Gemmed and Slavery

[Southie]

Several times, both on the GDB and in game, I've seen the attitude expressed that "gemmed mages are slaves of Allanak". I personally think this statement is wrong, or an oversimplification at best, so I wanted to offer an alternative view.

Being enslaved implies that certain privledges are withheld from the slave and instead kept to the master. Slaves generally are considerered as property, not as people. In most cases a slave cannot own possessions save what is given to them by their master. A slave's freedom is sharply restricted - he usually doesn't get the right to travel wherever or whenever he wants. Often times he doesn't even get to choose what activities he can do on a given day and instead simply carries out orders from his handlers. The more trusted and privledged slaves may be given more freedom, but you usually will still not see a slave owning his own apartment, travelling anywhere without escort, or even being paid a wage for his work. And lastly, a slave gets no choice in who he works for.

The situation for a gemmed mage in Allanak is different. Yes, they have a "collar", the gem, which serves to identify them as a mage in the same way that a slave collar identifies a slave. However for the most part, in my opinion, the similarities stop there. Provided that gemmed follow the laws regarding magick and its use, 'on paper' a gemmer has the same rights as any other Allanaki commoner. A gemmed mage can own, buy, and sell property and can rent his own apartment. He can, if he so chooses, travel and leave the city without templarate restriction. (Whether or not a gemmed mage would want to leave Allanak is a different topic.)

Most importantly (and I think this is where misconceptions arise), not every gemmed mage is required to serve the templarate directly. Some gemmed mages will work directly for a templar, but many others won't. The gemmed are free to seek employment from outside groups or sell their services as an independent, provided they work within Allanak's laws. The major groups that hire gemmed (the Council of Allanaki Mages, and to a lesser extent House Oash) are usually tied to the templarate in some way, but gemmed aren't forced to work for them. It's completely conceivable that once a mage has received her gem, she would have no further meaningful dealings with the templarate at all, and instead just live a quiet, law-abiding life. The gem is a license for an elementalist to live in Allanak; it isn't a slave collar.

Templars can and do press gemmed mages into serves when need arises, but templars can press anybody into service when need arises. A templar pulling somebody off the road and ordering that person to complete a task isn't enslaving them.

Now it's certainly IC for many characters to see gemmed mages as slaves of Allanak (and ICly Allanak may even want them seen that way), but I wanted to make the point that seeing the role of a gemmed magicker as a slave role is, in my opinion, not quite correct.

[Armaddict]

The way it's always been explained to me...gemmed are allowed to live within Allanak as long as they -do- serve the Highlord with their powers when called upon.  The only exception being the noble houses, who can keep any mages they've hired from being used in order to protect their interests that may be invested in that mage.

I could be completely wrong, but in my opinion...this is what fits, to me.  While not slaves, the gemmed are still considered servants.  If one proves to be too much trouble, too rebellious, or something else making them irritating, they are just as easily discarded as a servant, because they are.  A servant that isn't serving becomes worthless and disposable.

Feel free to combat this.

[Southie]

When a mage is called upon to do something, they're expected to serve, yes. But that's really no different than a templar pressing a Bynner into service, or a hunter, or anybody else. It's a rare person that gets to refuse a templar when they get ordered to do something. In that respect the gemmed like any other commoner. In the same vein, if a commoner is being irritating or troublesome or rebellious, they'll probably get 'discarded' too.

The key point is that gemmed mages aren't required to do anything for the templarate besides follow the laws, unless they're told to. If the gemmed were all enslaved or in servitude, they wouldn't get a choice about doing anything besides working for the templarate exclusively.

[Armaddict]

Well I view the difference as the state of being there in Allanak.

Mages are allowed to dwell within the city not because of equal rights or anything of that nature, but because they can become very useful -tools- of the templarate.  In other words, they are openly allowed to be mages within the city for the sole purpose of being available to serve.

A bynner, or any other 'normal' commoner is not so much 'allowed' to live there as is a subject of Tektolnes until they fuck up and are made -not- allowed to live there.

While in effect, it's the same, in principle, it makes it pretty different in the social interactions each caste would receive to me.

[mansa]

It really depends on the templars and nobles in the game and how they choose to play their roles and how they choose to react to you.

Some do it some way, some do it another.  If you're a gemmed, all you can do is go along with the person with more power than you.

[Southie]

Yeah, I wasn't really wanting to go into social interaction and such to try and keep the thread clear of a fiery downward spiral about how mages should be treated in the city, whether they should be spit at in taverns and whatever.

The reasons for allowing the gemmed around aside, my point in posting this was just to clarify that playing a gemmed magicker doesn't mean you are explicitly a slave or tool of the templarate.

[flurry]

If you're a gemmed, all you can do is go along with the person with more power than you.

That's true whether you're a gemmed or not.

[Armaddict]

In the past, I've actually known some gemmed magickers who started hunting groups and the like.  They are allowed to make a living however they can.  The only difference is that at any given point, their work can be interrupted to face a demand of the templarate.  Which, as noted, is not that much different from anyone else, just likely much more common and much more 'apparent' with a mage.

[spawnloser]

Southie, unfortunately, in my eyes, there is a reason that the gemmed can be considered slaves but the reason can not be discussed because it is too sensitive of IC knowledge.  I don't want to give any suggestion about what this reason is... but I wish I could so that we could have a good discussion about this.

From a purely social standpoint, though, as Armaddict put it, most citizens are just that... citizens.  They are allowed to live there and do their thing unless special needs arise.  Magickers are allowed to live there, not as a citizen, but as a tool.  Most of the tools we see in real life (besides certain public figures, HA!) are objects, property.

To put it in simpler terms, anyone that wears a collar that shows another's control over them is enslaved in some way.

[Rindan]

Clearly, a gemmed is not exactly a slave, but they are not a normal commoner either.  I would put a gemmer somewhere in-between a commoner and a slave.  The gemmed share many similarities with a "normal" commoner.  Gemmed can own property, are free to come and go, and get protected by the law.  A gemmed can do most anything a commoner can.  Perhaps commoners might not allow gemmed to do certain things through social pressure and what not, but the Templerate and soldiers are unlikely to step in unless the gemmed is starting to create a scene.  Any sort of restrictions on a gemmer in the city are not by law, but by social convention.

There is another piece to being gemmed though that makes them more like a slave.  Gemmed, unlike any other free citizen, are indeed "collard".  Magikers are not allowed to live in the city ungemmed.  A magiker has no rights in the city and will be arrested, gemmed, or killed on sight.  The gem is a sort pass on the "all magikers must die" rule of Allanak.  Unlike a commoner who gets his "right" to live in the city without any sort of special effort, a gemmed is granted the right to live in the city.   By default, a commoner can live in Allanak unmolested.  By default, a magiker is slaughtered.  Without being granted the right to live in the city via the gem, the gemmed has fewer rights than an obsidian mining slave.  Of course, the implication to 'granting' a right is that it can be snatched away.  In the same way a slave is granted existence at the pleasure of his master, a gemmed is granted existence at the pleasure of the templerate.  The templerate can snatch a gemmed's existence away at any time, in the same way a master can put down a slave.

Further, the gemmed don't follow all the same rules of commoners.  It isn't just that they have to wear the gem.  They have to wear the gem and display it all times.  A magiker needs to mark himself at all times or risk the wrath of the templerate.  They are forced to be a distinct class separated from the commoner cast.  To make matters more stark, the Templerate make no effort to integrate commoners and gemmed and in fact actively encourages their seperation.  We are talking about a city with nearly 2000 years of history, and in all that time the Templerate has kept these two groups apart and made them distinct classes.

The templerate can and will press a gemmed into service as the tempelrate sees fit.  True, a templar can press anyone into service, but the consequences for refusal are much more dire for a gemmed.  A commoner can run and hide from a templar looking eager to snatch up warm bodies.  A gemmed can not.  The templerate can 'jerk the leash' as it were and quickly get compliance.  That gem is a big old 'property of the state' sign.  Templars don't keep commoners around to press them into service.  Templars do keep gemmers around for the very purpose of pressing them when there is need.

Finally, realize that a gemmed can not come and go as they please.  A commoner can jump on his kank, ride to Red Storm, Luir's, and Tuluk without drawing an eye.  The templerate doesn't mark Allanaki citizens in any way shape or form.  Gemmed are not so lucky.  The gemmed are given a mark that makes them dead on sight in half the world.  Even in the places outside of Allanak where they can go, they have a big old 'property of Allanak" sign strapped to their back.  A gemmer who values his life will always have his first loyalty be to Allanak not out of gratitude, but out of fear of the consequences.

Slave is clearly no exactly the right term.  While a gemmer might not be in a slave pen, he certainly is tagged and collard so that when the master comes around he is unquestioningly available to do his bidding.  A gemmer's existance is a granted existance that is easily taken away by the templerate.  In return the gemmer will serve or die when called upon and give his loyalty or his life to the Templerate.  Not exactly a slave, but certainly not a commoner either.  Gemmed are their own class with elements of both commoners and slaves.

So, if your point is that gemmed are not exactly slaves, can own property, and are free to move around for the most part, sure, I doubt anyone disagrees.  That said, they are hardly commoners.  With the exception of true slaves, they are probably some of the least free people in Allanak.

[Armaddict]

Rindan explained it way better than I did

[Southie]

Yeah, again... my point wasn't that gemmed are like every other commoner. It's just that it seems as if many people see the role of a gemmed mage as a templar's slave and nothing but, and that's not true.

Like I said, one part of the gem is just that it serves as a license for a mage to exist in Allanak. I purposefully left out some of its other functions from my post. Are gemmed mages under tight-fisted control of the templarate? Yes, certainly. Does Allanak let them hang around mainly so they can be used? Again, yes. But that doesn't make them slaves. A slave's existance would be to be used by the templars and nothing else. Gemmed mages can be traders, hunters, healers, mercenaries, crafters, aides, spies, and so on, and they don't need to work solely for the templars in doing this. As long as a gemmer obeys the laws and does whatever a templar commands when called on, he's free to make his own choices about everything else. This leaves them with more or less the same options for what they can do as any other commoner, if you leave social restrictions and inhibitions aside for a moment.

Obviously wearing a gem is publicly outing yourself to be a magicker and accepting all the stigmas and hate that comes with it. Wearing a gem also restricts your travel options, but it isn't the templarate forbidding gemmed to travel, it's their nature. Gemmed mages CAN go where they please, they probably just don't WANT to if they enjoy living. Your average noble's slave in contrast won't be given the right to just ride out the gates as they please, and if they do manage to get away, they'll probably be living a life on the run with bounty hunters behind them.

So if you are an ungemmed elementalist, you can live you life "free", in hiding, knowing that the laws of nearly everywhere in the worlld will have painful consequences for you if you're found out. Some characters may want to do this, trying to lead a semblance of a mundane life rather than be publicly identified as a mage. The tradeoff you get for this "freedom" is either having to live far away in isolation, beyond the reach of the cities, or trying to live in secrecy without being discovered by authorities. On the other hand, the character can go to Allanak and get the gem, and exchange some of that "freedom" for the right to live openly in a city, without having to worry about being discovered or hunted. A mage is giving the templarate some control over their life, but he isn't resigning his life to enslavement the way most normal slaves' lives are led.

The misconception I see a lot is that every gemmer serves the templarate and nobody but, and once you take the gem, your only option is to work for templars. Gemmed aren't commoners, but they mostly have a say in how they live their lives and what they do, whereas slaves pretty much have none.

[Yokunama]

I would put a gemmer somewhere in-between a commoner and a slave.

I believe 'puppet' is the word you are looking for.

[X-D]

Slave/puppet same thing...mages in allanak are directly enslaved to the templarate/highlord...period. And Are protected in the same manner (normaly) As any other property. If they act up, they are punished, if they do not come when called...same. They need not get paid for services...hell...most other slaves do better, they are cared for. Gemmed are slaves left to sink or swim.

Anything else...I cannot say because, as Rindan and others have said...too IC sensitive.

[Adiadochokinesis]

Also, it's completely possible that character who do now know the relationship as well as most players simplify it for means of insulting Allanak and mages. However, slave does not necessarily always have bad connotations. Quite a few slaves are in very, very, very envious positions.

[spawnloser]

Rindan explained it way better than I did

Ditto this.  Well-put, Rindan.

Think of it this way... the gem is the 'piece of flare' that the Templarate makes the jew... sorry, the gemmed wear.   They aren't exactly slaves, but they aren't exactly not slaves.  They enjoy some freedoms, but they are leashed pretty firmly, as Rindan said, and lack other freedoms for having that leash.

As Addidaskinesis said, calling gemmed slaves is an oversimplification used by some... but I mostly see this only in game.  Shouldn't that be addressed in game?  I'm sure we all know that gemmed are not truly slaves, but our characters may think that.

[Southie]

As Addidaskinesis said, calling gemmed slaves is an oversimplification used by some... but I mostly see this only in game.  Shouldn't that be addressed in game?  I'm sure we all know that gemmed are not truly slaves, but our characters may think that.

I've seen the oversimplification and misperception used pretty often OOCly, which is why I posted. Also, ICly, the templarate is probably completely fine with people thinking mages are completely enslaved. Hard to address in game.

But it's statements I've seen like, "No way, getting a gem sucks, I don't want to be a slave to Allanak." or "Gems are just slaves with a looser leash than others." that I felt like needed clarification. They're on a leash and kept under control, but they still have personal freedoms and can make their own choices, for the most part. The things they can't do (refuse a templar, act out of line, work against the city) are things that basically everybody can't do without the same risk, it's just much more obviously curtailed for gemmed, who need stronger control methods to make up for their more dangerous potential.

[Pale Horse]

I've always been of the opinion that the Gemmed are "Second-class citizens" of Allanak.  They're still commoners, but they're in a unique situation, one where they live there at the sufferance of the state(Read: Highlord and Templars).  Their position in society is similar to what the Jews faced during a period of time, as I think spawnloser hinted at.  They can do anything that a normal commoner can do, but there's a limit to that due to prejudice.  To their rulers, they're a selection of commoners with extra ability that they'll want to take advantage of/get rid of, and so mark them to keep tabs on them.  Hmm..I guess as an example, think of when the King of Spain exiled all Jews from his country.  One of those Jewish families were the biggest dealers in gems and jewelry in the Old World, and they took that business and inventory with them to the Ottomans.  Also, they'd picked up the workings and making of guns and turned this information over to their turkish rulers, who were more than happy to accept them.  Their king said something like "You call Ferdinand a wise king, he who impoverishes his own kingdom and enriches mine?".  Magickers are the Jews with the finances and gun knowledge.  Dangerous to have around and a group that most of the known world would rather have eliminated, but there's just so much potential there for those who can "control" them, that doing so perhaps wouldn't be the best thing they did.

[Troicha]

Gemmed are second-class citizens in a society with brutal authoritarian rule. Yet, they are still citizens, not slaves in the legal sense.

No one owns a gemmer (other than the templarate as a whole, which owns anyone and everything in Allanak), and a gemmer can still make contracts.

No, seriously. Go hire a gemmer  today. Use a Drovian to kill that bastard Malik who knocked your firebreather out of your hand yesterday, in the Gaj, right before he started that brawl that was so bad the militia came in and threw everyone in the cells for two days. The fucker deserves it, and death by Drovian is SO MUCH NASTIER than a simple assassin.

Do it.

You know you want to.

[lurkus ignoramus]

What about the fact that you have to deal with a soul sucking servant of darkness to do so?

[Troicha]

What about the fact that you have to deal with a soul sucking servant of darkness to do so?

True, but how much do you hate him? You won't have to touch the gemmer, who will SUCK OUT HIS SOUL, and you can always use a breed as your go-between.

[Armaddict]

Edited:  In retrospect, my post was completely off-topic

[Troicha]

I do tend to agree that the opposing points of view are valid interpretations. My point is merely that either are, depending on the character, and that one takes advantage of the unique social position of gemmers.

[Little Darkness]

It may be simplistic to call gemmed 'slaves', but there are very IC reasons why some would call them slaves.
It has nothing to do with the IC or OOC understanding of the institution of slavery in Zalanthas, imho.

If my character calls them slaves, it is because of considerations that are totally in character.

[Bebop]

Having played a southern templar I will tell you, the templars OWN the gemmed.  They have theirs ways and a gem is so much more than a collar.

Gemmers are not like normal citizens.  If a templar says jump you say how high.  If a templar says cut out your own tongue, do it.  The ONLY, the ONLY reason that a mage is allowed to find some lower form of coexistance (And they are lower then the common man unless stated otherwise) is that their magicks are to be USED for the templarate and Highlord.  Do you think Tek is doing it because he's nice?  He's doing it to get something out of them and when that use is over the mage might as well be too.