PC Slaves

[ibusoe]

Slavery

About a month ago, a few people expressed interest in playing slave characters.  Around the same time, a few players also expressed interest in playing slave-catchers or small-scale slave dealers.  Quite curiosly, a coupe of staff members made posts implying that slave PCs probably simply wouldn't do, and that interested players would do better to play free PCs.  

There was some discussion on this, and in the end it seemed better to drop it at the time.  As such, I've decided to wait until the arguments had someone died down to revive the topic.

And so a month has gone by, and I hope that everyone is better disposed to a more in-depth examination of the topic of slavery in the context of the game world.  

Certainly, I feel that the contention that slave-PCs are unplayable stems from a few misconceptions.

Some players/Staff have misconceptions about slavery.
Slaves are always uneducated.
The truth is that some slaves were well-educated by their masters.  Some were educated to the point that they were BETTER EDUCATED than their masters with the idea that they would be able to take care of intellectual drudgery that their masters had no interest in doing.  Slaves were trained to be artists, entertainers, clerks and advisors.


Slaves are never treated with trust.
Some slaves were regarded with a large degree of trust.  When people think of mistrusted slaves, they are usually thinking of Field Slaves.  Field Slaves and Gladiators were often considered flight risks, and were closely monitored during their work and sometimes shackled at night.  House Slaves, by comparison, were often regarded with a large degree of trust and were considered low flight-risks.  They often had little incentive to run away.

Slavery is always accompanied by brutality
Obviously, this veried from master to master and plantation to plantation.  In some cases masters treated slaves with with inhuman brutality, one of the principal reasons for the abolishment of slavery.  In many cases, masters were comparatively kind to their slaves.  A prized slave might receive days off, education, reasonable privlidges, salary, medical care, vocational training and reasonable social standing.  In some cultures it was even customary to take adopt slaves into the family.

Slaves are not trusted and not allowed to travel.

Any Master who was accustomed to having slaves wait on him while he was at home would need slaves with him while he travelled.  In some cases, slaves were sent on errands that required significant travel.

Slaves never have any fun.
Slaves had friends.  Slaves had families.  Slaves had hobbies.  Slaves played games, had songs and stories.  Slaves had recreational sex.  

Master's never enjoy intimate relationships with Slaves

Some Masters were quite fond of individual slaves and regarded them as friends, advisors or confidants.  

Only Nobles Own Slaves
Historically, nobility has been the largest owners of slaves but this was by no means exclusive.  Even fairly poor people could sometimes own slaves, particularly in rural areas.

Slaves never earn their freedom
Upward mobility is uncommon on Zalanthas.  However the idea that slaves never gain their freedom is inconsistent with both Earth History and Game Documentation.

These misconceptions are inconsistent with history, modern fiction, game spirit or internal game documents.

Slaves in History


Song-hai Empire

The Songhai Empire (West Africa) was an example of a culture where slavery was practiced under circumstances where slaves received good treatment.  Specifically, when a Songhai warrior captured a prisoner in a conflict, the prisoner became a slave to the warrior's family.  The slave worked alongside members of the family.  The slave received instruction in the family history and the spiritual beliefs of the family.  After several years of indenture, the slave was freed and was generally retained as a member of the family.

http://www.quaker.org/tqe/wealth-and-poverty/08africa.htm

Slaves in America

While American slaves were frequently subjected to mistreatment, many American slaves received quite good treatment.  American slaves were often well-educted, given a salary, and medical attention.  For example, Phyllis Wheatly, an American Slave, became a published poet while she was a slave and even wrote poems praising her Masters for bringing her over from Africa:

`TWAS mercy brought me from my Pagan land,
Taught my benighted soul to understand
That there's a God, that there's a Saviour too:
Once I redemption neither sought nor knew,
Some view our sable race with scornful eye,
"Their colour is a diabolic die."
Remember, Christians, Negroes, black as Cain,
May be refin'd, and join th' angelic train.´

.

Certainly not the words of someone subjected to daily beatings.  George Carver, another slave went on to become a famous botanist.

This episode caused George a bout of respiratory disease that left him with a permanently weakened constitution. Because of this, he was unable to work as a hand and spent his time wandering the fields, drawn to the varieties of wild plants. He became so knowledgeable that he was known by Moses Carver's neighbors as "the plant doctor."

One day he was called to a neighbor's house to help with a plant in need. When he had fixed the problem, he was told to go into the kitchen to collect his reward. When he entered the kitchen, he saw no one. He did, however, see something that changed his life: beautiful paintings of flowers on the walls of the room. From that moment on, he knew that he was going to be an artist as well as a botanist.

.

We can see that George's masters were quite proud of the fact that their slave, despite being unfit for field work, was regionally recognized as being skilled at plant-care.  In fact, he was kidnapped once as a boy and rescued at great expense to his masters.  Somewhat surprising is the fact that Harriet Tubman, an American slave, married a free man.

[qoute="Wikipedia"]

During this period Edward Brodess sold three of Harriet's sisters, Linah, Soph, and Mariah Ritty, permanently breaking apart the Ross family. When she was a young adult she took the name Harriet, possibly in honor of her mother. Around 1844 she married John Tubman, a free man.
[/quote].

From this we infer that slaves did not always have lower social station than free people, and could under certain conditions enjoy social interaction with them.  Perhaps more scandalously, Benjamin Banneker's mother was reported to have married one of her own slaves.  Conflicting accounts of this.

Benjamin Banneker's mother was Mary Bannakay, whose mother, Molly Welsh, was accused of stealing milk and sent from England to America as punishment. She became the owner of a farm and married one of her slaves, whom she freed.

.

Janissaries

There are plenty of examples in history of slaves being trusted enough to bear arms and to make military service.  Janissaries, an example of slavery in Arabic history, were noted not only for their military prowess, but additionally for their loyalty.  They were in fact so well regarded that they were entrusted to protect the Turkic emperor personally.  This is an example of slaves having a higher social standing than average citizens or even of average soldiers.  Turkish regulars were frequently jealous of the prestige in the Janissaries.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/J/Janissar.asp



Slaves in Fiction
Spartacus

Spartacus (1960, Stanley Kubric).  A film that's largely about slaves.  What's interesting about the film is that it does depict several types of slaves, instead of just field slaves which are stereotypically shown in film.

Sadira

Prism Pentad Series  (Troy Denning).  I mention the character Sadira specifically because she's a slave in a Dark-Sun novel.  She's allowed wide latitude of movement both within her city and occaisionally outside it to fulfill her duties as a slave.  

Louis de Pointe du Lac

I'm not a huge Ann Rice fan, but she depicts an intimate relationship between a Plantation owner and one of his slaves in her novel Interview with the Vampire.

Game Document References to Slavery that support a more liberal interpretation.

Slave Roles
from http://www.armageddon.org/general/slavery.html

Guard slaves are trusted with keeping a household or person safe. Slaves in this role normally come from a long line of slaves with distinguished service to the organization, and it is seen as an honor for such a slave to be allowed to continue to defend the owning family and its property. Dwarven slaves, with their quasi-spiritual foci, are sometimes found in this kind of role. Guard slaves are usually raised within the organization they serve, and go through comprehensive combat and etiquette training so that they are not only competent with arms, but suitable to accompany the owners to almost any kind of social function. Guard slaves normally stay with the same organization for life, and are almost never traded or sold.

Most certainly a revealing passage.  In fact, much of this page seems to contradict the stereotypes that have become common.  A worthwhile read.

Social Rank

http://www.armageddon.org/general/ranktable.html

Although I am not able to cut and paste the table onto this GDB, one interesting implication of the table is that a Templar's Slave has more status and credibility than an unemployed commoner, or a Cook in House Kadius.

Help Slaves

Not satisfied with website documentation?  How about a look about the In-Game telnet documentation.

The city is divided into several Quarters. While most citizens are free to come and go as they will, three sections of the city are worthy of special mention: the Templars' Quarter, the Nobles' Quarter, and the Labyrinth. The Templars' and Nobles' Quarters are open only to the nobility and the Templarate of Allanak, and to their servants and slaves.

.

From this we see that the slaves of the rich and powerful have access to parts of the city where even commoners in high-standing cannot freely go.  I'll abstain from making direct quotes of in-game rooms and descriptions, but some of these go far to refute many of the misconceptions that have become popular.


Select References

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAslavery.htm

Excellent site with slave accounts, slave history and slavery in a factual, modern context.

http://www.unrv.com/culture/roman-slavery.php

Slavery in Ancient Rome.  Arguably more relevant to Arm Gamers.
http://www.earth-history.com/Sumer/

Slavery in ancient desert cultures.

Player and Imm enjoyment could improve with analysis of current de-facto policies

Some players are naturally submissive
We should respect their desire to serve us and allow them to play slaves.

Slavery could improve law-enforcement
It seems to me that many Law Enforcement PCs are disposed to hand out one of two types of sentences:  Fine or Death.

I'd like to see players have the option of accepting (short-term) slavery, which could add variety and creativity to the sentences that get handed out.

Slavery could add status to the slave-owner
It's hard to imagine the wealth and power of people like Joe Kadius and Bob Oash unless they have a couple of slaves tending to them publically.

Slave roles could provide role variety to people who are tired of playing hunters and crafters
Some veteran players complain of boredom with the stock roles.  Slave roles might be the change that they're looking for.


Having PC slaves in game would add a layer of realism.


In conclusion, I'd like to state that slaves are sometimes educated, sometimes trusted, sometimes well-treated, sometimes well-traveled, sometimes close friends of their Master.  Slavery is not always permanent and not all slaves belong to the wealthy and powerful.  Based on these understandings, I feel that slaves roles could in fact be quite fun, and that current policies should be modified to allow people to play slaves.

[Larrath]

This is a behemoth post.  I did not read most of it.

I've played an enslaved PC once, back when I was still new.  My character's owner was a good player, interesting to play with, and logged on almost daily for three or four hours at a time, if not more.
I still found myself sitting bored in many times.

The problem with PC slavery is almost completely in who plays the master.  When you play an employee somewhere, you still have your basic freedoms.  You can have your friends, go socialize, go drink, go do whatever.  When you're a slave, even if you're given some liberty, you will never be as free as that nobody employee.

Playing a PC slave is a great idea until you get stuck with an owner that can hardly keep himself entertained with you, let alone make you entertained with yourself.

And on the owners' side, owning a slave and keeping them entertained and involved is hard.  And this is the problem.  If you play a captured slave, you can be given 'leisure time' to relax, but it's a very silly thing to trust your character.  If you play a bred slave, your character wouldn't even know what to do in a tavern.  You'll be involved wherever your owner is involved, and that's about it.

[WarriorPoet]

There have been a number of instances in Chinese history when court eunuchs dominated the Imperial families, ruling in all but name. These were indeed slaves, but bred for a purpose: To rule day to day life, in order to allow their 'betters' freedom to persue other things while still recieving the prestige and stipend that came with being a member of the court. Just to throw that out there...

I would love to see more of a PC slave presence, though I'm sure it's not for everyone. Would I be interested in a slave role? Maybe, but I would be eager to have, possible, an in-game sitdown with my PC owner and my Immortal, in order to chat about things to keep the role from chafing me too bad, while still allowing for realism.

In an entirely OOC conversation, I would like to discuss the possibilities of setting up some sort of previous virtual relationship, in order to gain a bit of IC trust. Nothing too large, like leading armies, keeping black secrets, or handling huge accounts, but possibly freeing me up for a number of smaller, day-to-day activities. Patrols, material gathering, virtual duties like sweeping a floor or keeping M'lord's pants free of dust. Ensuring his booze cabinet stays stocked, and maintaining a large supply of them delicious nuggets he loves so much... etc.

Most of what would prevent me from enjoying the role would be a possible tendency of the slave-owner's Player too keep too tight of a rein on me. I would hate to play a cliche, bug out and run away slave, but I would also hate to be stuck in such a restrictive role without a little bit of OOC understanding on the part of both slave and master.

That's my own take on the whole slave thing. Not that I really care, but I felt the need to ramble.

Nice post, Ibusoe. I liked it.

-WP

[EvilRoeSlade]

Slavery could improve law-enforcement
It seems to me that many Law Enforcement PCs are disposed to hand out one of two types of sentences:  Fine or Death.

I'd like to see players have the option of accepting (short-term) slavery, which could add variety and creativity to the sentences that get handed out.

When playing a templar I've actually created situations where I allowed criminal PCs to either win their freedom in the arena, or win it by serving as my indentured servant for a period of time.

I have had successful results with this experiment and I encourage other players of templars to try it.  The thing to remember is that you should always give the player of the criminal a choice to refuse to be your servant, even if their only alternative is death in the arena.  From the stand-point of their player, that's still a choice.

[Marauder Moe]

My observations of Armageddon PC slaves (Southern):

Higher-end slaves (belonging to senior nobles and such) always seem to be played just like extra-snobby aides.

Lower-end slaves always seem to earn their freedom and become regular employees within the organization.

Muls seem to always end up running away.


From these observations, seems like most players of PC slaves decide that they don't really like the true slave role.

*shrug*

[EvilRoeSlade]

Higher-end slaves (belonging to senior nobles and such) always seem to be played just like extra-snobby aides.

Great.  I think that the entire point of this thread is that not every slave has to be a passive, limp-wristed pleasure toy that never raises her voice, and such roles are better reserved for NPCs anyway.

Lower-end slaves always seem to earn their freedom and become regular employees within the organization.

Great.  If they decide that playing a slave isn't right for them, and so they find a way to cease being one that fits into the game world rather than retiring or suiciding their character, that's all the better.  If nothing else it gives their character a certain unusual history that they wouldn't have possessed if they had simply created a character without any special application.

Muls seem to always end up running away.

Great.  Plotlines for the masses.

[Cale_Knight]

Slavery is an extremely, extremely, extremely restricted role. PCs should never be forced into it, and I think the idea of "either take this extremely restricted role or DIE" isn't much of a choice at all.

It takes a certain kind of player to enjoy being a slave, and there's a reason we see so few of them in game.

[EvilRoeSlade]

Slavery is an extremely, extremely, extremely restricted role. PCs should never be forced into it, and I think the idea of "either take this extremely restricted role or DIE" isn't much of a choice at all.

Because when I'm sitting behind the keyboard offering this to you, if you refuse I'll fly over to your house and beat you to death with a two by four.

Actually, it really isn't that dire.  If you have ever played a templar you would understand that when it's so easy to kill another player, you always try to think of ways to avoid it.  If you want to offer this to another player and you're prepared to take the responsibility of having a PC slave, then more power to you.  This works best if you both understand that it's only on a limited time scale after which the player will then be free to go be a commoner again.  If they refuse, just do whatever you were planning to do to them in the first place.  It's no biggie.  And I promise there won't be any two by fours involved.

[spawnloser]

Cale, by the time most people are face to face with a Templar and are given a choice to play a highly-restrictive role or die, most of them should, by all rights, have been dead already...and the player of that Templar is being nice by allowing you a second chance at your character.

As ERS suggested, it should be a temporary thing.  This would preclude there being too much problems for the new slave.  Plus, a creative enough criminal turned slave could make the most of the oppurtunity to get in the Templar's good graces, make contacts, etc.

[Angela Christine]

I think being a slave could be a fantastic role, if your city had 20 or 30 PC slaves.  Slaves do have friends, families, lovers and so on, but most of those people are also slaves.  Slaves might get time off to socialize, but for preference they'd socialize with other slaves.  


A skilled, valued slave is in an awkward social position.  They may be better fed and better mannered than a low-class freeman.  So, in a way, they are like a higher socio-economic class than many commoners.  But in another way the commoners are in a higher class, because they own themselves if nothing else.  It is hard to socialize when you are both busy looking down on each other.  They are separate sub-cultures within society.

This may be another area that would work with a bigger player base.  If we routinely had several hundred people logged on at the same time, a couple dozen of them could play slaves and have a good time.  As it is now, the slave generally has only a very few (non-virtual) people they can interact with easily.  It tends to be stressful and unfun.



Angela Christine

[Naiona]

Speaking from experience with special apps and slaves:

99.99% of all PC slaves will store or suicide within a relatively short period of time, no matter how much "freedom" they have or who their master is.  I have seen slaves treated like dirt and kept locked in rooms and I have seen slaves given as much responsibility and freedom as a clan leader.  The result is nearly universally the same.  They store or suicide.  When PCs special app slaves I tell them this.  Without exception they say "Yeah, but...I wouldn't do that."  And nearly without exception a short while later they are storing or suiciding.  It doesn't matter what clan, what guild or what area of the game they are playing in.

I would like to think that it might be fun for some players to be a slave, but all evidence points to the fact that it is not.  I would rather not do more to encourage players to play a role that seems to be universally unfun.

[spawnloser]

Stuff.

This, however, is a good reason to not encourage it.

I did see such a thing happen once, though.  That worked out with a long-lived character that got its freedom back.  That's the only time I've seen a slave not suicide or retire, I have to admit.

Perhaps something more...moderate could be encouraged instead?  Turn the person into a servant?  They are not allowed to work away from the Templar for some time, but pay them and make sure there is a time frame from the beginning that doesn't include too much time?  (One IG month)  Maybe for a set number of tasks?  (7 tasks)  Maybe a set amount of total time to be split up as the Templar desires?  (3 IG days of service maybe)

[Rindan]

I think AC hits the nail on the head.  Sure, slaves live interesting lives.  Unfortunately, those interesting lives are played out with other slaves.  Unless the 'rules' on slaves are clarified to the point where it is okay for a slave to go hang out in the tavern and kick back with his freemen friends, a slave is going to live a lonely life.  The only exceptions I have seen are in Kurac and the Byn.  Why is Kurac and the Byn seemingly able to pull off having slaves?  They are large communities with enough internal interaction to keep your average person relatively happy.  Even then, they don't exactly have a perfect track record.

Look, playing a boring old vanilla commoner is very hard.  Try it some time.  Why is it hard?  Nearly every single other person is NOT a commoner.  They are gemmed, 'rinthers, working for a noble house, in the Atrium, or in some way or another not really classed as a "normal" commoner.  When it comes to interpersonal plots and relationships, Armageddon a lot of the time comes up a little short.  Armageddon shines in its ability to create conflict within and between organizations, not in the day to day living conflict that people might have.

Right now there is a huge grey area in the slavery documentation.  The documentation really doesn't do much to describe how slaves and commoners interact.  Is it okay for a slave to go have a drink at the bar?  Can he hang out with his commoner friends at the bar?  Can he have a commoner girlfriend who he MUD sex00rs when he isn't working?  If the social barrier between commoners and slave is made to be only a small barrier, I could see PC slaves being a lot more successful.  If the barrier is the sharp divide that we currently see right now, then I think playing a PC slave is going to be a very lonely role.

Personally, I think the documentation is pretty murky about the PC/slave social divide.  I think that this section of the documentation could be added in to swing it such that playing a PC slave is an entirely viable role.  The real issue is if we want to blur the lines between commoners and slaves, then what becomes the difference other then that one is paid and the other isn't?

[The Lonely Hunter]

Just to chime in based on a few other replies...

 A couple of years back I played a mul combat slave in the Byn. Over time, he gained a lot of trust (actually made it to Sgt) but it did take time. He was pretty content in life and never, to the best of my memory, thought about running. He had food, water, and achieved likely the most amount of 'respect' and 'authority' over others that is possible in our little world (for a mul at least). Now, this may not be the norm for PC slave muls, but it was my experience.

I loved the role and had a great time with it. I did end up storing him and always regretted it. If I could do it again, I would have tried to keep him around long enough to die from old age. I must say that it was my most memorable and favorite role to date (with a certain noble in close 2nd).

[Delirium]

There is a certain old yellow slave that I am 99% sure died of old age..

But that is probably the exception to the rule.

In general, unless documentation is written up to flesh out the life of a PC slaves in ways that add vast playability, it is a role that I would not wish on many, unless they had an extremely creative, active, and long-lived leader who they could roleplay with - and a dependancy on one player to be able to do anything at all is a dangerous one.

[Cale_Knight]

Look, playing a boring old vanilla commoner is very hard.  Try it some time.

So true. So very true.

I tried this maybe two or three months back in Tuluk. I had exactly one other PC to RP with. Everyone else was way too high-class for my character to comfortably interact with.

[Anonymous]

My experience, both as a slave-owner, slave and an observer, is that everyone seems to go into the situation thinking Kunte Kinte.  The completely restricted slave shackled to his owner's ankle.  That's just unplayable.

I made a thread about this a while back bringing up the slave who was right hand man to Julius Caesar in the HBO series Rome as a great example of what I think a playable Armageddon slave would be.  The slave's quality of life was directly affected by Caesar's success, so he was depicted in the series as being exceedingly loyal and shrewd on his master's behalf.  He was trusted with things others wouldn't be trusted with because his loyalty was unquestioned.  Why?  Because he could be put to death in an instant, or relegated to some menial and grueling task for the rest of his days.  Trust a citizen with certain information and if they turn on you then you've got to think about how to get them killed legally or quietly.

The slave in the show traveled on his own and did a lot of Caesar's dirty work.  At one point Caesar is talking to someone then abruptly stops talking and his slave starts in doing the actual negotiating over money because, at least my impression was, quibbling over money was beneath a man who was rich enough to own slaves.

In the end the only difference between this sort of slave and roleplaying an unquestioningly loyal commoner who works in a non-combat role for a noble house is a roleplay one.  Restrictions on activities and movements are identical, just for different reasons.

[bloodfromstone]

I have had a concept for a slave in my head for a while, and I would like to think that it would be playable. I fully intend to app it at some point, and I'll have to apoogize to Naiona for naivette if I end up storing.

That said, the sort of situation I was thinking about was closer to what CRW described. A trusted slave whose comfort directly reflected the position of their master, who's existance would be to serve that individual, but in a more disconnected way. Someone who could move important supplies, assist aides, etc. Perhaps it's a pipedream, from the sounds of the track record for slaves, but maybe I'll still give it a try at some point.

That said, what sort of insight can the staff give us into general commoner/slave interactions?

[Rindan]

CRW and bloodfromstone, I agree that it is an interesting and realistic concept, but lets follow it all the way through.  I watched Rome and thought that that slave kicked ass as well for the record.    Does this slave have the ability go to a bar, sit down, and have a drink?  Does he have commoner friends?  Or is he simply a full time aid that is either with his master or in the noble quarters?

The real question is where are you when your master is gone?  Answer the question literally.  Your master is gone, where are you?  In a tavern, sweeping the floor in the compound, where?  This is a really serious question for slaves.  This is what kills off slaves.  ICly your life might rock, but OOCly sitting around in your plush quarters interacting with VNPC slaves is a quick way to suicide.

I think the biggest issue is that there is a massive grey area in what is acceptable for slaves.  Sure, we all know slaves don't have to be locked in a cage when the master is away, but what is acceptable behavior?  Anything a commoner could do within reason?  How do commoners deal with a Borsail slave?  Do they sit down and have a drink and friendly chat?

I would happily consider a slave role if 'trusted' slaves were allowed to wander freely, have a drink, and chat at the bar.  In that case, you would really be talking about a commoner of sorts who is property.  Being property would complicate his relationships and provide something interesting interactions.  The issue is that right now we play slavery like American slavery.  Slaves, even trusted ones, are kept separate from the general population.  Black slaves in the US didn't wander over to the pub and shoot the shit with his white friends.

Personally, I like the concept of slave roles.  Outside of temporary enslavement via the templerate (which I would take up in a heartbeat to save my character's life), I think the real challenge for out of the box slave is developing an interesting interactions outside of the presence of an owner.

[Bebop]

I for one am glad this is discouraged especially the capture of slaves.  If people wanted to play a slave and not to actually get to RP their character they would app a slave.  I don't like the idea of Wyverns or whoever romping off to capture PC's just because they can or just to give them something to do.  There are plenty of critters that can fullfill that challenge.

I don't mind when someone who plays it well is obviously experienced in RP and it it for the long term does it when it's an alternative or IG.  But the idea of a group of warriors gang banging a half elf ranger alone in the sands and throwing them in  a cage for like an hour of RP then fucking up the other characters whole world.  Hell, even do it with VNPCs if you want to have some RP but I just don't think there are enough PCs for other PCs to get into the habit of it if that makes sense.

[Naiona]

Rindan & Others,

Just to rehash - even when PC slaves are given freedom of movement, trust and encouragement to go out and make contacts, meet people and do other things on their own - they store or suicide.

I do have new slavery documentation that has been worked on for some time.  But I do not feel it will ever make the role of slave more palatable to Armageddon players.  You guys just do not like playing slaves, overall. The one exception is probably the runaway mul - which is really a rarity considering how hard it is to breed muls and how deeply conditioned and trained they are from birth.

There are plenty of slave roles that should be fun if you ask me.   I've yet to see players enjoy them yet, though.  We've had high ranking roles in noble houses played by slaves and there are some slave NPCs that outrank most commoners.  Yet, the fact remains that when players try it they don't have fun.

[Pantoufle]

My experience, both as a slave-owner, slave and an observer, is that everyone seems to go into the situation thinking Kunte Kinte. The completely restricted slave shackled to his owner's ankle. That's just unplayable.

Really?  I've found it as just the opposite.  I've never once seen a character playing a slave as your typical run of the mill slave, shackled and forced to endure a back breaking life under the sun.  Instead, they were either old yellow muls who worked as clan leaders (in which case, they were a slave in name only) or worked in a prim and pampered position which really wasn't far off from simply being that of a House Aide role (which begs the question, why play a slave at all?)

9 times out of 10 what people are really looking for when they say "I want to play a slave" is an elite house servant type.  I think they just want the nifty quasi-unique title of being called 'slave' to make it sound cooler.

Every time the discussion about slavery crops up umpteen players invariably announce that not all slaves are shackled to the ground, mistreated and not trusted.  Yeah, yeah, I know.  Ancient Egypt had high ranking slaves.  Chinese Dynasties had slaves who could read and write.  Etc. etc. etc.  That's great and all but it's important to remember that while such slaves exist in Arm, MOST slaves are actually your typical "used and abused" sort.  They comprise the bulk of the slave world.

[marko]

The slave mentality is the hardest thing to capture when it pertains to Armageddon.  Slaves fill a myriad of roles from laborers all the way up to running of Households - but, slaves do not have freewill.

In other words, no matter how trusted a slave is, they always act within a set of rules, procedures, and guidelines that they do not deviate from.  A slave has little to no initiative.  

For this reason, playing a PC slave can be boring as hell.  Unless your slave has been giving a full set of activities to pursue while the master is offline - you'll be struggling to play a slave well during those periods.

Does a slave go down to the bar and drink?  No.  Why?  That's not a activity role for a slave.  Is it possible that a slave would be ordered to go to a tavern and pay attention to the crowds - sure but it'd be better, from a powerful character's point of view, to send a trusted _servant_ who can act with initiative.

Slaves typically don't have any form of leadership.  They are always led and given orders.  The most trusted slaves in noble houses have, over many many years and careful conditioning, developed some level of leadership but a servant (or noble, depending on the house) always oversees the slaves.  And their "leadership" role is very well defined - that same role has existed for hundreds of years and a slave that ends up in the position knows exactly what it needs to do in every given situation.  If blood is spilled on the marble floor - order another slave to clean it up.  If a slave gets killed - call in the guard, replace the slave with another one, have the body removed and destroyed, etc etc.  All situations that it has standing instructions on how to deal with them.  

A slave, for the programmers out there, is exactly like code.  A slave operates within the structure of its programming and cannot step outside of that unless something exceptional happens to break the conditioning.  Something, like a mul losing its bondmate, raging, killing all of its handlers, and then in that extreme moment of emotion fleeing.

Will a slave correct a master when the master does something wrong?  Possibly - again, it is a matter of what role the slave is filling.  Slaves fill positions where everything about that position is clearly laid out and defined.  There are no uncertainties.  If a slave ever encounters a situation that they do not know how to react to - they ask for guidance.  They don't make a decision - they go back to their master or House to find out what to do.

To go with the slave example from Rome - will a slave negotiate on behalf of a House?  Sure, if that is something that the slave was taught and knows exactly what the House's objectives are, what it is allowed to negotiate with, what the bottom line is, how to get a better deal, etc etc.  Again, no uncertainties.  The slave didin't initiate the deal, the slave doesn't offer a solution that is 'outside' the box, the slave is following a set of instructions.  

In terms of where does it go wrong for players playing slave roles?  That's simple - they don't have the role fully defined as a slave would be.  A slave that is born to slavery spends its life learning what it is.  A slave is not a person a slave is a role.  For example, a slave is not Amos, the guard the slave is a guard.  For all intents and purposes, free will and self-determination do not exist.  A slave cannot decide, on a whim, to go and do X when X is outside of its underlying instructions.  

The problem is that players don't have the fifteen years of training and conditioning that a slave goes through.  Because of this, they often don't _know_ how to react and interact to every situation and thus end up making initiative choices as opposed to following what should be their training.  Therefore, they screw up, get punished and shit on.  Eventually the PC becomes frustrated because they don't know how to react and constantly need guidance from their master(s).  Then the PC just suicides or retires because the role is so restrictive and confining.

Most PCs who think about being a slave are, as pointed out earlier in this thread, actually thinking about being a trusted house servant.  Servants have initiative and freedom.  Slaves have roles and defined activities.

I would never ever suggest that anyone play a slave.  If you want to be a trusted House representative then play a trusted House Servant.  If you want to play a submissive character then play a submissive Servant.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

I've played a number of Slaves. Ironic, isn't it?

The one rule that will define all of you interaction and action in general is this: You can and do think up to the level at which your character is allowed to think. Going beyond that is extremely rebellious. Doing less than that is extremely punishable. You are on a straight and narrow path, and it will always be straight and narrow.

Marko's post says just this, but in a different manner.

[Anonymous]

I think slaves should be set free. I don't like the politcal part of slaves in armageddon. This game is structured very poorly in the fact that it lacks a good democrary politics. Slaves should be set free, no oppressed.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

Heh, nah. Armageddon wouldn't be Armageddon without slaves.

Maybe you could say that PC slaves shouldn't be allowed, but most certianly, slaves should. And I like the option to play a slave.

[spawnloser]

I think slaves should be set free. I don't like the politcal part of slaves in armageddon. This game is structured very poorly in the fact that it lacks a good democrary politics. Slaves should be set free, no oppressed.

(blink)

You're not serious, are you?  This is a game.

[Anonymous]

Game or no game, people are being oppressed and discriminated agaisnt. Just because they are born to one sort of parents and nobles are born to another does not make them any better or worse. I think we should eliminate racism from the 'game' because it hurts peoples feelings. My half-elf could never get a job, and my elves always get labbelled theives.

[Anael]

That's the point   Zalanthas is a lot about oppression, discrimination and prejudices.

[Malifaxis]

So go whine to your feckin lawyer about how damn discriminating and unfair it all is.  Have him draft a letter to Tektolnes.

It'll make you feel better while a few of us figure out a way to turn spineless gibbering into profit.

[Agent_137]

Why are people alright with swearing for life in various clans but not signing up to have their PC be a slave? What is the difference, seriously? How many lifers store or suicide or desert? Why is THIS allowed, but not slave PCs? What is the difference?

If you're going to discourage slave PCs, you best start shaking up all the houses to be able to function without volunteer slaves, that being their lifers.

And to the original poster, you completely neglected one of the largest and most interesting eras of slavery: Roman. Where some skilled people down on their luck would sell themselves as slaves so they wouldn't starve, and then slowly save up pocket change they're given from their masters to eventually buy their freedom back.


p.s.
Anon kank is probably just trying to rile people up, since there should be little to no sexual discrimination in game. But plenty of racial profiling. Further, don't encourage him. Just let him go play Shadows of Islidur where he can be happy and leave us to our harsh world.

[Marauder Moe]

I think the differences between slaves and lifelong employees have been discussed already.  Marko's post on the subject is excellent in my opinion.

[Agent_137]

yea, i'm backreading the thread, and so far only AC's post really gets at the heart of why slaves have troubles:
They have no one to really interact with, since there are so few other PC slaves.

bah, spending too much time trying to craft examples of slavery that would serve the game better. I'm going to go to class and forget this thread.

[LoD]

In my mind, there are only two factors that will likely provide a slave with enough action, interaction and interest to keep themselves from retiring or killing themselves; first is that the slave have a combat role and second is that the slave be in either House Kurac or the T'zai-Byn.  Let me address both points.

Combat Roles

As many others have stated, there are inherent problems with playing a slave.  One of these issues is the lack of free will and goals.  You are usually doing your master's business, and there are many social obstacles which will prevent you from having a meaningful relationship with anyone outside of a fellow slave or your master.  When you serve in a combat role, especially within a clan that needs that support, two things are accomplished:

:arrow: You (the player) are presented with consistent times that you can expect some interaction on the training floor.  Both of these clans operate under relatively strict martial supervision, and the emphasis on keeping "fighting fit" is warranted.  This may be a good 30 minutes, which helps break up the slow pace of "sitting/walking/talking" RP that dominates other roles for the full 90 minute day.

:arrow: You (the character) are given the opportunity to have meaningful interactions between people other than your master.  You have something they need, and given the ability to train, you eventually develop the ability to teach.  This has been one of the common traits to successful slaves I've seen played over a lengthy period of time.

House Kurac and the T'zai-Byn

The reason why PC slaves might succeed here where all others may fail is because interaction and inclusion in RP is almost mandated by proximity.  Each clan is isolated to the point where 80% of their given RP might happen between other clan mates.  They also both have consistent playerbases which are restricted to a fairly small playing space (i.e. Luir's Outpost, Red Storm, T'zai-Byn Compounds).

But why would this be any different than any other Noble House?  Wouldn't some of their slaves also remain mostly indoors and RP almost exclusively with their clanmates?

Perhaps, but you have to consider the worth of personal action in an environment such as the T'zai-Byn and House Kurac versus that of a Noble House Oash or House Kadius.  Within the city, you are one of many that can be replaced at a moment's notice.  No matter how proficient you are at a task, there are thousands of able and willing bodies able to pick up where you left off, either by choice or by force.  You also not only have to obey your master, but obey the other templars and nobles, not to mention the rest of the city-state and their problems.

In an outpost with a long standing history of blood and violence, as well as a mercenary compound that may need your blade at a moment's notice, there is a very real need for every experienced swordarm.  You also have a direct chain of command that rules over every person you're ever going to meet.  This allows both the player and character to have a firm understaning of where they stand in their world.  Their swordarm is important.  They are needed.  They are wanted.

While I agree that most PC slaves will ultimately fail for many of the reasons listed in previous posts, I do believe that someone with the right mindset would have the best chance of success in a combat role within either of these two clans.

-LoD

[EvilRoeSlade]

I think the biggest issue is that there is a massive grey area in what is acceptable for slaves.  Sure, we all know slaves don't have to be locked in a cage when the master is away, but what is acceptable behavior?  Anything a commoner could do within reason?  How do commoners deal with a Borsail slave?  Do they sit down and have a drink and friendly chat?

I'd just like to note that I told my indentured servant to hang around in a tavern and gather information whenever I didn't need him.

After his character died he E-mailed me telling me that he had a blast.

[My 2 sids]

I've always favored slavery in game.  It is in the docs and as one player/templar pointed out it is a good alternative for indentured servitude (also in the docs).

When I was reading through these posts it suddenly occurred to me why slave characters don't work...  Although Zalanthan culture supports slavery, the game does not!  

Slaves, by nature, are (generally)
Job-driven:  They are employed for specific tasks and much of the role-play revolves around those tasks

Not focused on money:  For the most part a slave isn't going to accumulate vast amounts of wealth nor have their own money to spend

"External":  They wear affiliation literally so they usually cannot be played as a spy or informant.... Nor will anyone actively converse around them (you can have a full tavern and _everyone_ uses the Way so as not to have PC slaves overhear anything)

Unfortunately, most city play revolves around money and underhanded politics which would leave most PC slaves out of game play.

[Twilight]

Slaves are human.  Errr, well mostly.  Not code.  They still have a range of emotions.  They still have initiatve.  You can't train out being human.

I'd absolutely hate to be a slave in one of the big organizations.  Even if it was the trusted high ranking servant-like kind.  What would interest me is having an independent as a slave master.  However, from what I've seen posted, it seems like the direction from the immortals is that most, if not essentially all, slaves are owned by organizations.  

Unfortunate, as I think being actually owned by another PC would open up more opportunities.  They don't have an entire House to help them do things, they have you, just you.  Foraging in the wilds too dangerous for your master?  Send the slave, they are after all expendible.  Or take your slave as a travelling companion/kankherder/guard when travelling with your indie merchant from one city to another.  Quite a few possibilities on the master side, as well as the slave side.  After all, if you really want to be free and weren't loyal, you could always kill off the master.  You'd just have to avoid people who knew you were a slave before, for the rest of your life.

[Marauder Moe]

Slaves are human.  Errr, well mostly.  Not code.  They still have a range of emotions.  They still have initiatve.  You can't train out being human.

Why not?

I'd imagine that Borsail, and Winrothol conditioning techniques are quite sophisticated.  Just as commoners firmly believe that nobles are inherently different and better than them, slaves are conditioned to believe that they are just property and are inherently different from commoners.  It's a fact to them.  They can't make decisions, they're slaves.  They can't disobey orders, they're slaves.  They can't be free, they're slaves.

The vast majority of Zalanthan slaves shouldn't want freedom.  They wouldn't know what to do with it.  I could see your average human slave having a panic attack if granted freedom as a reward for good service.  Similarly, a slave who escapes because of a cruel master would probably have an intense desire to seek out another authority figure and resume service.

[Twilight]

I think you took that out of context.  I agree about viewing their place in society as a slave.  I disagree that some fairly basic human traits such as initiative and feelings can be trained out of a person, regardless of societal conditioning.  Or to put more succinctly perhaps, the societal conditioning of a slave is only going to be able to have a limited impact on the genetic predispositions of the subject.

[Rindan]

There were at one time many societies that practiced slavery.  To my knowledge, no one was able to strip them of having human emotions.  I don't think it should be any different in Zalanthas.  Certainly a slaving house might be very good at building a culture and mentality for slaves that encourages them to work loyally for their masters, but I think it is wrong to suggest that they are machines that can't operate without orders.  They still have initiative, they still think things through ahead of time, and they still have a full range of emotions.   Now, a slave might very well be taught to not act until ordered and to not take any sort of initiative, and a slave probably will follow through those orders within reason.  How much initiative displays almost certainly depends upon the master.  Some masters would be happy with a slave that takes initiative and does things before they are told, others masters simply want a slave that acts as close to a machine as possible.

Personally, I think that the HBO show Rome did a damn good job showing interesting slaves.  It showed a wide range of slaves that could potentially make interesting characters.  

Caesar's slave wielded incredible power.  He handled a great deal of Caesar's messages and diplomacy.  Caesar would work out a deal with another noble, then once a deal was agreed to in principle Caesar would simply walk away and let his slave work out the details.  This was a slave who could argue and deal face to face with nobility.  Many times he blatantly rebuked his master, the equivalent of a noble senator or black robed Templar, in harsh terms in private.  He also clearly got around a lot because he knew just about everyone.  He had a very strong and distinct personality.  He was anything but a machine.

Atia's handmaiden slave was also a neat character, though little shown.  This slave knew Atia's every single dirty secret.  Hell, she sat in the same room as Atia while she was fucking people.  At one point Atia was slapped in her bed chamber by a high ranking officer in the army.  Atia's slave was so fanatical that even though she is very old and frail, she drew a dagger to defend her master against a guy who had probably killed hundreds in his life time.  Like Caesar's slave, she too dealt with matters of money and negotiated prices.

[Jherlen]

While I don't have much else to add to this thread, I did want to say I find it pretty hilarious that people think special exceptions can be made for Kurac and the Byn supporting slaves, but other comparable clans somehow can't.

IMO a well-defined slave role is viable in any clan with a sufficient player base and need for a slave, not just those two.

[Marauder Moe]

I suppose I should have specified.  No, I don't think you can train out emotion.  However, I think initiative can be pretty well supressed.  There's plenty of people who lack initiative WITHOUT having undergone years of conditioning.

The lack of initiative and choice is what makes slave roles so hard to enjoy.  Sid Meier defined gameplay as "a series of interesting choices".  The average Zalanthan slave is not supposed to be allowed much choice in their life.  Playing a slave reduces Armageddon from a game to text-acting.  It might be fun to some people, for a little while at least, but I think in the end everyone will decide that playing is more fun than acting in the same environment.

[LoD]

While I don't have much else to add to this thread, I did want to say I find it pretty hilarious that people think special exceptions can be made for Kurac and the Byn supporting slaves, but other comparable clans somehow can't.

Name another clan that is as isolated as communities, militant and self-policing as these two clans and I will be glad to include them.  None of the other clans in the game really have the same environment and steady playerbase to incorporate a combat slave in the same way.  These two clans have common needs and requirements for units of "fighting men" that would be employed on a regular basis.

How often have I seen more than 3 guards from the same Noble House standing in the same room?  Hardly ever.  One could argue that both House Kadius and Salarr would have similar resources, but both of them operate within the city, policed by the respective city-state militias.  I've seen many "hunters" but rarely any "guards" that actually have a need to protect their estate from an attack.

IMO a well-defined slave role is viable in any clan with a sufficient player base and need for a slave, not just those two.

I agree.  Naiona, however, claims that the stastics show this now to be true within the last couple years.  I have seen three slave PC's that seemed to survive the test of time, and all three of them came from either House Kurac or the T'zai-Byn.  I also agree that slave PC's, with or without power, combat or non-combat, well-defined or otherwise, have a tough road ahead of them and my theory is that the organizations I mentioned will provide the best elements for success based upon my observations and interactions with them over the years.

-LoD

[Tlaloc]

I created the T'zai Byn's system of PC-run slaves for two reasons:

1) Players kept sending me special applications to run Muls in the Byn.

2) I felt there was a need in the game to give players an outlet to play Mul slaves in a realistic setting.

The second point was the most important one. Going strictly by the documentation, 99% of the Muls in-game should be gladiators. Unfortunately, gladiator PCs are generally hard to run for many reasons (not the least of which being that they're reliant on other PCs being around 90% of the time), and most players don't like the strict requirements involved with them.

As such, you tend to see a lot more free Muls than you do Slave Muls (at least this was true at the time).

Could similar systems be set up for other Clans? Sure. However, not all clans are going to be ideal for PC Mul slaves (or slaves of any kind). The main argument isn't that the Clan's can't run a slave PC. The argument is that some clans are more suited to having PC slaves who have a full list of options available to them in terms of play...while still maintaining realistic restrictions that should follow suit with roleplaying a slave.

I mean, if you're playing a Slave who's rights and responsibilites are exactly equal to what a commoner might have...then what's the point of playing a slave?

[jmordetsky]

I am a slave.

A slave to love.

[My 2 sids]

Personally, I think that the HBO show Rome did a damn good job showing interesting slaves. It showed a wide range of slaves that could potentially make interesting characters.

I think it can be hard, especially for Americans, to understand slavery.  American slavery was a horrible anomaly which put an entire race below a "non-class" system.  Rindan give a much more accurate example.  Slavery simply becomes a "rung" on a tiered society; reserved mostly for the extremely poor, criminals, and concurred peoples. Slaves are good, bad, cherished, abused and all things in between because they are individuals functioning in their own societal category.  A great example would be the biblical account of Joseph (the one with the fancy coat) who was sold into slavery... and eventually would marry and become the most powerful many outside of the nobility, all of which he did as a slave.


Again however, I don't think the way we play the game allows for slaves.  Everyone can be employed, nobles still get offended when some "nobody" guard employed by their house gets a cross-eyed look from across a tavern, employment is for life, all people are trusted on the same level... there just isn't a place for slaves.

[Naiona]

First, let me say that there are NPC slaves in game with a great deal of power.  As staff, we try to portray an ingrained slavery system that covers all aspects of society and I will try to get those new documents available in the next week or two.

Secondly,  I have yet to see anything in this thread that hasn't been tried in game yet.  I've been very carefully watching PC slaves for a couple of years now, with hopes of 'fixing' the problem.  It has been one of my central focuses.  Unfortunately, even when these 'new' approaches are tried, the slave PC still suicides or stores with a very few exceptions.  

Does anyone have additional ideas that might help but haven't been mentioned yet?  I would very much like to implement some very limited in-game slaving raids, but at this point I see no way to do that without considering the capture a PC-death and insta-storing at that time.    Until we come up with a method that people feel comfortable with, the slaving project is on hold.

[Ritley]

First, let me say that there are NPC slaves in game with a great deal of power.  As staff, we try to portray an ingrained slavery system that covers all aspects of society and I will try to get those new documents available in the next week or two.

Secondly,  I have yet to see anything in this thread that hasn't been tried in game yet.  I've been very carefully watching PC slaves for a couple of years now, with hopes of 'fixing' the problem.  It has been one of my central focuses.  Unfortunately, even when these 'new' approaches are tried, the slave PC still suicides or stores with a very few exceptions.  

Does anyone have additional ideas that might help but haven't been mentioned yet?  I would very much like to implement some very limited in-game slaving raids, but at this point I see no way to do that without considering the capture a PC-death and insta-storing at that time.    Until we come up with a method that people feel comfortable with, the slaving project is on hold.

More freedom to the role. How about creating larger slave pens, with about fifteen rooms with lot's of oportunities for solo emoting.  Perhaps a regiment of things to do for slaves as well.

[EvilRoeSlade]

Well, first we should compile everything that has been unsuccessfully tried into one big list.  After that's done, we should carefully consider that list, think of the underlying themes that each example on the list has in common, and try to devise new approaches that fall outside that scope.

I'd really love to help but I can't work with a bunch of disparate posts full of hearsay and inaccurate player perspectives.

[Tlaloc]

Secondly,  I have yet to see anything in this thread that hasn't been tried in game yet.  I've been very carefully watching PC slaves for a couple of years now, with hopes of 'fixing' the problem.  It has been one of my central focuses.  Unfortunately, even when these 'new' approaches are tried, the slave PC still suicides or stores with a very few exceptions.

Not to undercut Naiona here, but of the 4 (or there abouts) Byn Mul's I've seen roll through the clan, only one stored due to boredom/inactivity. The rest I've had really good responses with, with a couple PCs pointing to those roles as some of the high points in their playing time here. All died in variously spectacular ways in combat in one way or another.

I will say that all of the Muls had to deal with long periods of 'nothing much to do'. However, these periods typically coincided with lulls in the Byn itself. As the clan got bigger and more active, the PC Mul's found they had much more to 'do' and generally had more fun.

Maybe some of those players could chime in on this discussion (if they haven't already), and give their impressions?

[LoD]

Bond Slaves

Grant slaves some degree of freedom by placing more control into the hands of the slaver.  Not physical control, but psionic control through a shift in the master-slave relationship.  These slaves, most likely the only kind a PC would be allowed, would become known as "bond slaves".

Develop a bond between the master and slave, granting limited abilities that would allow the master some control over the slave from any distance.  Let the master exact both some amount of punshiment and, perhaps, even death to the slave should they betray or overstep their boundaries.  This relationships would have be integrated into the game as an "acceptable" use of the Way so as not to alarm people into thinking they are mindbenders.

This new control would do a few things.  One would be to allow the slave more freedom to travel and pursue the master's interests beyond the normal scope they do now.  If the master-slave bond was of a nature that disallowed the slave a will disobey, then you suddenly have more opportunities for them.  They could take jobs as scouts, hunters, ambassadors, spies and other interesting roles without raising the questions, "Why would this person continue to be a slave if they were allowed outside the city?"

If you remove the need for the physical whip, then you have a lot more room to work with, both for the master and the slave.  There would need to be a way for the bond to be broken down and/or removed.  And that might be an interesting role for a mindbender.

The second thing this "bond slave" idea might achieve is creating a whole layer of how slaves are perceived.   No longer are they simple property, but potentially the most loyal of servants and something that a city-state would understand to be both nearly incapable of betrayal and tied to its master in a way that cannot be won over with material possessions or physical torture.

Since slaves are normally a special application, I don't think this would be too difficult to integrate into the system.  And it might actually bring some interesting RP for slaves that are forced into the role -- both in the RP of being conditioned for the mater-slave relationship as well as after the conditiong is over.  With the idea of a "bond slave",  there becomes a coded measure of control in place to reinforce their new position.

-LoD

[EvilRoeSlade]

Having played a (fairly short-lived) Byn mul, I would say that the successes are largely related to the superior structure of the clan itself.  As long as the infrastructure is there, the clan can be active, and can do so without a good deal of immortal support.

The main strength of the T'zai Byn's infrastructure is that the clan has a goal, that everyone can understand and everyone can fairly well work towards.  This infrastructure can be undermined when the leaders of the clan are ineffectual, but is always there, enduring through good leadership and bad.

I think that every clan could stand to have a clear goal in which everyone understands what's needed to be done to work towards.

[My 2 sids]

Two:  

A)   Maybe people interested in slaves would do better in the clans outside the two main cities... were play isn't so politically based.  A hunting slave or crafting slave where the entire group is depending on them may have more to do.

B)   I'd say perhaps a slave program.  Like someone mentioned enslaving someone is one punishment the templarate could inflict.  If you had the two city's houses have a "school" and work the slaves (like for a year or defined amount of time) maybe people would be more open to the idea.

[Aldiel]

Slavery is an extremely, extremely, extremely restricted role. PCs should never be forced into it, and I think the idea of "either take this extremely restricted role or DIE" isn't much of a choice at all.

It takes a certain kind of player to enjoy being a slave, and there's a reason we see so few of them in game.

Suck it up dude, this is armageddon.  :twisted:   A good RPer should have fun playing any role, and should be excited when his plans for his character are suddenly changed by IC events.

[Aldiel]

Does anyone have additional ideas that might help but haven't been mentioned yet?

You know what would be fun?  To make those players who get karma revoked for bad RP, so that they have negative karma, be forced to play slaves.   :twisted:   Mwhahaha.  (Of course, I'm just kidding here.  Slavery is a very hard thing to play)

[spawnloser]

Suck it up dude, this is armageddon.  :twisted:   A good RPer should have fun playing any role, and should be excited when his plans for his character are suddenly changed by IC events.

So, if you think so, Aldiel, lemme know who you're playing so that I can take away all of his/her freedoms besides those I permit and see how much you like continuing the character.  A good RPer could still not enjoy certain parts of certain roles, but can play them well regardless.  That's the diffeence here.

[Aldiel]

Ibusoe, your post was so big, I only got through like half of it, and although what I read seemed good and true, these are -not- misconceptions for veteran players, and especially not for staff!  I don't know where you got this idea that slavery is incredibly rare or, that if you have some experience playing, that you can't play a slave.  I have interacted with lots of slaves over the years.  Now, I would like to see just a few more people playing slaves, but the problem is most noobs are turned off by slavery.  I personally think it's awesome and whole-heartedly embrace it.  :twisted:  One thing I got to in your theses that I did not agree with was this bit about commoners having slaves.  Do you have any idea how much it costs to take care of a slave?  Successful merchants, bards, and officers might have slaves, but I could hardly imagine some fresh hunter running around with a slave unless you're planning on feeding your NPC every time you are hungry.

[Aldiel]

Suck it up dude, this is armageddon.  :twisted:   A good RPer should have fun playing any role, and should be excited when his plans for his character are suddenly changed by IC events.

So, if you think so, Aldiel, lemme know who you're playing so that I can take away all of his/her freedoms besides those I permit and see how much you like continuing the character.  A good RPer could still not enjoy certain parts of certain roles, but can play them well regardless.  That's the diffeence here.

Lol, spawny, I wasn't being entirely serious.

[spawnloser]

Lol, spawny, I wasn't being entirely serious.

Ah, my bad.

Oh, and on a side note:  my mother called me 'spawn' once...once.

[EvilRoeSlade]

Do you have any idea how much it costs to take care of a slave?

Probably less than it would cost to take care of a child.

You have to give it food and water, just like you would have to do with your kid.

You have to give it clothes, but you can give it crappy clothes that no free man would ever willingly wear, and you can let its clothes fall into disrepair and nobody is really going to complain.

If you're already paying for lodgings, your slave can stay there at no extra charge.

It seems to me that an independant merchant could own a slave (or even several) with relative ease.

[HunterKiller]

A good RPer should have fun playing any role

No.  By that rationale a "good worker" is someone who would have fun no matter what job they did.  Sounds idealistic but isn't very realistic.  Jobs (like playing roles) are best matched to people's strengths and weaknesses and some have even found good professions matching people with those jobs (hence the words job placement).  Regarding the game, a role should match a person's personality and time constraints (how often they can play).  Some roles are most certainly not for "good rpers".  The buck up attitude is a little strange one to take with a game, one should find enjoyment in the game itself and not get into the position of having to 'deal with it.'  That would be a sad waste of a great game.

- HK

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

I did not play a Byn mul, but rather a Kuraci slave. In my experience, within the proper inviroment, a PC slave has more than enough to do.

If I get the chance and time, I will app to play another Kuraci slave, or perhaps a Byn slave. I feel like a slave role actually increases your ability to role-play, both solo and in terms of fleshing out your character.

I understand the world much better now than I did perhaps a year or two ago, before playing the role. I would not want to take PC slavery out of the game.

I would suggest, if I might, that House Borsail, which trafficks in slaves, be revamped, however. I spent a short time with them before being sold a few years back, and I must say that then, the level of interaction was absolutely pitiful.

[Anonymous]

When I first started playing, muls were just a "better race" to be a fighter.  There wasn't any real distinction between muls and any other PC race.  The rule was that PC muls were "the exception".  There were so many "free muls" or "mercenary muls" that the concept that muls were slaves was completely lost on the general playerbase.

My chagrin that there were no slave hunters, no grand escapades to hunt human-intelligent quarry across the face of Zalanthas, no rebellion between master and servant, no carefully crafted assassinations by "letting" a highly-trained gladiator slave "escape" during an inconvenient moment... this chagrin gradually became a spite for the "exceptional PC free-mul".

Well, this grew into vogue with The Powers That Be (both player and immortal), and the concept of a "free" mul was eliminated.  

But the main problem was that no real infrastructure for slaves rose to compensate.  Things have <i>vastly</i> changed since I have last played, but I have also played a slave, a templar (borsail, no less), and a slave owner.  

My life as a slave consisted of being very loyal and incredibly bored.  My life consisted of being largely restricted to the house compound, and crafting bandages over... and over... and over... and over again.  I was then allowed to leave the tavern... so I spent the time wandering around and waiting for someone from my house to give me an order... because none of the "free" people where I was stationed would speak to me because I was a slave.

My life as a slave owner was a <b>constant</b> fight with the PCs.  There were the PCs who had no real reason to stick around as slaves.  i.e. you catch a thief, and give them the choice death in the arena or be my slave, and they say "I'll be your slave" then proceed to leave the city, blow you a rasberry and then give you the finger from just outside the gate.  No one would go catch them, bounties were ignored, and there was no way to force the issue psionically or otherwise.  Then there were the PCs who were so bored to tears being a slave, because there was really no good direction to give a PC slave in the existent Arm environment.   Go spy for me turned into giving me bad or simply made-up information.  Go fetch me this turned into a boring festival of endless mundanity.  Fight for me became a dull drudge because of lack of attendance at actual arena events.  

There was no real way to distinguish between being a slave and being a non-slave while retaining the freedom of play that made it interesting to play for both the owner and the slave.  There wasn't enough infrastructure inside the pits to be an isolated clan in and of itself.  There was no way to interact between slave owners and slaves in an isolated environment that separates (but bridges) the enslaved and the free.

In my mind, the appealing (for gameplay) distinction between free man and enslaved is one of two items: societal restriction or willingness to be enslaved.

If you knew that you would inevitably be returned if you ran away, there's the challenge of escape, the challenge of retrieval, and the challenge of control.  If you knew that the slaves are the more physically powerful of a group of people, there's the tension of maintaining "ownership" and using that power - whether it is voluntarily, subtly manipulated, or by force of psionic control.

But no structure or resources existed for that.  Otherwise, we, as players, would have to come up with some societal structure (like the HBO show Rome, that someone pointed out) that made the difference clear but appealing.

Maybe things have changed.