[269 / 37 / 1]
Quoted By:
... must necessarily concern itself with marriages where the spouses belong to different Standings. Citizens of all stripes may stoop as low as a Subject, so long as the Subject has at least Patent and Nomen. Likewise, a Subject so endowed may take a Subject without such an endowment, so long as their profession, condition or conduct has not rendered them <span class="mu-i">Infamis</span>. Similarly, Subjects without Patent and Nomen, who cannot marry without the knowledge and leave of the Authority whose name they bear, and in some places may even find themselves compelled into marriages by their Authority, are also subject to the <span class="mu-i">Lex Iulia</span> and <span class="mu-i">Papia Poppaea</span>. - regardless if they or their Authority are the one seeking the marriage. Subjects with decency cannot be bound to those without, nor may they ever be bound to a Fearful and Lawful alien, nor a Fearful slave. Subjects in <span class="mu-i">Infamis</span> may be married to a Subject of the same state, or a suitable alien or slave. When two spouses belonging to different Standings are bound, any issue take the Standing of the lesser - with the exception of the Subject in <span class="mu-i">Infamis</span>. In this exceptional case, an alien being both Fearful and Lawful becomes a Subject in <span class="mu-i">Infamis</span>, as do their offspring, while slaves married to these piteous Subjects remain slaves, though the issue will be Subjects in <span class="mu-i">Infamis</span> - and they will not be allowed any avenues of matriculation and naturalization. Attend well that no other pairings with and issue from slaves or aliens are subject to the <span class="mu-i">Lex Iulia</span> or the <span class="mu-i">Papia Poppaea</span>, as they are without wedlock. Beyond restricting the Sum of the Whole to suitable matches, these laws promote them as well. Those who are not, nor ever have been married, <span class="mu-i">caelibes</span>, may take neither <span class="mu-i">hereditas</span> or <span class="mu-i">legatum</span> that would otherwise be their due, while those who have never been in a union with issue, <span class="mu-i">orbi</span>, are only entitled to half. Such penalties are in force from sixteen until a man achieves the age of sixty or a woman achieves the age of fifty. This is held above the <span class="mu-i">Ius Accrescendi</span>, so that the portion of <span class="mu-i">hereditas</span> voided, being either half or whole, is not divided amongst the other heirs of the testator, but instead is taken by the Authority to which the testator submitted. Voided <span class="mu-i">hereditas</span> may still be calculated into the death duties, though they are commonly waived. Beyond this inducement, there are others, such as <span class="mu-i">Ius Trium Liberorum</span>, which affords particular rights and privileges to Named Subjects and their betters who have produced at least three children. No equivalent instrument, with equivalent rights and privileges exists for those Subjects without Patent and Nomen, though they are still subject to its penalties. - A passage from <span class="mu-i">Imperatives and Rights, a Treatise for the Named Subject</span> on <span class="mu-i">Lex Iulia</span> and <span class="mu-i">Papia Poppaea</span>, the laws which outline and induce suitable marriages.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>6012761 > Remain silent, let things play out just a little more. Its all good QM.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>6012761 >> [Directed at Nasturtium] "Would this be a good time for those papers?" Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>6012761 > [Directed at Sulphreme] "You were saying, Goodman Taker?" or
> Remain silent, let things play out just a little more. I’m curious about the roads, and we can play it off as being socially awkward, but I am also curious if Sulphreme would volunteer more information just outta spite, so I don’t mind remaining silent and seeing how it plays out.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>6012761 > Remain silent, let things play out just a little more. Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>6012761 > Remain silent, let things play out just a little more. I imagine that the less a woman talks, the more polite she is seen.
Also, no problem QM, you do this for free and we all really enjoy it. No rush
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>6012761 > [Directed at Sulphreme] "You were saying, Goodman Taker?" Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>6012761 >> Remain silent, let things play out just a little more. TrashQM
Quoted By:
Alright, consider this closed.
TrashQM
Quoted By:
You know, you really must be asleep at your post if you thought that the Taker escorting you in here was going to be enough to keep something like this from happening. Of course, you cannot dwell on that now though; you are like to need all of what remains of your wits to keep yourself from being ejected from this gathering - or worse, having to try to convince an entire room of well-meaning goodmen that you cannot be escorted back to your father. To that end though, what in the Heights of Hell are you supposed to do? To say? Your immediate impulse is to curl up in embarrassment and bite your tongue - the latter of which the Taker has continued to do after the interjection - but you are sorely concerned about what direction the conversation here might take without your guidance, considering that even with your admittedly clumsy attempts at shepherding it, it has veered into such dangerous territory already. You could take this opportunity to turn focus to the proprietor ... but after living the entire span of your life such states of discretion and caution, you cannot find it in yourself to be comfortable with so openly conducting business, especially when the nature of the business is as exceptional as your business here tonight is. Now, it would certainly be offering offense, but perhaps you might be best served by just asking Sulphreme to continue with his account of the roads. You get the sense that he is the sort who likes to hear himself talk, and it is plain to see that he isn't happy about being denied the opportunity. Yet being the interloper that you are here, you cannot make yourself comfortable about deliberately antagonization either. With no better option before you, you resolve to remain silent, at least until things have played themselves out a little more. Of course, having made this resolution, you find now that <span class="mu-i">nothing</span> is playing out. A few conversations that you aren't part of nor privy to are being carried on once more, and awkward reservation blankets the air like ill-humored smoke. Sulphreme however, remains silent. As does the Poincare who offered the interjection in the first place. And when you glance over at where the proprietor of the coaching house was approaching you, you see that he has been stopped dead in his tracks by one of his guests who he has taken up a quiet conversation with. You are frustrated by this, though you aren't sure if you should be, considering that you might not be ready to - "So, puella - what brings you to this house on this ... uncommonly convivial night?" The question comes from the man sitting to your left - whose name you have already forgotten. Shit! This is just what you get for not being in a conversation ... or having neither drink nor food to occupy yourself with. Well, you are going to need to say <span class="mu-i">something</span>...
TrashQM
> Please choose ONE of the following: > [Undirected] "..." > [Directed at the Man to the Left] "I don't know if I should say; my father taught me not to speak to who-bodies." > [Directed at the Man to the Left] "I have some dealings with the master of the house that needed to be resolved." > [Directed at the Man to the Left] "I'm here on behalf of my father, to conduct business in his stead with the proprietor." > [Directed at the Man to the Left] "I'm here on behalf of my father, to pick up the Patent and bill of sale for a stage he bought from this house." > [Directed at the Man to the Left] "I'm here on behalf of my father, to pick up the Patent and bill of sale for a stage I bought for him from this house." > [Directed at the Man to the Left] "Before I answer that, could you ... tell me where I may answer a call of nature?" > [Directed at (Write-in Subject)] Write-ins allowed with QM approval.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>6014995 > [Directed at the Man to the Left] "I'm here on behalf of my father, to conduct business in his stead with the proprietor." I feel like mentioning our father (without mention of the exact business) is a good idea lest people get the impression we're Nestorum's mistress or smth
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>6014995 >> [Directed at the Man to the Left] "I'm here on behalf of my father, to conduct business in his stead with the proprietor." Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>6014995 >> [Directed at the Man to the Left] "I'm here on behalf of my father, to conduct business in his stead with the proprietor." Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>6014995 >> [Directed at the Man to the Left] "I don't know if I should say; my father taught me not to speak to who-bodies." Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>6014995 > [Directed at the Man to the Left] "I don't know if I should say; my father taught me not to speak to who-bodies." I regret keeping our silence- making our crit worthwhile is gonna be a chore
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>6014995 > [Directed at the Man to the Left] "I don't know if I should say; my father taught me not to speak to who-bodies." TrashQM
Hopefully, there will be a tie-breaker by the time that I am done cooking and eating dinner. If any of you are still in the thread (and you haven't already) perhaps you could explain your position, as it might decide someone - or make someone already decided change their mind.
Anonymous
>>6015635 The other options didn’t speak to me- they all lead into more questions about us and less about what we care about (i.e. highway crime, the refinery, the Inquisition, etc.)- all risk, never reward. I don’t even know if we’d even get an Praxis bonus from it, since I don’t know to what extent that ‘I'm here on behalf of my father, to conduct business in his stead with the proprietor’ is considered both a lie and the perverse truth.
But if you need a tiebreaker, feel free to use my vote- I viewed the ‘who-body’ remark as a catty remark to draw guffaws and amusement (potentially intentionally/unintentionally on Chlot’s part), but I would hate for our comment to be received poorly and result on another bout of insulted, socially awkward silence.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>6014995 > [Directed at the Man to the Left] "I don't know if I should say; my father taught me not to speak to who-bodies." Im just guessing here but... ok.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
Here’s to hoping that this is well received amusement instead of another bout of awkward silence.
TrashQM
>>6015789 > But if you need a tiebreaker, feel free to use my vote- I viewed the ‘who-body’ remark as a catty remark to draw guffaws and amusement (potentially intentionally/unintentionally on Chlot’s part), but I would hate for our comment to be received poorly and result on another bout of insulted, socially awkward silence. Oh, that isn't Chlotsuintha trying to 'neg' the man, who-body is just how Imperials have referred to someone we might call a 'stranger' since the Estrangement gave the word 'stranger' different and much more negative connotations.
Consider this closed, I'll get to writing - though I don't know if I will be able to get anything out tonight.
Anonymous
Oh, I feel a lot better about the vote given
>>6015938 , I assumed who-body was an insult along the lines of "busybody".
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>6016706 Same, though being imperious probably would’ve fit the heiress mold better and would be less eyebrow raising- my concerns was more over propriety and creating another socially awkward silence.
TrashQM
Quoted By:
For a terrible, long-lingering moment, all you can do is grasp at chaff and straw. It simply cannot be gainsaid; you are in a tight spot liable to get tighter if you start talking about your father and your business here. Moreover, with Sulphreme's lip buttoned up on account of Poincare's objection to that sort of talk in your presence, what reason is there to remain at the table? Perhaps if you were to wait until the Poincares were distracted, and asked the Taker again - or failing that, if you were to simply wait until they left to question him. But who knows how long that could be - and with no food or drink to occupy yourself with, you are liable to drawn into conversations like the very one you are avoiding right now. It nearly goes without saying that there is little to gain from this idle tongue-wagging and much to ... hold on. If you actually think about it, then that sort of sentiment will only hold water if you are the one talking. If you were to get him talking, that would buy you some time at least - perhaps enough for the proprietor to finally make his way over to you, so you may ask for a private word, or for the Poincares to leave or to get sufficiently distracted. Just ... make a play for time here. You muster your best approximation of a playful tone, and pair it with your best approximation of a leading question. "...Oh, dear ... I don't know if I should say; after all, my father taught me not to speak to who-bodies ...". You smile softly at the man, then careful to not look at him overlong, you lower your gaze to the sleeves of your dress - looking to occupy your hands, you tug at the left with your right hand, then the right with your left hand. There really isn't much else to look at, but you'd like something to keep yourself from staring while you talk; a mistake you make on occasion, no doubt borne out of spending so much of your life behind - and underneath - the Leper's mask. Blessedly, it is not a mistake that you make frequently enough to describe as a bad habit, and it isn't something that has ever really bit you, but all the same you would very much like to not make mistakes such as that here. As you resume eye contact and force yourself to stop plucking your sleeves, it occurs to you - perhaps belatedly - that you might have been over-relying on finesse here, that the man might not take your rejoinder as an invitation - and a request besides - to talk about himself. "That's more than decent advice, I suppose. I'm a - " "Do tell, did your father teach you the concept of an appropriate bed-time?" Cry fie and fray it all, its that bastard Poincare again! It's definitely the one sitting closer to you, but both are glaring at you and some of the others around the table and room are staring at you <span class="mu-i">once again</span>. Damn it! Damn it all! You - "Why don't you ask him yourself?" What? What is ... what? What is Sulphreme's friend saying? "He's upstairs, the door across from mine - in four of cups."
TrashQM
You feel as if you have been struck with a Slaughter's sledge-axe - until you catch sight of the ephemeral smirk that is playing over his face, and how the marked confusion plain on the Taker's face quick gives way to a similarly cheeky look. He's lying. Joking. Obviously. He has to be. Of course your father isn't in this Coaching house, and even if he was, then this man - who you have never seen before, whose name has already slipped out of your mind - wouldn't know that he was your father, would he you gibbering idiot. Awash in relief - and more than a touch of resentment for being put through such a shock - you find yourself wondering just what is being played at, and for what purpose. The proprietor is still in an intent conversion with one of his guests, he might not have heard this exchange. As it stands, he and Sulphreme are the only ones in the room who know <span class="mu-i">for a fact</span> that your father isn't here in the house. Seriously though, what is Sulphreme's friend playing at here - and is it in your best interest or not to let him muck around like this?> Please choose ONE of the following: > [Undirected] "..." > [Directed at Poincare the Closer] "Yes, he is." > [Directed at Poincare the Closer] "Yes, why don't you?" > [Directed at Sulphreme's Friend] "Goodman, I'm afraid you are mistaken." > Write-ins allowed with QM approval
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>6017310 >> [Undirected] "..." Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>6017310 > [Directed at Poincare the Closer] "Yes, why don't you?" Play along- not only do we make some friends (and a good impression with the Taker no less), but it gets the antagonistic Poincare outta our hair for a couple minutes. Re-centering the conversation on Poincare instead of us only helps us in the long run.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>6017310 > [Directed at Sulphreme's Friend] "Goodman, I'm afraid you are mistaken." First impressions matter. We should establish ourselves as honest to a fault.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>6017310 > [Undirected] "..." I feel like we don't actually need to respond to that. Like, I don't think "ask her father" was a serious comment and not one we need to reply to
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>6017310 > [Directed at Poincare the Closer] "Yes, why don't you?" Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>6017310 >[Directed at Poincare the Closer] "Yes, why don't you?" TrashQM
Quoted By:
Alright, consider this closed. I might be able to get a quick update out before I go to bed tonight.
TrashQM
Heads up; I'm going to need a bit more time on the update. Look for it tomorrow. > Gained one lucky tenth-talent (re-roll)
Anonymous
Anonymous
TrashQM
>>6020375 I know, I know - I need to be better with the updates.
I'm working on it now, and I don't intend to go to sleep until it is finished.
> Gained two very lucky tenth-talents (auto-passes) Anonymous
>>6020813 Hey it's alright OP, you're doing this for free and we all really appreciate it
TrashQM
Quoted By:
Still a-fluster and a-flutter over your momentary misunderstanding of the practical joke being mustered, you are not well-disposed to be working out the balance here. There at least <span class="mu-i">some</span> risk, that much cannot be gainsaid. Him, or anyone else playing around with the tall tales you have woven together to make Wilhelmina and excuse her presence here cannot be considered wholly sound and safe. But just how much risk would you be taking on here? The stakes of your current circumstances make you sour in the face of <span class="mu-i">any</span> … yet whatever the risk may be, you are already underneath it, as Sulphreme's friend has taken upon himself to fiddle with your story. For a surety, it cannot be too crushing to be borne. And if you were to play into it a bit, then you might manage to dislodge the Poincares from the table – or at least, to leave you alone so you may pump Sulphreme for intelligence at your leisure. Of course, you are not sure how the proprietor will react to all of this … but he looks to still be in conversation at the moment; you can only guess then to what he will or will not overhear. Pattern's Perdition, you went and managed to cozen the ninth ranked Thief-Taker on the Mount, how can you be so unmade by the prospect of idle – of lies. You are going to be lying, and … no, don't dwell. Just … just … "Yes, why don't you?" You say it; not so much because you are convinced that it won't bite you, or that it might increase your odds of the Poincare's decamping, but instead to keep you from taking yourself to pieces worrying. Yet there is no small satisfaction when you see the aggrieved look on the closer of the Poincares face; the further one is still glaring away – but when he continues to glare when Poincare the closer turns to him and they lock eyes, you have to wonder if he just has a naturally intense face. Trying to not bog yourself down in potential traps, you make a very deliberate point of not looking around the room … though judging from the murmurs coming up from some of the guests seated nearer to you, your retort has not gone unnoticed. “Oh, I shall. I certainly shall.” The man gestures for his intense-faced family member to follow, and without so much as a word follows the Poincare who was sitting closer to you at the table. You are glad to see them gone, but you have to imagine that they will come back down once they see the joke for what it is – and they will be all the less amenable over it. For now though, a reprieve. How best to avail yourself of it though, that remains to be seen.
TrashQM
> Please choose ONE of the following: > [Undirected] "..." > [Directed at the Man to the Left] "You were saying about yourself?" > [Directed at Sulphreme and Friend] "Glad to see their backs, would be gladder still to never have seen their fronts!" > [Directed at Sulphreme's Friend] "I can only hope that whoever is in Four of Cups has more humor then the pair of them do ..." > [Directed at Sulphreme] "Now, what were we talking about, again?" > [Directed at Sulphreme] "Now, I believe we were talking about the state of the roads." > [Directed at Nasturtium] "Goodman Nasturtium? Half of your ear and a moment of your time." > [Directed at Nasturtium] "Goodman Nasturtium? Would it be an imposition if I were to ask to speak privately for a moment?" > [Directed at Nasturtium] "Goodman Nasturtium? When you get a moment, could you send for those documents, please?" > [Directed at (Write-in Subject)] Write-ins allowed with QM approval. I don't know why I had such a hard time writing this; maybe it is a cursed passage or something. But it certainly fought me, every inch of the way. Lost half of it, then reworked the half I still had ...
>>6020837 Thanks anon, I appreciate the appreciation.
Anonymous
>>6021007 > [Undirected] "..." I know that info about the roads is important, but I think showing any kind of directness or assertiveness beyond what is strictly necessary could be bad for us here. It seems like a society where women, especially what are we 15?!, are meant to be seen and not heard
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>6021007 > [Directed at Sulphreme] "Now, I believe we were talking about the state of the roads." >>6021017 We've already established that we are a rather unconventional girl
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>6021007 >> [Directed at Sulphreme] "Now, what were we talking about, again?" Cloudflare has finally deemed to let me vote
No need to abandon our attitude now
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>6021007 > [Directed at Sulphreme] "Now, I believe we were talking about the state of the roads." Anonymous
>>6021007 > [Directed at Sulphreme's Friend] *Eyebrow raise* > [Directed at Sulphreme] "Now, what were we talking about, again?" Figure not being direct about it is the way to go.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>6021007 > [Directed at Nasturtium] "Goodman Nasturtium? Would it be an imposition if I were to ask to speak privately for a moment?" Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>6021017 +1 for
> [Undirected] "..." Some Telltale Games silent playthrough might do us well here.
Anonymous
Alright, we have a 2-2-2-1 split on the vote, and the thread is about to fall off of the board. Assuming there is not a tiebreaker by the time the thread archives, I will just have to open Thread XVI with a re-vote. If anyone is still in the thread, feel free to expound on your choice in the chance that it makes or changes someone's mind.
The archive at
https://suptg.thisisnotatrueending.com/archive.html?tags=eternal+rome has been update with this thread. Running the risk of sounding obsequious, I'd like to apologize one last time for the spotty posting and updating on my half for Thread XV - and assure all of you that I will only open Thread XVI once I am certain that I can make at least one post a day. Looking at my schedule now, that should be in a weeks time; if there are any changes to this estimation, I will post in the general to that effect. Thanks again!
Anonymous
Personally I'm voting> "Now, what were we talking about, again?" because I don't trust them to get back on the topic of the roads without some prodding but actually asking seems too obvious and may lead to questions about why we care specifically Hinting at it just seems like we're trying to make conversation and not that we're specifically super-interested in the roads
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>6021592 Same verse as the first
>>6022225 , but with the added caveats of silently inquiring/guilt tripping why Sulphreme's Friend told the lie in the first place- with any luck, we’ll get an explanation.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>6022112 You don't have to post everyday. We could always use more lucky talents.