Geas

I'm gonna whine a bit..

Why do people bring up ideas such as "equal rights for men and women" or "free speech", etc? It's really annoys me. Those are modern concepts in 21st-century democraties.. not medieval societies. In a medieval society you could get yourself killed for even arguing against the leaders of the country/region. Free speech? Secular ideas? The is point that the game is supposed to be set in medieval societiy.

People aren't equally worth. Not everyone gets to speak. Religion is not optional, it's the commoners way of life.

I completely agree.

arxthas wrote:Why do people bring up ideas such as "equal rights for men and women" or "free speech", etc? It's really annoys me. Those are modern concepts in 21st-century democraties.. not medieval societies.

I guess you have evidence that those ideas never existed before modern
times? There is nothing wrong about having ideas, and most of them
will never be more than just ideas.

arxthas wrote:In a medieval society you could get yourself killed for even arguing against the leaders of the country/region. Free speech? Secular ideas? The is point that the game is supposed to be set in medieval societiy.

I don't think many people are arguing with the queen of Elvandar, and
she would be the only leader within Elvandar that my char would accept
without question.

arxthas wrote:People aren't equally worth. Not everyone gets to speak. Religion is not optional, it's the commoners way of life.

Where can my char purchase a title in Elvandar? I might be interested in
doing so, and I think it wasn't too uncommon in medieval times, and it
would certainly put a lot of weight on the opinion of my char.

krelji wrote:I guess you have evidence that those ideas never existed before modern times? There is nothing wrong about having ideas, and most of them will never be more than just ideas.

I am convinced the modern ideas existed back then. It would be strange otherwise.

The point is that it matters a lot why you bring them up. If you do it because it's just something you never reflected about, then you are most likely bringing OOC values into the game.

If you are doing it to provoke the society and its leaders, we are talking about something else. But in that case I would say that there are suspiciously many who do not fear the consequences of challenging the established ideas of society without any power themselves. Maybe the rules against blashemy should be made astronomically high to balance this. I would actually support beheading those who even question the current order categorically... In medieval terms that's a sure treason. It is also a suspiciously high amount of players who are playing characters with extraordinary developed thoughts.

krelji wrote:I don't think many people are arguing with the queen of Elvandar, and she would be the only leader within Elvandar that my char would accept without question.

It's not like the queen says anything, forbids anything, decapitates any who disagrees (maybe she should?).. What norms would it be that your character agrees to without question?

krelji wrote:Where can my char purchase a title in Elvandar? I might be interested in doing so, and I think it wasn't too uncommon in medieval times, and it would certainly put a lot of weight on the opinion of my char.

I didn't know you could???

Why do we have OOC votes about who is judge for areas?

Because it is a GAME.

Rather than have any votes for areas you could simply declare who controls what and where rather than have players influence it at all in any way.

People aren't equally worth. Not everyone gets to speak. Religion is not optional, it's the commoners way of life.

Religion is not worth much right now. Everyone can switch deity association easily given how the system works. When a cleric can convert other PCs, he should be able to convert NPCs just as well. I would like to see Volog converted too!

Some time ago I noticed something interesting - the society of elves disliking half-elves in general.

But when the involved characters are questioned about this too much, they start to shift the opinion towards a less polarized point of view. So either the morals are flexible already, or the players BEHIND those characters don't see it as something that needs to persist that way forever (no matter what reasons the character may have)

The point is that it matters a lot why you bring them up. If you do it because it's just something you never reflected about, then you are most likely bringing OOC values into the game.

Characters can have IC morals and IC reasons.

Your argument that these characters bring "OOC values" into the game is a generalization. There are plenty of IC reasons to disagree with others.

But in that case I would say that there are suspiciously many who do not fear the consequences of challenging the established ideas of society without any power themselves.

Who says "they" - whoever "they" are - don't have any power? What kind of suspicion are you referring too.

PvP and PK works for everyone anyway.

Maybe the rules against blashemy should be made astronomically high to balance this.

The problem with mono-deity worshippers in general is that the game world is undoubtedly a pantheon. What some say is "blasphemy" is completely subjective to the respective character in question.

What should be done is that if everyone can worship as a mono-deity worshipper and disregard a pantheon, then to at least give every mono-deity worshipper the same handle to define what is "blasphemy" and what is not.

I would actually support beheading those who even question the current order categorically... In medieval terms that's a sure treason.

Unsurprising that PK has increased in the game with opinions like that.

You are making the game world extremely exclusive that way.

Also, I have a problem with this - you are talking about "the current order" as if it is something that needs to persistent precisely that way forever.
I don't see that at all in any way.

It is also a suspiciously high amount of players who are playing characters with extraordinary developed thoughts.

Here again you are bringing your OOC opinion into it. I think it would be better if you gave specific IC examples.

It's not like the queen says anything, forbids anything, decapitates any who disagrees (maybe she should?).. What norms would it be that your character agrees to without question?

Perhaps she should, yes. Would be easier to have it that way than when players decide what norm is to follow and what not.

Player derived norms tend to fluctuate a LOT.

arxthas wrote:The point is that it matters a lot why you bring them up.

I never said that my char would actually bring them up. He might discuss
certain things with a certain group of people, but that's about it.

arxthas wrote:If you are doing it to provoke the society and its leaders, we are talking about something else. But in that case I would say that there are suspiciously many who do not fear the consequences of challenging the established ideas of society without any power themselves.

If my char was willing to get himself involved in such a thing, then he'd
be aware of all the consequences, and he certainly isn't entirely without
power.

arxthas wrote:Maybe the rules against blashemy should be made astronomically high to balance this. I would actually support beheading those who even question the current order categorically... In medieval terms that's a sure treason. It is also a suspiciously high amount of players who are playing characters with extraordinary developed thoughts.

What exactly is the current order you mention. In regards to Elvandar
we are not talking about a theocracy. The current and past judges of
Elvandar have been doing a good job in giving such an impression, but
since this in general is an attempt to seize control over the throne, the
act itself would be treason - punishable by death to the guilds being
responsible for it.

arxthas wrote:It's not like the queen says anything, forbids anything, decapitates any who disagrees (maybe she should?).. What norms would it be that your character agrees to without question?

Ask my char in game and you might get an answer, but I can't guarantee
that he will give you one.

arxthas wrote:I didn't know you could???

I don't think that you can, but my char considered it some time ago -
back when my char was supposed to be richer than the queen herself.

I'm sorry but I don't buy into this whole medieval RP thing. The Geas world has goblins and dragons. It has magic in many forms, including magic that doesn't come from divine power. It has prove that all deities exist. Read that again. ALL deities DO EXIST in Geas or clerics wouldn't be getting miracles and people wouldn't be able to resurrect. You should see clerics claiming that not following a single deity is heresy as lunacy. People would simply laugh at this idea in a World with a recognizable and proven Pantheon. The fact that this is the current religious view for most of the game is a clear example of what you call OOC influence since most of us are not used to living in a society with multiple gods.

Besides all that, there's some topics that I rather not see represented in the game, regardless of their presence on Earth's history. Just to name a couple: discrimination towards woman or sexual abuse. I question how valuable is to have those elements represented in Geas and I rather not be exposed to such things in the GAME I like to PLAY.

krelji wrote:I never said that my char would actually bring them up. He might discuss certain things with a certain group of people, but that's about it.

I never said you did.

krelji wrote: If my char was willing to get himself involved in such a thing, then he'd be aware of all the consequences, and he certainly isn't entirely without power.

I never said he was without power.. I don't even know who your char is.

krelji wrote: What exactly is the current order you mention. In regards to Elvandar
we are not talking about a theocracy. The current and past judges of
Elvandar have been doing a good job in giving such an impression, but
since this in general is an attempt to seize control over the throne, the
act itself would be treason - punishable by death to the guilds being
responsible for it.

Depends on what you mean with that Elvandar is not a theocracy. It's surely the primary god.. whatever that is supposed to mean. The Queen is a cleric herself. There are seven known gods in the realm. Their existance is not questioned. But anyway, I don't see how that relates to the topic..

krelji wrote: Ask my char in game and you might get an answer, but I can't guarantee
that he will give you one.

Because you don't have one? If you don't wanna share it - why bring up your character as a counter example?

krelji wrote:I don't think that you can, but my char considered it some time ago -back when my char was supposed to be richer than the queen herself.

Well, it's a nice thought then. I doubt anyone is richer than the queen Even if you owned 10.000 gold coins - how could you tell?

ferranifer wrote:I'm sorry but I don't buy into this whole medieval RP thing.
....
The fact that this is the current religious view for most of the game is a clear example of what you call OOC influence since most of us are not used to living in a society with multiple gods.

Ok first. The game is official a "medieval" MUD.. So what about not RP'ing medievalty (oh and it's "RP-enforced too")? And yes, the 7 gods are openly known. Only a mad man would not reocgnize it. Is that setting really so hard to adapt to a medieval one? I don't see the problem.

ferranifer wrote:Besides all that, there's some topics that I rather not see represented in the game, regardless of their presence on Earth's history. Just to name a couple: discrimination towards woman or sexual abuse. I question how valuable is to have those elements represented in Geas and I rather not be exposed to such things in the GAME I like to PLAY.

Discrimination towards women was already role PLAYed on many occassions. I don't see the problem with it.

I don't want to see sexual abuse either - but I don't think that just because there is one part of something that you consider medieval which shouldn't be played (although sex abuse is kind of modern too) doesn't mean you can't play medievally..

arxthas wrote:Depends on what you mean with that Elvandar is not a theocracy

Elvandar is a kingdom and is ruled by a queen. If it was a theocracy then
the title would certainly be different.

arxthas wrote:Because you don't have one? If you don't wanna share it - why bring up your character as a counter example?

You were asking about which norms my char would agree to without
question. That's the kind of information that would only accessible to
you if your char asked mine ICly about them, and even then I am not
sure if my char would tell you, or pretty much anyone else.

arxthas wrote:Well, it's a nice thought then. I doubt anyone is richer than the queen Even if you owned 10.000 gold coins - how could you tell?

Well, my char never claimed such a thing - but others assumed it years
ago. My char doesn't own 10,000 gold coins currently, but he certainly
paid as much in taxes in Elvandar during his time on Forostar. Taxes for
those not being a citizen in Elvandar are at 12%, so you can make up
your mind about how much my char earned so far.

arxthas wrote:Ok first. The game is official a "medieval" MUD.. So what about not RP'ing medievalty (oh and it's "RP-enforced too")? And yes, the 7 gods are openly known. Only a mad man would not reocgnize it. Is that setting really so hard to adapt to a medieval one? I don't see the problem.

As I described, there's dragons and goblins and magic in Geas. That doesn't quite fit with the historical medieval age, does it? I don't think it's so cut and clear that you can or should apply medieval historical (more specifically European Middle Age) facts, behaviours or trends directly into your character's roleplay. What "medieval" means in the game is open to interpretation.

I'm not saying it's hard to adapt. I'm saying it's not necessarily the right way to go, and definitely your own interpretation of what medieval should be in Geas does not set canon. Don't be surprised when people play by their own interpretation.

I for once do not agree with the vastly monotheistic approach that most players have to the game's pantheon. It makes more sense to me that everyone would worship all gods, in different ways. For example, Sathonys or Asral would be worshiped out of fear or lack of understanding of what Death means. And Evren would be worshiped whenever admiring an aspect of Creation, such as childbirth, or a beautiful waterfall.

arxthas wrote:Discrimination towards women was already role PLAYed on many occassions. I don't see the problem with it.

I do see a big problem with it. It's absolutely unnecessary, does not add anything to the game and is certainly not something I'm personally comfortable about.

I'll try to re-phrase this a bit. It's seem to me that I was probably quite unclear.

IC, people use arguments such as "equal rights for men and women", "free speech", "separation of church and state" and similiar. I think this is wrong, because those are ideas developed far much later than the middle ages. In other words, the more people who use them, the less medieval the world is going to look. Obviously, if all PC's would use non-medieval terms the game would not be very medieval about it. If we then throw in all NPC's, the rooms and the code too - we suddenly don't have a medieval world at all.The world is officially medieval fantasy. I also added that I suspect that people do it because they don't reflect about it. I might be wrong, they might do it because they like it.

Let's flip the coin then. Let me ask you to elaborate on:

A) what do you think should be included in the word "medieval" when applied to Geas?

B) how much of "modern" concepts, such as renaissance humanism, equality, feminism, enlightenment ideals, free speech, 21st century policies, space ships, etc, is acceptable?

I certainly do it because I don't think it's that important to set canon on the setting in such a way. The technological and cultural level currently in the game is pretty good already as it is in my opinion. The fact that people use melee weapons, the lack of gunpowder and the limitations on long range communication pretty much set the mood for me. Having votations to elect judges, open access libraries (scribes), open access to reading and writing or our law systems definitely push the era to at least renaissance for me. There's no need for feminism in a world with equal gender opportunities, and I don't see a reason for Geas' world not to be one. That'd be definitely different than ANY historical period anywhere on Earth, but I couldn't care less. The same can be applied to some extent to freedom of speech (though that heavily depends on the region) and other modern day human values.

Don't take me wrong, feel free to roleplay a character that does not follow such values. I think there's space for that in Geas too. But I won't roleplay a character that finds concepts like humanism, enlightenment or freedom of speech to be alien concepts because I do not see why those concepts don't fit in Geas.

Now about space ships, you're just being silly

The only thing I'd like to see more of is public lashings. I even made a custom cat o nine tails for Isen for this exact use.

Not being able to use it isn't fun

arxthas wrote:I think this is wrong, because those are ideas developed far much later than the middle ages.

I don't think it's easy to give a satisfactory answer. The humans might
only have been around on Forostar for a little over 1,000 years but this
pales in comparison to the time the elves or dwarves have been present.
Do you really think that it was impossible for the elves to develop such
ideas in over 4,000 years. It might be unlikely for the humans to develop
such ideas, but humans are quick to adopt such ideas, and they'd hear
about them eventually.

I was hoping for more replies on "What do you think?" and I slowly realize I might be very alone in this (apart from maybe Delia?). I do think however it is one of the most important discussions for the game - what common ground do we stand on.

ferranifer wrote: I certainly do it because I don't think it's that important to set canon on the setting in such a way.

You do not think it is "important" to canon the setting in such a way? What the fuck? It is not optional. Medieval _is_ the setting.

The game needs a heavily conflicted background such as a medieval class society. It allows for conflicts of many types, religious, economical, etc. It makes a base for other conflicts to appear. It gives the game life. It's the theme that makes a general drive for conflict. Medieval is what the game is based on. It's the fundament. It's implied and it's the core of everything that happens.

If you play the game in another way, I think you are fucking up the game seriously. To be honest, the comment basically ruins the game for me. Don't take it personal, it just happens to do that. I have zero interest right now in returning to the game. Is this general idea amongst everyone that we don't give a fuck about the "medieval" of the setting? Or has this now been reduced to only map to the tech-level? Even though it does not even do that?

If it was some inner intricaties of feudalism, then sure ok, maybe that can go optional. We don't have to map 1:1. I am pretty open to it as long as it at least to major part looks like medieval. But this is nowhere close to that.

ferranifer wrote: Don't take me wrong, feel free to roleplay a character that does not follow such values. I think there's space for that in Geas too. But I won't roleplay a character that finds concepts like humanism, enlightenment or freedom of speech to be alien concepts because I do not see why those concepts don't fit in Geas.

What am I supposed to play, if we have no common ground? What is optional to you is the fundament to me and what is the base to you is just optional to me? What is the point in that?

"Space for that too?" - I would say there is ONLY space for that. If you do something even remotely other you are ignoring what the game is telling you. It's the fucking core of the game. IF you are playing a character that possess the wisdom enough to be so bloody far ahead from your time then you better have a good fucking reason to do it. And some serious, easily-exploitable flaws that others can use against you, to balance for your incredible advantage that you just gave yourself (or something equivalent). I mean, for a minimum, if there is supposed to be anything fair to going so far away out of bounds for the game definition.

"Don't fit"? Sure they might fit somewhere. You can squeeze such values in hard somewhere (no pun). But that's really it.. squeezing. It does not easily blend with the image we are aiming for - a medieval world. I picture a temporary revolt or something like that might be acceptable (and fun, the point), but anything more than that is just shitty RP. I rarely say other's RP is shitty because I hate judging others, but if you do not even recognize that it is a medieval MUD, then you are RPing like shit. Then you have not even understood the meaning of the game.

ferranifer wrote: Now about space ships, you're just being silly

I'll admit it might seem more foreign but, space ships are just as valid as an idea as renaissance ideas. I took it as an example to show how silly it gets when you have no common ground you agree about. It could just as well be that space ships and foreign alien civilizations are a part of the setting. You can't say that they aren't. You simply have nothing that supports the argument. It's just as good as "free speech for everyone" to be the general norm. If you rip away the medieval carpet from under the feet, what are you standing on?

ferranifer wrote: I don't think it's easy to give a satisfactory answer. The humans might
only have been around on Forostar for a little over 1,000 years but this
pales in comparison to the time the elves or dwarves have been present.
Do you really think that it was impossible for the elves to develop such
ideas in over 4,000 years. It might be unlikely for the humans to develop
such ideas, but humans are quick to adopt such ideas, and they'd hear
about them eventually.

You can never say that 'idea X can not exist in the game'. The question is what the game _is_. What are we aiming for? Is "idea Y" something that is supposed to be frequent and completely unchallenged in society? How does that blend with the objective?

If the game is not medieval.. then doesn't the Crusaders for example just look like some bullying evil assholes? Aren't the Asrals just a pain in the ass in general for anything they touch? Why would Elvandar allow the Queen to be leader of the town/nation and also be a member of the clergy? It does not make any sense anywhere. The only thing that does not really fit is the law system in Arborea.. I really think it shouldn't be there. It doesn't fit. Anyway, the world aint perfect. But I think there should be some general consensus about what the "medieval" is. And easy ones such that as modern conceps in the game is wrong, I think everyone should agree on.

Or, the game gets reduced to whatever the game mechanics supply. Fuck any cultural ambition in the setting. We can't define that then. If there is no IC support, it does not exist. You say dwarves are this-and-that, but unless you have some IC proof - anything goes. I can just as well claim the straight oppsosite. Try building up a conflict in that setting. Whatever that conflict is based on doesnt exist.

To be honest, I can't believe the discussion got so retarded as now. Honestly. It's right there in the ads for Geas - "medieval fantasy MUD". We're playing on a medieval MUD. Can we just please, please agree on that? Some reference for the interested:
http://www.mudconnect.com/mud-bin/simpl ... D&mud=Geas
http://www.topmudsites.com/forums/mudinfo-abhar.html
But when you ask on the forums, it's questioned. Basically every example that was critized. I have not seen a single one cept Delia support the idea, even though it was brief. Ok, so maybe my idea of medieval differs from everyone else? Let's ask to do the mapping of medieval onto Geas by themselves - no answer short of "it's optional / not needed". Ok, I'm sorry Isengoo wants public lashings too, missed you there. But I'm not sure it was seriously meant even. And if it was, that's just a single occurance, not a societal concept.

Do we have any common ground - at all? And I am talking about what's on top of what the code provides in terms of game mechanics, such as what the game is supposed to be like? Or we really don't want a commonly recognized background? I really, really don't get that. Or is it only the code that's the shit? I don't get that either. What?

Am I the only one who thinks like this? Except Delia (if you still think so)?

So what aspects of the medieval society transfer over and what parts don't?

Because in medieval times I don't think women would be judges, or have any say in the political system whatsoever. That's completely not true of geas.

I also don't think women would be leading political organization or guilds of warriors, that's also completely not true of geas.

arxthas wrote:Am I the only one who thinks like this? Except Delia (if you still think so)?

The quick answer for you would be a clear no. My comments were mainly
in regards to those ideas you mentioned in your initial post. Certainly I
would enjoy it if we'd focus a little more on the medieval setting.

For example I would enjoy it if humans would be at best treated like
second class citizens within Elvandar, and wouldn't be allowed to vote, or
carry weapons. Naturally humans wouldn't be tolerated as judges, or
high ranking members of guilds - if you got some guild business to
deal with in Elvandar then send an elf. Elves do not forget things like the
fall of Eal-Deliah quickly, and a little over 1000 years aren't sufficient for
elves to forget such things.

arxthas wrote:The only thing that does not really fit is the law system in Arborea.

The court there was necessary to reduce the amount of chars stealing
from the shops. I think you'd be surprised which guilds some of the
freelancers were in.

arxthas wrote: But I think there should be some general consensus about what the "medieval" is. And easy ones such that as modern conceps in the game is wrong, I think everyone should agree on.

I agree that it would be nice to have some consensus, but I don't think
I'd start with modern concepts.

arxthas wrote:"equal rights for men and women"

Existed within the game even before the game left the beta status, and
you can't remove it now.

arxthas wrote:"free speech"...In a medieval society you could get yourself killed for even arguing against the leaders of the country/region. Free speech? Secular ideas? The is point that the game is supposed to be set in medieval societiy.

It is rather common for me to consider my char performing a walk on
a tightrope when talking with others. I don't thin he'd be killed for talking
right away, but he's well aware when he might get outlawed or banned
for talking. I don't have a problem with secular ideas, but I don't think it
is unrealistic if my char has those - especially if you have a look at his
background.

arxthas wrote:People aren't equally worth. Not everyone gets to speak.

I'd agree fully to that.

arxthas wrote:Religion is not optional, it's the commoners way of life.

If my char was a commoner he might agree to that.

I never meant to say that the game setting is renaissance for me. Maybe I didn't deliver my ideas correctly. What I mean is that the game is not so cut and clear medieval because there's many elements to the setting that are not medieval and some specific cases are more fitting to a Renaissance setting. Elements like humanism, (kind of) equal rights, democracy and votations, access to literature and more. Those elements are not only part of the game mechanics, but also part of the game history. They're solidly in place and you just cannot ignore them, so a "historically european medieval and that's it" approach to the setting doesn't really cover all the aspects of the current and historical game World as it should. You also cannot forget that it's a fantasy world, not historic europe. Goblins, dragons, magic spells, real deities in a polytheist pantheon and much much more.

Now, I agree with you that it's important for people to know where to stand with regards to the setting, but I also don't think it's so utterly important to have every single aspect covered and defined. Even though it might feel chaotic and convoluted, sometimes people make things up that actually enrich the World, and when those things clash too much, then people will notice and react accordingly. In that sense it is quite a self-controlled environment.

In that regard, the setting seems to be doing fine as it is, even with all those undefined gray areas. There is and have always been conflict, at many levels, without any particularly enforced class or feudal system. The game description in the website might say medieval, but the actual established, historical setting you experience in game is definitely something more than that. I simply don't think the game is as medieval as you describe it should be and I don't see how to turn it into that, or even if it's necessary to do so. There's a big difference between space ships and access to literacy, and I highly doubt anyone is going to get so confused by the game's setting to think space ships fit in. Or at least it wouldn't be explained as a space ship, but maybe more like a demon artifact. On the other hand, open access to literacy does indeed exist and is an integral part of the setting already. I'm pretty sure some characters do see the Crusaders as bullying evil asses (it all depends on from which side of the stick you look at it, doesn't it?), the Asrals as berserk bloodthirsty PITAs and wouldn't actually dare to challenge whatever the Queen wants to be or do (she freaking had it with a vampire after all, so she must be really badass). What's the problem with any of those? How is that less fitting to Geas than mailboxes or democratically elected judges, goblins or fire bolts?

Agree on a common ground for a setting so people know what to expect? Yes. For some people things are ok as they are settings wise though. At least for me.

Agree that that common ground is historical european medieval time? I don't think that fully represents what the Geas world actually is and has historically been so far. So saying that things are wrong because they're not "medieval" in that sense has no weight as an argument, since the World obviously and historically isn't. Should we change that? Maybe we should, but how would you describe the setting and establish that canon then?

I highly doubt anyone is going to get so confused by the game's setting to think space ships fit in.

With magic, everything may be possible ... just levitate a big ship and see what will happen.

What should not be forgotten when suggestions are made to want to see a strong(er) dichotomy between rulers on the one hand and commoners on the other, because it fits to a medieval society, is that it can heavily (and often negatively) affect the playability of the GAME.

Tshaharks are a great example for the latter. How many players or wizards have their main character a tshahark and are somewhat actively playing? And if it will be harder to roleplay a tshahark, how many new tshaharks will we see with unequal rights in game - as their main character?