Sharess

[Waukeen]

I am standing by my original decision and saying that no, I do not think that Sharess has a place for characters to follow in this MUD. There are a number of deities you can follow, both coded and uncoded. Sharess is the patroness of hedonistic pleasures and that does not coincide with the PG-13 rating. While perhaps those other deities have something that may skirt about the theme, - taking pain as pleasure for Loviatar, which, I completely agree, is NOT sexual; the Lovite faith claims that pain is strength, Sune's love dogma, which is about love and not necessarily hedonistic tendencies, or Lliira's love of life dogma, which I really don't see as hedonistic, but anyway - they are not primarily ABOUT it. If you don't want to follow Sharess for the reason that she is a hedonistic deity, then follow another god/goddess who has a similar dogma not related to hedonistic tendencies. For example, Nobanion! He's a big kitty, after all .

[Amalia]

I'd just like to note that sex is not the only thing that can give something an R-or-worse rating. Violence, torture, depravity of a non-sexual nature, etc., can all earn something an adult rating as well. Let me add first the disclaimer that I haven't seen Lovite roleplay, or much in the line of followers of evil deities in general, but it seems like if those faiths are being played properly (especially Loviatar, Cyric, Bane, etc.) they're going to be largely mature subjects.

[Ceara]

That is a very good point Amalia.
Though way back before the new code and such I was told that the pg rating only applied to sexual roleplay, back then you couldn't have a same sex partner either.
However some violent roleplays and torture can be very graphic.
Personally I don't agree with any PG rating but I abide by it because I want to play. I think parents should be watching what their children do on the net. I won't allow my daughter to play muds until she is older.
On a side note I just had an idea (surprisingly since I haven't had my coffee yet). Oh nevermind scratch the idea.

[Japcil]

However some violent roleplays and torture can be very graphic.

Well I believe that is possible. If i remember what most echos are when in battle they arent too graphic. At least not beyond the PG-13 rating. Using emotes you can make suck a battle way beyond that rating. But that falls on your style of RP. Again the quote "just becuase the code allows you doesnt mean you should" comes into play. Because you can use emote and smote to otherwise make battles more gorey doesnt mean you should. We need to look at the MUD as a whole not just what or how one person wants to RP. If this MUD becomes too orientated to R rated material. Now this is a game so I dont think the "R" rating apllies much like it does in movies. The U.S. has a different rating system for games. I think this MUD is more oriented towards this:

T: Teen
Content may be suitable for persons ages 13 and older. May contain violent content, mild or strong language, and/or suggestive themes.


Now note that sex is not mentioned as it is in this:

M: Mature 17+
Content may be suitable for persons ages 17 and older. May contain mature sexual themes or more intense violence or language.

Im not looking to flame or recieve flames but I do belive following a godess that has a main portfolio of any type of sexual orientation would fall into the M rating.

[Kregor]

If i remember what most echos are when in battle they arent too graphic. At least not beyond the PG-13 rating.

With a sickening sound, your slash cleaves a goblin warriors chest.

You score a critical hit!
An ogress's heart is torn from her chest.

An elite goblin warrior's guts spill all over the ground.

An ogre's head plops on the ground.

As I recall.. hearts being torn from chests and limbs and chunks flying gets games a Mature rating. Mortal Kombat earns an M for such. The only thing that sets FK apart is the lack of visuals, but as many of us who are visual people can attest, words can be as graphic as pictures.

T: Teen
Content may be suitable for persons ages 13 and older. May contain violent content, mild or strong language, and/or suggestive themes.

Now note that sex is not mentioned

Suggestive themes means sexual suggestion and inuendo. This can include being flirty, having the presence of courtesans on the street in games like Baldur's Gate, (or even in FKs case, having them in the Breaching Whale tavern in Zazesspur... or paying 5 silver in Mother Tathlorn's House of Pleasure and Healing to sleep upstairs with the healer), or having implied sexual activity (Superman and Lois lane faded to black in Superman II, rated PG... I saw this as a young kid, and I'm not twisted... *inno*)

And, to be fair, a Sharessan doesn't have to be all about sex. They are not all courtesans. There is a prestige class in the Players' Guide to Faerun, the Celebrant of Sharess, that is a sect of Sharess that considers themselves pious warriors and champions of good, while also being masters of seduction (seducing... something some tieflings do in the game already, something about their diabolical power to seduce their victims into slaves, etc). The Celebrant's use their flirtation ability to dupe their adversaries, and achieve their purposes. They do not forget their deity's aspect as Baast, the Muhorandi deity of war, and champion against evil, and assume feline aspects in their behavior and abilities. Sex, in itself, is far down on the list, in the purpose of these followers. So yes, it is possible to have a Sharessan RP that doesn't just base itself on engaging in sexual activity.

[Brar]

And, to be fair, a Sharessan doesn't have to be all about sex. They are not all courtesans. There is a prestige class in the Players' Guide to Faerun, the Celebrant of Sharess, that is a sect of Sharess that considers themselves pious warriors and champions of good, while also being masters of seduction (seducing... something some tieflings do in the game already, something about their diabolical power to seduce their victims into slaves, etc). The Celebrant's use their flirtation ability to dupe their adversaries, and achieve their purposes. They do not forget their deity's aspect as Baast, the Muhorandi deity of war, and champion against evil, and assume feline aspects in their behavior and abilities. Sex, in itself, is far down on the list, in the purpose of these followers. So yes, it is possible to have a Sharessan RP that doesn't just base itself on engaging in sexual activity.

Yeah but... Player's Guide to Faerun is 3rd edition and Dalvyn said that we're not going for the fluff of 3rd ed but for the crunch (see Dalvyn's post above for explanations.)

[Mariela]

And, to be fair, a Sharessan doesn't have to be all about sex. They are not all courtesans.

Indeed.
I have seen many a female turn a pretty coin in the game without touching a male or female in the game. In fact, I think it was someone's pet peeve at one thread or another involving money in the game. The fact that females tend to have men drop coins ast their feet where it's hard to earn that coin generally speaking. (At least that was the complaint!)

I have also heard males complaining that there are not enough female characters in the game. Both in and out of character.

It is not hard to get things from other people and be a darn good follower of lust without actually resorting to it.

I believe the term is batting one's eyelashes at another and see what happens.

[Meekir]

My favorite guide for the PG-13 appropriateness discussion is the handy dandy "Saturday morning cartoon ethic." On the cautious end of things, this principle suggests that if you think it's inappropriate on a cartoon for high school kids, then it probably shouldn't be in the MUD.

I'm thinking of Disney's Gargoyles and The Simpsons, off the top of my head. It's clear there's a certain level of violence, sexual innuendo, language, etc. that's PG-13 here.

Personally, I wouldn't be surprised to see a lust god or goddess archtype in either of these cartoons, because there are tactful/funny ways to deal with violence and sex (as cartoons teach us). I could see a villian or an NPC offering plenty of sexual innuendo and side plot without breaking this principle. I mean, the MUD has the aforementioned examples of the bathhouses...

We're not really a Saturday morning cartoon, we're more venturing into the waters of TV dramas and action adventures. If we're going to talk about sitcoms, soap operas, and teen dramas that earn PG-13, we'll find an abundance of character concepts that revolve around lust. It can be done, it has been done, it's no more demanding to play lust PG-13 than to play villiany toned down from R horror movies to a tactful level.

I just watched the "Amazon Women in the Mood" episode of Futurama and I had to comment. Any universe with a PG-13 Zap Brannigan should rightfully allow PG-13 followers of Sharess.


"The men are sentenced to death. By snu-snu!"

[Gwain]

Maybe introduce the worship of the now defunct cat goddess Bast, of the Mulhorandi pantheon as an alternative to worshipping Sharress, as Bast was the patron of cats, affection and half digested things that are left on doorsteps or next to beds. Bast later on was subsumed by Sharess.

Or only allow Half orc and goblin followers of Sharress to limit the appeal and increase the skill and difficulty of the rp.

To be honest, I am very uncomfortable with overt sexual innuendo, unless it is very, very, very subtle. I think if the admins and imms that sponsor the ability to apply to serve and unregistered diety have repeatedly stated that they did not want to have followers of Sharress it should be enough to stop those claimates from repeatedly requesting or making claims that it would not differ verily from other rp on the mud. I might be a bit biased, I come from a time that was very strict on innuedo, and one of the reasons I play on this mud is because it is safe for people of all ages and well, I guess it's a nice enviroment for anyone, be they age seven to age seventy-nine.

Not that I am against contreversal rp, I just think that it needs to be accepted and not bullied through and if it is seen as difficult or troubling by administrators, it might be a good idea for hopeful rp'rs to try another rp.

[Waukeen]

What Gwain said is correct; Sharessans have not been allowed since uncoded deities were accepted roleplay. I would feel very uncomfortable overriding the original decision to disallow this type of RP. Once again, there are other aspects that different deities have in common with Sharess. If you don't want to follow her for the fact that she is a hedonistic deity, then please find another deity to follow. In the past, when uncoded deities were not accepted, we asked people to find coded deities with a similar dogma. I think the same can be done for Sharess, very easily.

I also think that people come to the MUD expecting a violent atmosphere, otherwise they wouldn't play a MUD. Simply put, sex is sometimes a very taboo subject for some people. A lot of people don't have relationships on the MUD for the reason that it makes them uncomfortable, but I can guarantee you that everyone in the game has killed something ICly ONCE, be it a mob or a dummy or be it being attacked in a pkill. Otherwise, they would find a MUSH or a MOO or another RPG with little to no violence. Sune's dogma allows a lot of leeway for followers to be chaste if they would like to, so hers is a different scenario; love is a very broad subject. Lust, on the other hand, is a bit more differently handled. . . .

Edited to add: I might mention that I have been reluctant to accept roleplay regarding the uncoded deity Garagos for similar reasons, only pertaining to violence (and giving people a reason to rampant PK) instead of lust.

[Meekir]

I totally buy that. I think it's an interesting discussion though. I definitely live in a culture that constantly tests the boundaries of what is acceptable. I would rather play within a stricter standard that includes a wider intended audience than push the boundaries beyond comfort.

The change from same-sex relationships being a taboo subject to being a mundane thing (I'm pretty sure from the tone of the help files to the tone of this discussion there's some change there) shows that standards do change and taboos are challenged. I don't think it's so much about a goddess as a taboo subject. That's a bigger discussion.

Ultimately you set the tone for the game you want to run, no argument there.

[Shabanna]

I dont really wanna bump this discussion... but I found something interesting... and have seen it a lot lately on the lovi's ...

<worn on body> a daring black leather body harness (perfect)

I looked this up... and oddly the only place I found it was on a few websites that sell bondage gear *smirks*

Id give the links but Im trying to keep this PG13 and I can promise you the links are not lol

and this... which was quite illuminating

http://www.candlekeep.com/library/artic ... 112-05.htm

"The reverse, BTW, IS true: clergy of Sharess and Sune must have some sort of sexual contact with other clergy AND with lay worshippers (which double requirement almost certainly means that the sex will be with beings they aren't married to, in at least one of those two cases)"
A quote by ED GREENWOOD (for the few who might not know, he is the creator of Forgotten Realms)

Edited: to add author

[Mele]

a daring black velvet gown (perfect)


Is this bondage too? Who's rping that harness AS bondage? Do you know what the harness does IC? I can assure you with what it does, it would not be what you're thinking of it as. There's no way it could act as both things.

[Shabanna]

On Google...I typed in:
a daring black velvet gown
and got these results

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=a+ ... gle+Search


I typed in :
a daring leather body harness

and got this!!!! O.O

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=a+ ... tnG=Search

It is not that I say anyone IS RPING them as BDSM... but... if we have young players who would be offended or poorly influenced by strictly regulated RP of a Sharessan priest/priestess then SURELY they would be offended/poorly influenced if they had no idea what a body harness was... and searched on GOOGLE as many teens are prone to do...


and though it may not be being used a bondage gear it is being used strictly as clothing with NOTHING underneath...rather than strictly as a container with other clothing ( which i believe is the coded *purpose* of this item) ... sooooo

I suggest we remove the item the game ... as it is hardly PG 13....we can put anykind of container in its place...

(And by that I meant, rename it... sorry it was not clear) Edited to add this.

[Mele]

:\ I think it would be much better for people to learn how that supp item was used IC..

If you're going to remove a daring harness, you might as well ruin every piece of rope, every whip, everything that can be used to tie things or to hit people. Oh, get rid of belts, too, then. There's a million things that can be used in ways that could be found on google easily. There's no reason at all for any Lovite to use the harness in that manor. Not only that I think it's quite impossible for the harness to do what it does as well as do whatever the almighty google says it should do.

Lovites do not follow to seek sexual pleasure. Plain and simple. No matter how many times and ways you try to spin it, that is simply not the dogma.

(What the heck is BDSM? o.O)

[Moloch]

First off, the item -IS- just that, a container. Secondly, it is not armor, so if someone is not wearing anything under it they will experience a penatly in that form. The problem with the item is that it does not show the armour that is being worn under it. I do not see how there is any way on this earth someone could mistake this as something more than PG-13. Think about it, think about the last pg-13 movie you saw...MUCH worse. I think everyone just needs to stop thinking so much into this sort of thing, we live in an age where almost nothing is taboo..cut it some slack, it's a game.

[Mariela]

If it's that big of a deal what the "harness" is called....

Try using a thesaurus and rename them with something a bit more appropriate in mind. I agree that there is a large difference between a gown and something called a harness. Isnt' there a better way of describing what it is without calling it a harness?

And to quote someone -

What the heck is BDSM? o.O)

I believe the letters spell out Bondage Domination Submission and either Master or Masacism. It is to refer to people who do in fact use harnesses along with other tricks and tools of those sort of ends in their sexual practices. (I am not part of this sort of culture, so if I have something off or haven't explained completely, uh.. deal and correct me.)

I agree that there are things in this world that are no longer taboo. HOWEVER, where do we start drawing that line? The site is rated PG-13. If more than half of us are seeing a harness with the Lovities and thinking, "EW DIRTY" maaaaaaaaaaaaaybe there is a reason for it?

As for dogma, I agree that -most- of the Lovities are on the pain is everything bandwagon. However, there are some where it would be quite easy to gain the impression it's pain and pleasure mixed together and shaken instead of stirred. But that's something that can be as easily address IC as OOC. Maaaaaaybe the faith is experiancing some detouring elements from the basic tenants. Who knows?

[Mele]

I agree that there are things in this world that are no longer taboo. HOWEVER, where do we start drawing that line? The site is rated PG-13. If more than half of us are seeing a harness with the Lovities and thinking, "EW DIRTY" maaaaaaaaaaaaaybe there is a reason for it?

As for dogma, I agree that -most- of the Lovities are on the pain is everything bandwagon. However, there are some where it would be quite easy to gain the impression it's pain and pleasure mixed together and shaken instead of stirred. But that's something that can be as easily address IC as OOC. Maaaaaaybe the faith is experiancing some detouring elements from the basic tenants. Who knows?

Since when do more than half of the mud see a harness as dirty? Are we going to rename all the weapons harness' because they can double up as something else, too?

If people are finding people to be behaving as if pain is pleasure sexually they should deal with that person somehow. Say it's making you uncomfortable, email complaints etc. Not just lump it up 'Lovites'. It's not fair to people who follow Loviatar and have done their work and their research and preach the ways IC. Those people can only teach it IC, they don't control the RP of other people. Lumping it up like that can be hurtful to people who have taken the extra time to research and not behave in a manor described above. It's unnecessary to nit pick at a certain faith and make people who value their rp feel like they're doing something wrong because you've seen one or two people comitting the actions at hand, or because they're wearing a supp item google called bad. Most of the Lovites have worn their supp item atleast once, and I'm sure most of them without the intents google is describing. So now an item has to be renamed because google called it bad, and all the people who own it did was wear it. That doesn't make people feel warm inside. So much for IC accomplishment. Yay I got a supp item, oh I wore it and google says I'm promoting something I had no intention on ever promoting here ever.. Yea, not feeling so hot. :(

[Mariela]

It's not a personal attack upon you Mele, nor the faith of Lovitar.

It's simple common sense. If it's -that- big of a deal to a majority of people that that harness just screams something un- PC maybe we can all be adults and just rename it to something more appropriate than harness. My point is that there might be a better word for it. And honestly, the same goes for something called a "weapon harness".. however, I argue that what it's purpose is pretty clear. People, generally speaking, do not need to be harnessed.

Yes. It is a supplicate item. However, it is not something that is life and death that would lose it's value if one word on it is changed. It would still have whatever bells and whistles come with it. So if it can make a Lovitar minion shinier, it would still do so. I dunno, I have no idea what they do, but they always have kinda reminded me as a cross between BDSM gear and an apron with a lot of pockets for torture devices. (Like a medical apron for scalples, ect.) I have no idea what they actually do as many people don't pass their supplicate items off for examination. So you would have to enlighten me to why it would have to remain as a -harness- rather than an apron, ect.

And as I said. Many Lovites are good at what they do. But there are always bad apples in any tree. And that applies to any faith, including the most tame. (Good lord, look at the poor Oghma faith.) It happens. Again, it's not a personal insult upon you Mele, and you shouldn't take it so personally. It's a really hard faith to play. As for the IC implications of renaming something.... Loviatar can take some spit and shine up her supplicate items however she wants. That's the beauty of a goddess. As a follower, if your God decided to replace your supplicate item with a bouquet of flowers you shouldn't NOT like them any less than you did when they were the +9 knife of Ogre and children slaying. You -should- worship that thing the same if not MORE because the Goddess is making her desires clear and known and showing you even more favor by renaming the object again.

But then again, that's just me. If my cloak of Selune turned a different shade of blue or became a coat of Selune, I don't really see the difference between it as long as it kept it's same basic componets. If it was a completely different item, I could see the complaint. Then again...from and IC perspective.. the GOD TOUCHED IT AGAIN! *cheers!*

[Saradin]

It's simple common sense. If it's -that- big of a deal to a majority of people that that harness just screams something un- PC maybe we can all be adults and just rename it to something more appropriate than harness. My point is that there might be a better word for it. And honestly, the same goes for something called a "weapon harness".. however, I argue that what it's purpose is pretty clear. People, generally speaking, do not need to be harnessed.

The majority of people who automatically think that that harness implies certain things are most probably adults, and therefore not the ones the PG-13 rule is in place for.

And the results of a Google search are hardly conclusive evidence of anything, if you put in "leather harness", which I believe are in the game for horses, you'll get very similar results to what Shabanna posted.

Yes. It is a supplicate item. However, it is not something that is life and death that would lose it's value if one word on it is changed.

Yes, but the idea is to make the MUD as safe for younger players as possible without going completely off in the other direction and removing or editing anything that could possibly considered offensive.

And as I said. Many Lovites are good at what they do. But there are always bad apples in any tree. And that applies to any faith, including the most tame. (Good lord, look at the poor Oghma faith.) It happens. Again, it's not a personal insult upon you Mele, and you shouldn't take it so personally. It's a really hard faith to play.

If players are behaving inappropriately in a faith it should be handled either ICly by the Goddess herself and/or the higher ups in the Church, or if that fails handled OOCly by the staff. But as has been pointed out, people who behave in such a manner are acting according to a very narrow interpretation of Loviatars dogma, that is not held by the rest of the Church.

In the case of Sharess, the only thing that particularly sets her apart from Lliira or Sune is the specific focus on sensual pleasure, if you choose to ignore that aspect...then there is really no reason to play a follower of Sharess, because your roleplay would be identical in all aspects as a follower of Sune or Lliira.

Since Shabanna mentioned Ed Greenwood, I'll point out that when he was first sending city maps and such to TSR/WotC, they were liberally speckled with 'brothels'. This did not fit with TSR guidelines so they asked him to come up with another name for them and he redubbed them "Festhalls". Sharess is the patron Goddess of Festhalls

Bast later on was subsumed by Sharess.

Just to nitpick, Sharess and Bast are one and the same. After she fell under Shar's power "Bast" was nearly forgotten and people came to think she was another aspect of Shar that they dubbed Sharess. For whatever reason she kept the name after Sune freed her from Shar's influence.
AFAIK she is still known as Bast in Mulhorand.