Bloodline Disinherit

Sarathai

Siduri said:

Siduri is Rhiwin-Lucoster. Recognized, non disowned, but Targossian. She has changed her surname to found a splinter family, the Azagnannan Brood, which is 90% serpent, and divided among Targossas and Cyrene for now.

Wait, Rihwin I thought was just Ayana, and where does the Lucoster part come from? I spent an hour or so poking through bloodlines earlier, and Siduri is Sarathai's aunt so most of it should be similar. I can tie back to the Rian surname, I'm pretty positive, but where's the Lucoster part coming from? Or is that by marriage?

Sena

Jarrod said:

Everyone who recognizes him that didn't directly help him escape immediately tries to capture him to sell him to someone as soon as they recognize him. He doesn't publicly take the name for a very long time, until he's working with people who specifically wanted him.

True, but that doesn't really have anything to do with his family name, he'd be just as wanted regardless of whether he tried to claim the surname or not. A quick search of the books (it's harder to check the TV series, but they tend not to use last names as much anyways) doesn't show any of his family referring to him with the surname, but others outside the family do, and he does himself (mostly in his internal dialogue), and wherever he reveals his actual name instead of an alias he claims the surname as well.

Siduri

Sarathai said:

Siduri said:

Siduri is Rhiwin-Lucoster. Recognized, non disowned, but Targossian. She has changed her surname to found a splinter family, the Azagnannan Brood, which is 90% serpent, and divided among Targossas and Cyrene for now.

Wait, Rihwin I thought was just Ayana, and where does the Lucoster part come from? I spent an hour or so poking through bloodlines earlier, and Siduri is Sarathai's aunt so most of it should be similar. I can tie back to the Rian surname, I'm pretty positive, but where's the Lucoster part coming from? Or is that by marriage?

Xadzia is Rihwin-Lucoster. She wears the Trismegistus surname because she is a part of Twilight's order. She passed the name to all of her daughters, but only Ayana didn't split.

Morthif

The only active Aristata that I'd give any credit too has stated he doesn't mind that I wear the name.

As for @Aurora being ashamed of me? Yes She is so ashamed that when @Aodfionn started grumbling about forcing people to change surnames She pulled me aside and told me not to change my name and direct anyone with an issue to her.

Why? Because it shows no one is beyond redemption and achieving greatness in Taegossas.

Without admin intervention Morthif will never change his surname. So deal with it.

Ruth

I mean sure, people have and will continue to deal with it. All a matter of how people roleplays it, after all.

Sarapis

Jurixe said:

Sarapis said:

Jurixe said:

I am not concerned about removing bloodlines, though I'd admittedly like this feature. A bloodline is a bloodline; that doesn't change. A name, however, can be stripped, and the 'founding families' should have a right to do that, I think. Especially if said traitor joins an enemy city.

I disagree, I have to say. My last name remains Mihaly no matter what organization I join, and it doesn't make a whit of difference if one of those orgs decides it "owns" the name and that it doesn't want me to use it. I'll just continue to use it, and other people will continue to call me by it.

If you don't want someone else to be in your family, don't bloodline anyone, I'd say!

I want people to be in my family! I'd just like there to be some lasting consequence if they leave it and what it represents. But perhaps I see families more as corporations, which might be due to the Mhaldorian mindset and because characters who wear Mhaldorian names aren't necessarily 'born' into the families. Once you leave a workplace, you no longer carry the employee card and aren't recognised as representing the brand any longer.

Bloodlines are descriptions of physical reality though, not organizations of people. You can start a clan to have an organization, but someone doesn't stop being related to you just because they leave that organization any more than you would stop being your mother's daughter if you moved to a different country.

Deladan

I feel as if I should make a post in this discussion. So I have. 

Aodfionn

Morthif said:

The only active Aristata that I'd give any credit too has stated he doesn't mind that I wear the name.

As for @Aurora being ashamed of me? Yes She is so ashamed that when @Aodfionn started grumbling about forcing people to change surnames She pulled me aside and told me not to change my name and direct anyone with an issue to her.

Why? Because it shows no one is beyond redemption and achieving greatness in Taegossas.

Without admin intervention Morthif will never change his surname. So deal with it.

I never once brought up the idea of forcing a namechange on anyone - instead, I put too much goddamn time and effort into writing up shit for new Targossian families that would ideally be patroned by peopled who were willing to actually do something useful and interesting with their names. The entire concept hinged on the idea of people being willing to do it, not foisting it upon the unwilling. Never got much support and it got pushed to the eternal backburner. 

Get your facts straight before you post. 

Morthif

Aodfionn said:

Morthif said:

The only active Aristata that I'd give any credit too has stated he doesn't mind that I wear the name.

As for @Aurora being ashamed of me? Yes She is so ashamed that when @Aodfionn started grumbling about forcing people to change surnames She pulled me aside and told me not to change my name and direct anyone with an issue to her.

Why? Because it shows no one is beyond redemption and achieving greatness in Taegossas.

Without admin intervention Morthif will never change his surname. So deal with it.

I never once brought up the idea of forcing a namechange on anyone - instead, I put too much goddamn time and effort into writing up shit for new Targossian families that would ideally be patroned by peopled who were willing to actually do something useful and interesting with their names. The entire concept hinged on the idea of people being willing to do it, not foisting it upon the unwilling. Never got much support and it got pushed to the eternal backburner. 

Get your facts straight before you post. 

2 separate instances. Pretty sure it was you and Aldair that people were complaining about. Either way the point stands.

Cooper

Sarapis said:

Saeva said:

I still think Aristatas outside of Mhaldor is hypocritical and stupid on an IC level. On an OOC level I think it's just dense that people do it simply because mechanics allow it.
It's literally just an Evil family. Why the -hell- would you want to rep it if you weren't evil? There's 0 legitimacy to it.

The idea of an "evil family" where simply being part of the bloodline dictates your morality makes no sense. Evil doesn't flow in someone's blood, after all. It requires willful action, and there's nothing strange, at all, about different members of a family behaving differently from each other.

Aristata and the other Mhaldor "family" names aren't bloodlines, though. It's just a name given to you that says you are part of that group of people. The founding member of Aristata doesn't even have a bloodline at all.

Sarapis

Yeah, that's fair - that makes it kind of an adopted family, or a cult where all the members change their surnames on joining (I don't use cult in a bad way in this sense. It's Mhaldor after all.)

Doesn't really change the point though: Surnames (or names generally) don't dictate behavior, regardless of how they're acquired. Having a surname is different from being in an organization or group that's oriented around that surname.

Zuko

I think a member of my bloodline going to Mhaldor would be awesome RP, and I would by no means want them to drop the name because that would just be boring

Kasya

Zuko said:

I think a member of my bloodline going to Mhaldor would be awesome RP, and I would by no means want them to drop the name because that would just be boring

This is true. He was all for Kasya being the black sheep of the family and then I let him down by not joining Mhaldor.  

Anedhel

Morthif said:

Aodfionn said:

Morthif said:

The only active Aristata that I'd give any credit too has stated he doesn't mind that I wear the name.

As for @Aurora being ashamed of me? Yes She is so ashamed that when @Aodfionn started grumbling about forcing people to change surnames She pulled me aside and told me not to change my name and direct anyone with an issue to her.

Why? Because it shows no one is beyond redemption and achieving greatness in Taegossas.

Without admin intervention Morthif will never change his surname. So deal with it.

I never once brought up the idea of forcing a namechange on anyone - instead, I put too much goddamn time and effort into writing up shit for new Targossian families that would ideally be patroned by peopled who were willing to actually do something useful and interesting with their names. The entire concept hinged on the idea of people being willing to do it, not foisting it upon the unwilling. Never got much support and it got pushed to the eternal backburner. 

Get your facts straight before you post. 

2 separate instances. Pretty sure it was you and Aldair that people were complaining about. Either way the point stands.

To my knowledge, Aldair was the only active D'Vast, and she never had any intention of changing that (I actually had several conversations with her on the subject of family), so I'm really not sure what you mean by your example.

Zuko

Kasya said:

Zuko said:

I think a member of my bloodline going to Mhaldor would be awesome RP, and I would by no means want them to drop the name because that would just be boring

This is true. He was all for Kasya being the black sheep of the family and then I let him down by not joining Mhaldor.  

Yes, perhaps I'd disinherit her but that doesnt change the fact she is a Shu'in. Then I'd reinherit her once she came home like the good granddaughter she is!

Rispok

I'm surprised this thread has gone for three pages when Sarapis has said it's genetic on at least three occasions.

Anedhel

Also, uh... I do have a question.

Bloodlines don't happen because characters -do- anything, except sign a book. It's a record, kept in Delos.

So I'm not sure why it's entirely genetic, all I've ever seen is that you go to the book and testify that so-and-so is your kid. Since there's no DNA testing in Achaea, isn't it possible the records are just that? Records? Records are fallible.

Rohai

Anedhel said:

Morthif said:

Aodfionn said:

Morthif said:

The only active Aristata that I'd give any credit too has stated he doesn't mind that I wear the name.

As for @Aurora being ashamed of me? Yes She is so ashamed that when @Aodfionn started grumbling about forcing people to change surnames She pulled me aside and told me not to change my name and direct anyone with an issue to her.

Why? Because it shows no one is beyond redemption and achieving greatness in Taegossas.

Without admin intervention Morthif will never change his surname. So deal with it.

I never once brought up the idea of forcing a namechange on anyone - instead, I put too much goddamn time and effort into writing up shit for new Targossian families that would ideally be patroned by peopled who were willing to actually do something useful and interesting with their names. The entire concept hinged on the idea of people being willing to do it, not foisting it upon the unwilling. Never got much support and it got pushed to the eternal backburner. 

Get your facts straight before you post. 

2 separate instances. Pretty sure it was you and Aldair that people were complaining about. Either way the point stands.

To my knowledge, Aldair was the only active D'Vast, and she never had any intention of changing that (I actually had several conversations with her on the subject of family), so I'm really not sure what you mean by your example.

Sounds like D'Vast is somewhat of a misnomer, then. Maybe the family should be called D'Small instead.

Anedhel

+1 gold star, Brohai :O

Jarrod

Given, as stated above, the Bloodline Registry is simply just claiming parentage and that basically every bloodline has a decent chunk of people that use the name who aren't directly related to the same individual (meaning no common ancestory, meaning non-genetic), the whole "It's genetic so  that's how it is" is a bit of a loose package to try and shove it in.

Sarapis

Anedhel said:

Also, uh... I do have a question.

Bloodlines don't happen because characters -do- anything, except sign a book. It's a record, kept in Delos.

So I'm not sure why it's entirely genetic, all I've ever seen is that you go to the book and testify that so-and-so is your kid. Since there's no DNA testing in Achaea, isn't it possible the records are just that? Records? Records are fallible.

Bloodlines are entirely genetic and choosing one is just like choosing your gender when you create a character - you're making an irrevocable decision about something that happened to your character long ago (ie being born to someone in the case of bloodline and being born as a particular gender in the case of choosing your gender). 

Aerek

Yeah, you can't really lawyer the mechanics of the bloodline system. It's a game, and we're all "born" at 18 years of age, so we have to suspend our disbelief a little for any of that to make sense.

Morthif

What Sarapis is saying is "Achaea is a roleplaying game and your actions have consequences so suck it up buttercup"

Rohai

Hm, so going by that parallel, does that mean that canonically-speaking, every character in Achaea (except for those who got the auction item) is cis? That seems a) statistically unlikely, and b) like an unnecessary restriction on individual RP choices. Just my two cents.

Sarapis

Rohai said:

Hm, so going by that parallel, does that mean that canonically-speaking, every character in Achaea (except for those who got the auction item) is cis? That seems a) statistically unlikely, and b) like an unnecessary restriction on individual RP choices. Just my two cents.

Nope. You're free to decide you're a man in a woman's body or vice-versa. The game systems, however, will continue to refer to your character as the sex it had at birth.

Rohai

Wouldn't it make more sense - and frankly just be easier - for us to understand the question on character creation to refer to the character's real gender instead of assigned sex, though?

I guess what I take issue with is that, in a text-based game, the text we see is interpreted as a sort of objective narration, no? So by saying that our characters' coded "gender" field refers to their assigned sex rather than gender, we're implying in no uncertain terms that assigned sex is this "truth," and consequently, gender identities amount to little more than an object of make-believe. It pretty explicitly supports the narrative that trans people are "really" their assigned sex and that trans identities are not valid or real.

On a more practical level, interpreting the gender field in character creation as assigned sex would mean that it is not an option to play, for example, a trans character whose being trans is not an obnoxiously salient part of their identity. The game's use of incorrect pronouns would thrust that to the forefront of, quite literally, their every action, making it impossible to be just one detail about an otherwise complex character. Frankly, it would render the character boring as hell.

I apologize for the long-winded nature of this post, but I think this is an important thing to take into consideration in order to maximize the full potential of a game based so heavily on the open-ended paths available to our characters and opportunities to develop unique personas rather than stereotypes and caricatures.

Trevize

Rohai said:

Wouldn't it make more sense - and frankly just be easier - for us to understand the question on character creation to refer to the character's real gender instead of assigned sex, though?

I guess what I take issue with is that, in a text-based game, the text we see is interpreted as a sort of objective narration, no? So by saying that our characters' coded "gender" field refers to their assigned sex rather than gender, we're implying in no uncertain terms that assigned sex is this "truth," and consequently, gender identities amount to little more than an object of make-believe. It pretty explicitly supports the narrative that trans people are "really" their assigned sex and that trans identities are not valid or real.

On a more practical level, interpreting the gender field in character creation as assigned sex would mean that it is not an option to play, for example, a trans character whose being trans is not an obnoxiously salient part of their identity. The game's use of incorrect pronouns would thrust that to the forefront of, quite literally, their every action, making it impossible to be just one detail about an otherwise complex character. Frankly, it would render the character boring as hell.

I apologize for the long-winded nature of this post, but I think this is an important thing to take into consideration in order to maximize the full potential of a game based so heavily on the open-ended paths available to our characters and opportunities to develop unique personas rather than stereotypes and caricatures.

I believe you're arguing over terminology.

What you chose in the game (male/gemale) is physical. Everyone understands that. The pronouns used in-game also refer to physical sex. Everyone understands that as well. The rest is entirely up to you, and you're limited only by yourself there.

Sarapis

Rohai said:

Wouldn't it make more sense - and frankly just be easier - for us to understand the question on character creation to refer to the character's real gender instead of assigned sex, though?

I guess what I take issue with is that, in a text-based game, the text we see is interpreted as a sort of objective narration, no? So by saying that our characters' coded "gender" field refers to their assigned sex rather than gender, we're implying in no uncertain terms that assigned sex is this "truth," and consequently, gender identities amount to little more than an object of make-believe. It pretty explicitly supports the narrative that trans people are "really" their assigned sex and that trans identities are not valid or real.

On a more practical level, interpreting the gender field in character creation as assigned sex would mean that it is not an option to play, for example, a trans character whose being trans is not an obnoxiously salient part of their identity. The game's use of incorrect pronouns would thrust that to the forefront of, quite literally, their every action, making it impossible to be just one detail about an otherwise complex character. Frankly, it would render the character boring as hell.

I apologize for the long-winded nature of this post, but I think this is an important thing to take into consideration in order to maximize the full potential of a game based so heavily on the open-ended paths available to our characters and opportunities to develop unique personas rather than stereotypes and caricatures.

If I felt there was any actual demand to roleplay characters whose birth sex and gender identity are different, it's something we might consider, but I don't think there is, at all. That's the case for a huge range of possible characters, such as Rajamala who self-identify as Vertani, for instance, or sane atheists, or someone who wants to being 16 years old.

Tahquil

What does cis mean?

Trevize

Tahquil said:

What does cis mean?

Cisgender is basically anyone not transgender.