Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Zsaryna Adrelana]

I have a dumb question for the assorted.
What do you guys think the Amarrian view on affairs and divorce would be?
I'd imagine that divorce would be fairly heavily frowned upon, but I thought I'd ask the assembled for guidance in this matter.

[Louella Dougans]

it would depend on the social classes involved, I think.

A lot of the time, for Holders and the like, marriages are political things, and not romantic things. So, as long as people are discreet about their affairs, then while some people, such as the religious establishment, would frown, it'd be acceptable to an extent, amongst Holders.

And in that situation, divorce means dissolving a political arrangement, which would have repercussions. So would be frowned upon quite a bit more, by Holders. Less so by the religious establishment, because they know the marriage was a political one to begin with, so when someone asks for a divorce, the priest would tend to sigh and say "fine."

For commoners, it'll be different, I think, with affairs and divorces frowned upon a lot more.

[Vieve]

The repercussions of the divorce might be magnified if there were any children born to the union (if there weren't, it might be fairly painless).  I can't imagine Holders wanting to be in a joint custody arrangement with their heirs.

[Lyn Farel]

In that case I would expect the children custody to go to the one being Holder, and the wife or husband (the one married to the Holder) being denied any right on them.

However in the case of a marriage between 2 Holders...

[Jikahr]

it would depend on the social classes involved, I think.

A lot of the time, for Holders and the like, marriages are political things, and not romantic things. So, as long as people are discreet about their affairs, then while some people, such as the religious establishment, would frown, it'd be acceptable to an extent, amongst Holders.

And in that situation, divorce means dissolving a political arrangement, which would have repercussions. So would be frowned upon quite a bit more, by Holders. Less so by the religious establishment, because they know the marriage was a political one to begin with, so when someone asks for a divorce, the priest would tend to sigh and say "fine."

For commoners, it'll be different, I think, with affairs and divorces frowned upon a lot more.

This is what I think too. Arranged marriages for the purposes of land transfer. Marriage would be a business arrangement, not a romantic one. There may be plenty of loveless marriages, but with household slaves around there would be no difficulties in finding sexual partners.

Marriage amongst the commoners would be a different matter, since the commoners would be too busy working to worry about getting divorced or marrying someone else.

Within the Amarr religion itself however, there are various sects. Some are conservative, some Liberal.

If we compare the Amarr religion to Catholicism, then divorce would be almost impossible. If we compare it to Islam, even the wife has the power of divorce simply by pointing her finger and saying "I divorce thee!' three times.

[Arista Shahni]

Best way to handle it is to base it on a random 'sect'.  Though most people portray Amrrians as a bit "Victorian", a bit "middle-eastern", etc, they're still pretty forwardly progressive.

Thinking about is as a priest RPer of Kingdom, I ICly consider marriage as a 'bond of God', but being in Kingdom, well.   There's loopholes to everything when Man's Law is over God.  Even without that in Empire, in a fully religious setting you'd only need find a higher / smarter priest who can find a single reason in the thousands of books of the Scriptures that could allow a separation.  Priests of specific specialities could be generally considered nearly idential to lawyers in Amarr (the same way I consider some of specific specialites as idential to psychologists).


Scandal could ofc happen. But for RP, that's half the fun.