No matter how cynical and power-hungry the medieval nobles and religious powermongers were, they really believed in God. All of them. Atheism or even agnosticism was just not even a concept in the minds of the time.
The problem with religion in BM isn't that people don't take it seriously as a political institution. If your religion needs help doing politics, that's your problem. The problem with religion in BM is that a great many people don't have any notion of just how serious religion was as religion in the milieu we are trying to represent. Many of them barely even pay lip service to the Gods they purport to worship. Or not even that.
That is the problem with religion in BM. It's nothing to do with politics.
I somewhat agree, but I wouldn't hastily discard the political factor. Perhaps I shouldn't have said it's to do with taking religion seriously a political faction. What I meant was that players know that if they are to RP their character as becoming openly devoutly religious, they understand that they will be welcoming a new element into politics that will change the previously pagan political landscape.
Know what I mean? :-\
-
You're not going to get people to accept something that they may have no concept of in this age. Yes, religion still plays a major role in our lives. But in our modern age a lot of separation has occurred that makes us take mundane matters often more seriously than spiritual ones.
To give a more vivid illustration of our modern treatment of some religions, at some point in Ancient Greece their gods were feared, and people really did not mess with the priests in fear that they'd be...turned into some weird monsters or something.
Now? We made three games in which some Spartan guy kills Ares and in the latest one he boots Zeus out of Olympos.
Our current popular concept of Hell as fire and brimstone came from Dante's The Divine Comedy. By the way, remember that game about the Spartan guy? Yeah, they cloned the mechanics of that game, and replaced the Spartan guy with a Crusader guy who kills Death, gets his scythe, and messes up Hell, all while still being mortal or something.
So my point is, I have a pretty good feeling that there are very few modern humans living in all of the continents except Antarctica (And even there, I'm pretty sure the scientists aren't waking up every morning in their monasteries) who really think of religion as anything significant in the BM world, apart from maybe an interesting little flavor. New players certainly would NOT understand that it can be a means for power. No, seriously, they will not understand that, unless you are very clear how that works, which so far, it is not clear.
Besides, this is still a game, and even if we are being seriously Medieval about it (Hey, why haven't I seen people roleplay their nobles as dying due to the various diseases that permeated in utterly filthy Medieval Europe? Come on, man up and be serious: Kill off your characters. lol), there are still some concessions to keep this enjoyable as a game. For one thing, make this mechanic of religion something more applicable with effects that can be seen immediately. Then again, religion is often best served subtly.
So what? Realism doesn't always lead to enjoyment. Would you like to be really seriously Medieval? How come I don't see the elder priests leading regular religious gatherings? Surely not ALL religions on Dwilight have no concept of having their members meet at least somewhat regularly in one of their temples to gain blessings of some sort? (In other words, none of those regular gatherings that just about all major real world religions have, and which would have been a bit more important to make back in the Middle Ages probably). You know why? Y'all are too lazy to do something as dedicated as that.
Make religion more serious? You can't teach a cat to bark you know.
-
You're not going to get people to accept something that they may have no concept of in this age. Yes, religion still plays a major role in our lives. But in our modern age a lot of separation has occurred that makes us take mundane matters often more seriously than spiritual ones.
I know. That's why I simply said that that was what the problem was, rather than saying we need to force them to change.
It's definitely a problem, and I don't know what the best solution is. It's possible that, in the long term, the best solution is to switch the SMA designator to a different, smaller, island, make sure that anyone going there fully understands the implications of it, and be ruthless in enforcing it.
-
I would totally like that, a downsized island with certain different features. Kind of like War Islands, but like...Faith Islands or something, lol.
For Dwilight, it's a bit too big, and well, you know, there are otherworldly beings, so I'm not quite sure how really seriously Medieval people in general can take it.
-
It's possible that, in the long term, the best solution is to switch the SMA designator to a different, smaller, island, make sure that anyone going there fully understands the implications of it, and be ruthless in enforcing it.
This is a bad idea, and such an island would fail to attract the number of players that Dwilight has. Artemesia's concerns are correct: it is a lot of work to play out and maintain religion in such a strict manner (for very little payoff, at that), and few people would find it enjoyable. More realism does not always equal more fun.
-
This is a bad idea, and such an island would fail to attract the number of players that Dwilight has. Artemesia's concerns are correct: it is a lot of work to play out and maintain religion in such a strict manner (for very little payoff, at that), and few people would find it enjoyable. More realism does not always equal more fun.
That's why I said it would be smaller.
If we can't grow the playerbase significantly, I'm thinking maybe South Island-type small, maybe a little bit bigger than that.
-
Would Dwilight stop being SMA if such an island were created? Or would we just call it SMA: Hardcore? ;D
-
Would Dwilight stop being SMA if such an island were created? Or would we just call it SMA: Hardcore? ;D
As it's entirely speculative, and I just came up with it 10 minutes ago...I don't know.
-
You're not going to get people to accept something that they may have no concept of in this age. Yes, religion still plays a major role in our lives. But in our modern age a lot of separation has occurred that makes us take mundane matters often more seriously than spiritual ones.
Your playing a roleplaying game, use your imagination... There doesn't need to be any massive mind shaking change in your life to roleplay a character. If they cannot accept the IG mechanics of religion it is because they are still playing a RP character like they themselves would act in reallife , making them !@#$e roleplayers.
-
Yeah? Who said everyone needed to be good at roleplaying in this game? This isn't the Anachronistic Merrymen Troupe we're running here. BM is half strategy game, remember that. Furthermore there are people whose native language is not English. Combine the two and that means you'll have a bunch of people who might be willing to RP but unable to communicate the proper words and a bunch of people who'd rather just win battles and write the occasional message as required.
Roleplay is not required as part of this game, and in fact, one can do perfectly fine without writing a single word. They might not get any positions, but not everyone cares. They don't need to write letters to get an oath, though the liege may or may not prefer it. Some lieges have just accepted my oath offers without caring whether I say anything to them. So, they can go field a unit and go into battle. For some players, that's perfectly alright.
And finally, do not be so condescending to others who may not be as capable as you may believe yourself to be at roleplaying and imagining things. There is nothing wrong with roleplaying your actions as you would do so in real life, as I guarantee there are a very few of us here who are worth anything as writers of fiction. And furthermore, what makes it "Good Roleplaying" if players consistently only play characters that are dissimilar to themselves? If they do what they are comfortable doing, and it's within the rules, that's all good.
-
Perhaps we should have wheelchair access put up in every realm and no smoking sections to.
-
Like it or not, Glaumring, nobody has to pass a test to get into this game. Nobody is required to be a master roleplayer. Nobody is even required to be a good roleplayer. There are plenty of people—even among those who write lots of long RP messages—who are, in fact, atrocious at roleplaying their characters.
That is the case, it has always been the case, and it will always be the case. We cannot ignore it, change it, or pretend it is going to go away.
What we can do is try to make the game as fun and accessible as possible to people at both extremes—those who primarily want to roleplay being a medieval noble, and find this a good place to do that, and those who primarily want to plan out medieval wars, and find this a good place to do that—as long as they aren't trying to prevent people who fall elsewhere on the spectrum from also having fun.
-
Perhaps we should have wheelchair access put up in every realm and no smoking sections to.
How about you try again, with something useful to say?
Contrary to your beliefs, I have trouble seeing you as any good of a roleplayer (and believe me, I've read them), so how about you try giving us all a nice little lesson on how to do it, hm? Maybe prove otherwise?
So far you have made the rather bold implication that you are better than the majority. Would you please back it up. Your most recent post is not very convincing, in case you were wondering.
-
Perhaps we should arrange an ingame marriage between Garrett&Glaumring to seal our love for eachother eternally in a roleplayed format?
I said nothing about being the best roleplayer or anything like that, I merely said that people are cheating themselves by not partaking in some of the religions in Dwilight. The main gist was to get people to consider trying out a religion instead of being a pagan in the game. I am very aware of the different styles of RP and players in Dwilight and glad they are all there. I was not saying there should be a test involved to get into Dwilight. Artemesia will jump on the attack whenever I mention anything and twist it around. He has a very special understanding of humour or even sarcasm. That is fine, I am happy with that. Now check this out 8)
-
Your playing a roleplaying game, use your imagination... There doesn't need to be any massive mind shaking change in your life to roleplay a character. If they cannot accept the IG mechanics of religion it is because they are still playing a RP character like they themselves would act in reallife , making them !@#$e roleplayers.
Right, because that's completely non-judgmental at all. I will not state whether I am sarcastic here.
-
Oh you got me, maybe make a plaque and inscribe it in gold.
So how are things going for you in Nightmarch? Do you sit there all by yourself staring out the window of your tower and saving your tears in a small vial all day every time I write something naughty on the BM forums? Whats your point Artemesia? Whats the big drive. I am always on these forums 'taking the piss' I am always joking around. I am so sorry that Bm has devoured every aspect of your life and made it all so seriouz bizzness.
I like how you dis my own roleplays inorder to make a point, like somehow my own arseholery will be nullified if you are an even bigger arse.
-
For someone who says I'm always serious you sure seem to be reacting to me.
I believe we should get back to some actual content, which when we left off we got to the ever controversial topic of religion in BM.
-
I would not be adverse to a literacy test.
Quite frankly, some of the posts I have seen have just been awful. Just awful.
-
For someone who says I'm always serious you sure seem to be reacting to me.
I believe we should get back to some actual content, which when we left off we got to the ever controversial topic of religion in BM.
It's not reacting, I am merely defending myself from an unjust and cruel world filled with pain and agony... :'(
-
Come now, children, let's not get antagonistic towards each other. Let Glaumring have his drugs and dunce hat, while Artemesia can have his lonely tower in the wastes. I will be happy to have my crazy overlord in the form of Allison and mutual respect with Bustoarsenzio.
-
I would not be adverse to a literary test.
Quite frankly, some of the posts I have seen have just been awful. Just awful.
Being good at literature doesn't make you a good roleplayer. RPing is playing a role and being consistent about it, not writing complex literary masterpieces in which your character changes personality every 2 weeks. Some of the best roleplayers I know have almost never written an actual RP message.
-
Being good at literature doesn't make you a good roleplayer. RPing is playing a role and being consistent about it, not writing complex literary masterpieces in which your character changes personality every 2 weeks. Some of the best roleplayers I know have almost never written an actual RP message.
:facepalm: I meant literacy. :-X
-
Well, that's a bit discriminating to non-English speakers if you ask me. There are always going to be those who haven't mastered the language and will therefor write in 'pigeon English' (for lack of a better term), and they may not be able to pass a literacy test. Besides, in my 6 years in BM I've not read a single letter that I wasn't able to understand, no matter how poor the writer's English was. And if I can't understand, I'll ask for clarification.
-
Like it or not, Glaumring, nobody has to pass a test to get into this game. Nobody is required to be a master roleplayer. Nobody is even required to be a good roleplayer. There are plenty of people—even among those who write lots of long RP messages—who are, in fact, atrocious at roleplaying their characters.
That is the case, it has always been the case, and it will always be the case. We cannot ignore it, change it, or pretend it is going to go away.
What we can do is try to make the game as fun and accessible as possible to people at both extremes—those who primarily want to roleplay being a medieval noble, and find this a good place to do that, and those who primarily want to plan out medieval wars, and find this a good place to do that—as long as they aren't trying to prevent people who fall elsewhere on the spectrum from also having fun.
So are we giving up on SMA or not? Because SMA is my fav part of the game at the moment.... >:( >:( >:(
-
I believe Sasha himself is enough reason to speak against such a literacy test. :) If BM adds the pressure to write in perfect english, I won't dare to have any fun anymore!
The playerbase is already dwindling. If you're going to add selection criteria as well, you're only putting the game even more in a niche-corner.
-
So you're assuming that every high noble is a cynical, duplicitous, atheist that only uses religion as a means of social domination of the proletariat?
Wait, so you mean this isn't true?
-
I said several days ago somewhere I was going to come up with an "SMA checklist." It is flawed. But it is a start. Discuss:
1. Politeness- even if you use the incorrect title, your character would at least try to address others with the right title.
2. Class- Paternalism is acceptable for high-ranking nobles. Encouraged even. All nobles should be paternalistic in regards to adventurers, and there is an acceptable level of violence against them.
3. Religion- Your noble is spiritual, and does believe in "god." You should join a religion, or else be able to give a reason why (such as a "family cult")
4. Personal Honor- Your character can be offended, especially by insults to family, personal integrity, and class. Get offended.
5. Self-Interest- Remember that your character is one of the highest ranking people on a continent. Your character is probably not satisfied just to take orders for the rest of his or her life. Be ambitious.
-
Addendum to #4: If you have been insulted and it's quite justifiable, then if the insulting party does not accept your duel of honor, that person(s) should be aggressively ostracized, ridiculed, and literally have his/her life on Dwilight be so horrible that he/she would wish he/she were dead. I do not like it when people talk big but back out on the natural consequences. At least Bowie for all his talk actually does face the music (and by chance walks away, impressively enough).
-
I said several days ago somewhere I was going to come up with an "SMA checklist." It is flawed. But it is a start. Discuss:
1. Politeness- even if you use the incorrect title, your character would at least try to address others with the right title.
2. Class- Paternalism is acceptable for high-ranking nobles. Encouraged even. All nobles should be paternalistic in regards to adventurers, and there is an acceptable level of violence against them.
3. Religion- Your noble is spiritual, and does believe in "god." You should join a religion, or else be able to give a reason why (such as a "family cult")
4. Personal Honor- Your character can be offended, especially by insults to family, personal integrity, and class. Get offended.
5. Self-Interest- Remember that your character is one of the highest ranking people on a continent. Your character is probably not satisfied just to take orders for the rest of his or her life. Be ambitious.
Awesome list, I am 100% agree.
-
About literacy...
There's a character in my realm who writes/speaks very, very bad. I don't know if it's because he is trying to represent an accent, or that his character doesn't know to write, or that he just isn't good with the language himself, or any combination of these. I don't know, and I honestly don't really care. He never speaks unless spoken to directly in public, but he's a very important asset to me. So really, I just plan on using (in a mutually beneficial way) him at the best of his abilities, while reducing the number of times he must speak in public, especially to foreigners. Totally seems like something that would be done in the times. Not every nobles had an IQ of 120, you know. And it's not because a person (read: character) has poor communication skills that he's completely useless and must be driven off the island.
-
Addendum to #4: If you have been insulted and it's quite justifiable, then if the insulting party does not accept your duel of honor, that person(s) should be aggressively ostracized, ridiculed, and literally have his/her life on Dwilight be so horrible that he/she would wish he/she were dead. I do not like it when people talk big but back out on the natural consequences. At least Bowie for all his talk actually does face the music (and by chance walks away, impressively enough).
Just because someone may insult/offend you doesn't necessarily mean you have to challenge them to duels, though. Indeed, especially for people who know they won't win those duels, vengeance and honor if often regained through many other means. Often means that turn out much more for the better of both parties and the realm at large, even.
-
My Mentor was Armitage III D'Anglos, who has the worst English of anyone I've ever met with Battlemaster. She was also the legendary Queen of Abington, one of the most effective players I've ever met, and taught me more about the game than basically every other Mentor I've ever heard of. Made an effort to welcome new nobles, talked about Abington's history, taught amazing strategy, and whenever something went wrong in Abington everyone looked to her.
I will not in any way, shape, or form support a literacy test and will kick, scream, and use every dirty tactic I know to keep it from happening (not that I think Tom would ever in a million years support it any way).
-
(not that I think Tom would ever in a million years support it any way).
Yeah, I mean, Tom himself, while speaking great English, isn't even a native speaker, right? Isn't he German?
-
I do not support a literacy test... Terrible idea.
-
My Mentor was Armitage III D'Anglos, who has the worst English of anyone I've ever met with Battlemaster. She was also the legendary Queen of Abington, one of the most effective players I've ever met, and taught me more about the game than basically every other Mentor I've ever heard of. Made an effort to welcome new nobles, talked about Abington's history, taught amazing strategy, and whenever something went wrong in Abington everyone looked to her.
I will not in any way, shape, or form support a literacy test and will kick, scream, and use every dirty tactic I know to keep it from happening (not that I think Tom would ever in a million years support it any way).
Speaking of mentors with poor English, my mentor was Elberan Carnes, Count of An Najaf when I firs started, who later became Banker and Duke of Ashforth. Quite the effective mentor too.
-
Besides, in my 6 years in BM I've not read a single letter that I wasn't able to understand, no matter how poor the writer's English was.
I've gotten one or two. There was one from a judge of Sirion a while back that I simply could not piece together without asking for help from someone who was in Sirion at the time. Usually, though, you're right. Most messages can be comprehended if you give it a try.
-
Yeah, I mean, Tom himself, while speaking great English, isn't even a native speaker, right? Isn't he German?
Yes, he is German. Not that you could tell from the way he writes. He's very fluent in English. (Of the British variety, of course.)
-
If BM adds the pressure to write in perfect english, I won't dare to have any fun anymore!
Broken English normally doesn't bother me. What does bother me, though, are those people who insist in writing in intentionally broken English. You know, the one's that use excessive apostrophes to simulate mispronunciations, slang, etc. Like "dese 'ere enemys gotsta be gittin' da' golds outta' da pezents wit sum lashin's", and similar annoying things. I mostly ignore letters like that. If anyone asks me to comment on it, I claim to have been unable to make heads or tails of it, and thus tossed it in the trash. Writing "letters" in this manner makes absolutely no sense at all. An RP? Sure. A written letter? No way.
-
Broken English normally doesn't bother me. What does bother me, though, are those people who insist in writing in intentionally broken English. You know, the one's that use excessive apostrophes to simulate mispronunciations, slang, etc. Like "dese 'ere enemys gotsta be gittin' da' golds outta' da pezents wit sum lashin's", and similar annoying things. I mostly ignore letters like that. If anyone asks me to comment on it, I claim to have been unable to make heads or tails of it, and thus tossed it in the trash. Writing "letters" in this manner makes absolutely no sense at all. An RP? Sure. A written letter? No way.
Agreed.
Tarajist Balewind is one of the worse offenders in this.
No one writes in a dialect or accent. In particular, no scribe would ever write in a dialect or accent. However you pronounce your haitches or -ings, you still spell them out properly when writing.
And please ignore the fact that BM's setting predates standardized spelling. BM's playing does not.
-
And please ignore the fact that BM's setting predates standardized spelling. BM's playing does not.
Deliberate typos, alternate spellings, grammar errors, etc., really wouldn't bother me too much. It reveals something about the character. (Mainly that you're semi-literate and don't care who knows it, or that your scribe is semi-literate and you don't care.)
It's the deliberate attempt to mimic purely speech mannerisms in written letters that bothers me. Like putting in apostrophes to indicate missing, non-pronounced letters at the ends of words. You wouldn't write something like gettin'. The apostrophe shows that there are letters missing. You wouldn't write an apostrophe to show that you're leaving off the g, you'd either write the g, or not put in an apostrophe. It would be either gettin or getting, depending on how literate and grammatically accurate you are. The apostrophe shows pronunciation. And you're not pronouncing a letter, you're writing it.
-
And you're not pronouncing a letter, you're writing it.
I followed Indirik, but that last phrase ruined your argumentation. You're not writing a letter, you're dictating it.
-
I followed Indirik, but that last phrase ruined your argumentation. You're not writing a letter, you're dictating it.
Not always. Many players roleplay their characters as personally writing some or all of their letters.
And furthermore, even if you're dictating the letter, someone's writing it.
-
You're not writing a letter, you're dictating it.
Wait... You're trying to say the scribe is going to faithfully record all the noble's mispronunciations, grammatical errors, contractions, foibles of speech, and regional dialects faithfully in a phonetic transcription of sounds instead of actually writing the words that the noble is saying, and do it in a manner that makes the noble sound like some 6 year old, backwoods, uneducated, retarded "differently-abled" kid with a speech impediment? Regardless of who writes it, it's a letter.
-
Well, I know all that. I guess it was just stupid of me to point out that letters were usually dictated :) Pff, I'll be happy when I can stop trolling and enjoy the summer. >:-{
-
Wait... You're trying to say the scribe is going to faithfully record all the noble's mispronunciations, grammatical errors, contractions, foibles of speech, and regional dialects faithfully in a phonetic transcription of sounds instead of actually writing the words that the noble is saying, and do it in a manner that makes the noble sound like some 6 year old, backwoods, uneducated, retarded "differently-abled" kid with a speech impediment? Regardless of who writes it, it's a letter.
That's why scribe mortality rates are apparently so high. Apparently most nobles who have scribes expect them to be spellcheckers, grammar checkers, and basically writers who can read their minds.
-
That's why scribe mortality rates are apparently so high. Apparently most nobles who have scribes expect them to be spellcheckers, grammar checkers, and basically writers who can read their minds.
What else am I paying them for? I'm more than able to find a child to stamp my seal on the letter, but a good scribe who can spell? If they can't do that, the peasants don't mind a good hanging!
-
Ah, and it is so tough to find smart lower class people to be scribes in the first place...
-
That's why scribe mortality rates are apparently so high. Apparently most nobles who have scribes expect them to be spellcheckers, grammar checkers, and basically writers who can read their minds.
The baffling thing is that nobles even notice the scribal errors. They ought not be literate.
Correction: the baffling thing is that we are playing nobles who primarily communicate through letters.
-
Ah, and it is so tough to find smart lower class people to be scribes in the first place...
... Especially in Nightmarch?
-
If I were you, I would act like you love religion and try to convince them everybody does.
Realize not everyone thinks like you and not everyone loves religion.
Religion back in those days was not only chosen, it was also shoved down their throats with the most horrific threats of punishments from god carried out by man.
-
If I were you, I would act like you love religion and try to convince them everybody does.
Realize not everyone thinks like you and not everyone loves religion.
Religion back in those days was not only chosen, it was also shoved down their throats with the most horrific threats of punishments from god carried out by man.
Ok I'm going to do that ;D