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.

[Troicha]

Templars own commoners, too.

Do you think Tek lets grebbers live in his city because he's nice?

No, they're useful.

We're talking about legal slavery. Mages can still make contracts, have not been bought by an owner, have a few meagre "rights" under the law, and when a mage is killed, the criminal is wanted for murder, not destruction of valuable property.

(That last might actually mean the murderer is pursued LESS, though, depending on how well affiliated the mage was.)

[Southie]

Troicha has it right. I thought Pale Horse's summary was good too.

The post isn't about IC views of characters, who are of course free to think whatever they like. IC considerations aren't what I wanted to address, and neither is whether or not templars can control the gemmed. We all seem pretty clear on that.

What I wanted to talk about was the OOC misperception that gemmed mages are, legally, nothing but collared slaves of Allanak, and by extension the OOC role of a gemmed mage is a slave role where one has nothing to do but be used by a templar.

So yes, mages are bound to follow templars' orders and can be punished when they don't. Though they have a unique means of being made to do this, just about every other commoner in Allanak has to do what a templar says or risk punishment, too. The point is that mages, being nominally considered people and not slaves/property in the eyes of the law, are not obligated to only serve the templarate, though they can be drafted to do so at any time. Outside of the times when they're ordered to help a templar with something, they're free to do whatever other (lawful) stuff they want. A slave doesn't get that freedom.

The differences are maybe a bit subtle, but the major point of the post was to say that playing a gemmed slave has more potential than just being a templar's bitch/slave. A templar can easily make you her bitch whenever she wants, but you also don't have to be a gemmed for that, either.

[Bebop]

Troicha has it right. I thought Pale Horse's summary was good too.

The post isn't about IC views of characters, who are of course free to think whatever they like. IC considerations aren't what I wanted to address, and neither is whether or not templars can control the gemmed. We all seem pretty clear on that.

What I wanted to talk about was the OOC misperception that gemmed mages are, legally, nothing but collared slaves of Allanak, and by extension the OOC role of a gemmed mage is a slave role where one has nothing to do but be used by a templar.

So yes, mages are bound to follow templars' orders and can be punished when they don't. Though they have a unique means of being made to do this, just about every other commoner in Allanak has to do what a templar says or risk punishment, too. The point is that mages, being nominally considered people and not slaves/property in the eyes of the law, are not obligated to only serve the templarate, though they can be drafted to do so at any time. Outside of the times when they're ordered to help a templar with something, they're free to do whatever other (lawful) stuff they want. A slave doesn't get that freedom.

The differences are maybe a bit subtle, but the major point of the post was to say that playing a gemmed slave has more potential than just being a templar's bitch/slave. A templar can easily make you her bitch whenever she wants, but you also don't have to be a gemmed for that, either.

Let me put it this way.  Someone in the Arm is going to look at a mage as less than themselves.  They are all citizens of the Highlord but a mage is a -mage- they are there to do the bidding of the city.  Sure oocly we all know that the templarate is corrupt.  But that isn't the way the common man sees it.  Just a noble will truly believe they are BETTER than a commoner, a commoner will truly believe they are BETTER than a slave or mage and a mage is typically seen on the same level as someone lacking total freedom whether it's true or not.  They are the untouchables (more so even than a slave that isn't going to rot your face off with their curses.)

[Stroker]

Let me put it this way.  Someone in the Arm is going to look at a mage as less than themselves.  They are all citizens of the Highlord but a mage is a -mage- they are there to do the bidding of the city.  Sure oocly we all know that the templarate is corrupt.  But that isn't the way the common man sees it.  Just a noble will truly believe they are BETTER than a commoner, a commoner will truly believe they are BETTER than a slave or mage and a mage is typically seen on the same level as someone lacking total freedom whether it's true or not.  They are the untouchables (more so even than a slave that isn't going to rot your face off with their curses.)

Having said that, mages are not slaves. Would a slave trade places with a magicker? Probably not.... Would a magicker trade places with a slave? Probably, yes.

[Lizzie]

Agreed with Bebop. Also, unless the collar is made of an unbreakable material with an unbreakable lock, a slave -can- remove his collar. A gemmed mage -cannot- remove the gem. A gemmed mage has no choice in whether or not he wants to wear that gem. Once it's on, it's on. You love that gorgeous silk scarf in the Kadian shop? Oh well, can't wear it. Need something to protect your neck when you're hunting? Sucks to be you then.

Your average Bynner is given scads upon scads of training with his weapons and shield. He can wield his weapon and use that -hugely trained- shield if he is attacked in the city, to defend himself. A gemmed mage is not ALLOWED to do the same with the weapon and shield of their own abilities. A Tor slave has more freedom than a gemmed mage, when it comes to self-defense.

In addition, the OOC "knowledge" that a gemmed mage isn't a slave is irrelevent, because the IC perception indicates otherwise. ICly, gemmed mages are property of the templarate, they come and go because the templarate has allowed it, and a gemmed mage can be stopped even if that gemmed mage isn't anywhere near the city, by virtue of that lovely little piece of jewelry magickally glued to their skin around their neck.

OOCly, mages don't exist. ICly, they do, and ICly, gemmed mages -are- the magickal equivalent of "slaves with perks".

[Troicha]

We're talking about two different things: social classes and legal classes.

Southie and I are speaking of legal classes: people can still hire gemmers to do work (even magickal work, if you have it that needs doing) and can still make agreements with them, if they're so inclined.

Most everyone else is speaking of social classes: saying that gemmers are seen by the populace as little better than dirt, or muls, and that in the eyes of the commoners the gemmer's collar is at least as degrading, if not more so, as a slave's collar.

Both camps are right. Keep them both in mind.

[Southie]

Most people are talking about what a mage is socially seen as, yeah. We've been talking about what mage legally is in Allanak, and I'm also talking about the OOC role of a gemmed mage not just being a slave role. What people see gemmers ICly as is not really at issue here. Gemmed might be seen by various groups as anything from common citizens to second-class vermin, from useful pets to a scourge that needs to be wiped out, to slaves/tools that aren't even people. All of this is absolutely valid because it all depends on what an IC character might think.

I specifically wanted to avoid discussion of how gemmed mages should socially be treated or thought of and focus on the fact that they are legally allowed, "in the eyes of the law", to do most of the same things an Allanaki commoner can, and prohibited from most of the same things an Allanaki commoner is prohibited from. Most things a commoner would be legally allowed to do, a gemmed mage could theoretically be allowed to do also. Whether social pressures would let the mage be successful, or whether anyone would want to hire a mage to do a certain thing, isn't really in the scope of the discussion I was trying to raise.
Maybe this doesn't make them commoners exactly, but they aren't considered slaves or property like Borsail muls or obsidian miner slaves are. This opens up more freedoms than a slave (a slave in legal terms) gets.

Aside from the law, I wanted to raise the point about the OOC misperception because OOCly, nobody should think if you play a mage, you're playing a slave who is completely dependent on templarate masters. Nobody should be turned off from playing a gemmed mage because they think the role is going to just be about being Allanaki property.

[X-D]

Legally the mage is what the templar says he is.
And that can change from templar to templar, and they will all be correct.

And thats pretty much all anybody need know about it.

[Troicha]

True. That's also true of anyone and everyone else in Allanak.

Though I'll admit gemmer positions are a bit more volatile.

The point still stands, though. Gemmers are able to play more roles than just:

Code Select Expand

Holding a rat dangling by its tail over the hunched, malformed man's head, out of reach, the tall, charismatic templar says in sirihish,
"And if you cast well, so that I can carry around a new magickal toy, I'll feed you this week. Fresh rat, too, instead of dead for two months in the sewer, like last time."

Clapping his hands and jumping clumsily with nearly unnatural glee, the hunched, malformed man says, in lisping, transylvanian sirihish,
"Yesss, master, yessss....Amosss will cast powerful magicksss for you, you'll see!"

though I would SO play that gemmer.

[Armaddict]

Right.

I do feel like even though it's been reiterated, the final statement seems to exempt the idea of the mages being an entire class of their own though.  This class -could- seem like the commoner class except for that it essentially -sets you aside- to be looked for by the templar looking for services.  You are prominently displayed to be easily found.  It -is- your purpose there.

The normal life is entirely possible.  But most mages, I think, will always find themselves at the whim of a templar for even a simple service at one time or another.  I could be wrong, but I bet there are commoners who can claim to have never spoken to one.

[Throttle]

Templars can order any commoner to do anything, although some are loosely protected by affiliations. If you're the hunting lieutenant of House Kadius, a templar can boss you around, but it might cost him dearly next time he tries to order a new hat from the House. Templars rarely give important orders to random commoners because practically all of them are stupid, worthless peasants, whereas gemmed mages can be of great use, which is the main difference in my opinion. Regular commoners and gemmed commoners abide to the same laws, with some additional neccesary rules for magickers such as the ban on magick used anywhere outside of their temples unless ordered by a templar; if any individuals are discriminating against a gemmed, such as disallowing them entry into their tavern or charging them double price for a sack of flour, that is their prerogative. Gemmed mages aren't in service of the templarate by default, but just as any other commoner they have to obey a templar, and that's much more likely to happen for Amos the Vivaduan than for Malik the Miner.

[Armaddict]

Gemmed mages aren't in service of the templarate by default, but just as any other commoner they have to obey a templar, and that's much more likely to happen for Amos the Vivaduan than for Malik the Miner.

I'm actually fairly certain we're in complete agreement, but like stating things differently.  When I talk about it, I -have- to have it included (or else I feel something important is left out) that magickers are only allowed to be citizens in order to be used by the templarate.  They are useful.  Normally, they would be outlawed, if not for this usefulness.  To beat on the dead horse at this point, while they can function just as any other commoner, they are NOT like every other commoner in that their right to be sitting on that stool or living in that house is openly, pointedly, solely so that they are available to be called on.

Like I said, I think we're in agreement but like putting a different mood to it.  I think a mage who causes a lot of trouble will generally be dealt with more harshly than an average joe who causes lots of trouble.  They are breaking a very real 'contract' that their gem signifies.  Because of this, it is much easier to allocate them as a tool to the templarate and nothing more.  The exception being those who are employed legally by others, such as noble houses.  I have seen magickers refuse to do something for a templar because it was forbidden to do so without permission of their employer.  That, however, requires that their employer have some weight to carry against the templar who might very well get pissed off.

[Salt Merchant]

Would a magicker trade places with a slave? Probably, yes.

I disagree with this completely.

A magicker may not be well-liked, but it's still infinitely better to be able to do as you wish (within the bounds of the laws) than to be someone's personal property to be used and abused upon that person's whim.

Have you considered that some magickers may even be proud of their abilities?

As for magickers being slaves of the templarate, it's pretty easy for a magicker to make herself scarce if she doesn't want to be grabbed and used.

A gemmed mage is not ALLOWED to do the same with the weapon and shield of their own abilities. A Tor slave has more freedom than a gemmed mage, when it comes to self-defense.

What is being claimed here? That a gemmer who is attacked in the streets is not allowed to pull a weapon and defend himself? He certainly is. He's just not allowed to start slinging magick around to defend himself.

[Stroker]

I disagree with this completely.

I think the stigma that goes with being a magicker is worse than any abusive slavemaster. Then again, this would depend on the character, their personality, etc. I can see where you're coming from, but I think you should also be able to see just how unfortunate it is being a magicker....

Have you considered that some magickers may even be proud of their abilities?

Yes, but if they are brought up in a world that hates magickers, I assume they're not too fond of their abilities and would do anything to be absolved of such a burden. Now, that's my perception of most such individuals. On the other hand, I added the qualifier 'probably' with this in mind.

[lurkus ignoramus]

Aren't some Zalanthan slaves proud of that fact?

Can't a slave be a respected position?

As for magickers being slaves of the templarate, it's pretty easy for a magicker to make herself scarce if she doesn't want to be grabbed and used.

Uh... ICly?  Gems?  How?

[Salt Merchant]

As for magickers being slaves of the templarate, it's pretty easy for a magicker to make herself scarce if she doesn't want to be grabbed and used.

Uh... ICly?  Gems?  How?

The way anyone makes themselves scarce. Don't be in the same place as a templar at the same time.

[Armaddict]

A magicker may not be well-liked, but it's still infinitely better to be able to do as you wish (within the bounds of the laws) than to be someone's personal property to be used and abused upon that person's whim.

Just wanted to point out...this may be how it seems to you, and even how it should be to you...but this is not necessarily true.  Keep in mind there are plenty of slaves IC who have no desire to be freed, and are the most faithful of servants, and are well treated.  While bad situations exist, there are also very good situations.

[Lizzie]

As for magickers being slaves of the templarate, it's pretty easy for a magicker to make herself scarce if she doesn't want to be grabbed and used.

Uh... ICly?  Gems?  How?

The way anyone makes themselves scarce. Don't be in the same place as a templar at the same time.

ICly, that is categorically incorrect.
OOCly, would be a code thing and I have no idea if it's true or not from a coded standpoint. And if it -is- true, no one will mention it here, because knowledge of the truth of the matter would be IC, not OOC.

[Agent_137]

A magicker may not be well-liked, but it's still infinitely better to be able to do as you wish (within the bounds of the laws) than to be someone's personal property to be used and abused upon that person's whim.

Just wanted to point out...this may be how it seems to you, and even how it should be to you...but this is not necessarily true.  Keep in mind there are plenty of slaves IC who have no desire to be freed, and are the most faithful of servants, and are well treated.  While bad situations exist, there are also very good situations.

Come out of the American Slave Tradition and enter the Roman version, please. Zalanthan slavery is NOT AMERICAN SLAVERY. All well bred slaves are happy to be slaves, or they aren't well bred and aren't let out of the mines.

[Salt Merchant]

As for magickers being slaves of the templarate, it's pretty easy for a magicker to make herself scarce if she doesn't want to be grabbed and used.

Uh... ICly?  Gems?  How?

The way anyone makes themselves scarce. Don't be in the same place as a templar at the same time.

ICly, that is categorically incorrect.

Can you offer proof of this?

[Troicha]

Can we not talk about IC mechanisms like this? Thanks.

[Salt Merchant]

Then I'll just say that it sounds like any IC mechanism

(1) isn't fair in the sense that the PC magicker cannot maintain anonymity by being one magicker in a vast population of magickers and
(2) isn't something that a magicker is necessarily aware of until the time comes, so the magicker will at least have the illusion of not being on a short leash, if indeed it's not more than just an illusion.

[Salt Merchant]

A magicker may not be well-liked, but it's still infinitely better to be able to do as you wish (within the bounds of the laws) than to be someone's personal property to be used and abused upon that person's whim.

Just wanted to point out...this may be how it seems to you, and even how it should be to you...but this is not necessarily true.  Keep in mind there are plenty of slaves IC who have no desire to be freed, and are the most faithful of servants, and are well treated.  While bad situations exist, there are also very good situations.

Come out of the American Slave Tradition and enter the Roman version, please. Zalanthan slavery is NOT AMERICAN SLAVERY. All well bred slaves are happy to be slaves, or they aren't well bred and aren't let out of the mines.

My impression is that slavery in Tuluk and slavery in Allanak are two very different things. So blanket statements can't really apply.

[Bebop]

Let's say you love America (I know this is a stretch but bear with me).  You love America, you're a Christian, you love Jesus.

Then one day you find yourself involuntarily shredding Bibles and setting off nukes.  You don't want to but you can't control it.  You are a terrorist.  No one likes you.  You're a mutant you're not normal.  All chances for a normal life are gone.  Your children (if you can still have them will be mocked or tainted.) Etc. Etc.

Magick is something that people are supposed to cope with, or if they do love it.  Love it behind closed doors.  I think MOST people, especially initially would trade the world to become a slave if only to rid them of the cancer that is magick.

Sure a mage doesn't HAVE to soley work for the Templars but ultimately they are at their command.  And no one is really going to hire a magicker accept Oash anyway.  And Oash is going to work with the Templarate.  Magickers are MEANT to be used in the south.  Not be some kind of common assistance.

Do I think that should change in the next game?  Yes.  Do I think it's silly to have several classes dedicated to isolation which leads to a lack of interaction and solo rp?  Yes.  But for now this is how it is.  Magickers are BARELY tolerated where slaves are desired.  And though a slave maybe set free, a magicker will always be a magicker.

[Marauder Moe]

I'm still not sure I understand how this isn't an IC issue.  Templars sometimes call the gemmed "slaves".  It's objective validity isn't important, just like it's not important whether the citizens of Tuluk are really "barbarians" or not.

[Inix77]

They are Slaves, essentially. They must always do what the Templar says, no questions, so is that not slavery? To the templars they are nothing put expendable pawns, essential what a slave is, so YES they are Slaves.

[Lizzie]

Yeah this is pretty confusing to me too. I mean, with all due respect to Troicha and Southie, what difference does it make what the players know about the IC status of gemmers in Armageddon? What matters, is what the CHARACTERS know about it. Because we're not playing this game outside the confines of the game. We're playing it in the game, in character. As if we, the players, didn't exist.

So fine - OOCly, I as a player knows that a gemmer is actually the guy who created the world, and is actually more powerful than Tektolnes. As a player, I know that all gemmers really DO eat babies, and do it for a fee. As a player, I know that all gemmers can actually take their gems off without any difficulties at all, it's just they have to type "xyzzy gem" instead of "remove gem."

It doesn't matter that I, the player, knows all that. It ONLY matters what my character knows. And my character knows that gemmers are, for all intents and purposes, untrusted slaves of the ALlanaki temparate, treated WORSE than slaves because at least slaves are given free food, free water, and free slave collars and loin clothes. Gemmers have to pay for all that or otherwise come up with it themselves. Gemmers do what the templars tell them to do, and are elsewise on their own for survival when the templars aren't telling them to do something. Gemmers CANNOT remove their gems. The gem is actually a piece of Tek's eyeball, and Tek watches everything the Gemmer does and will torture the gemmer if Tek happens to be watching him at the moment, no matter where in the world that gemmer is.

These are things my CHARACTER might know. What *I* know outside the game is completely and totally irrelevent.

[Salt Merchant]

They are Slaves, essentially. They must always do what the Templar says, no questions, so is that not slavery? To the templars they are nothing put expendable pawns, essential what a slave is, so YES they are Slaves.

So are commoners then. Woe to the commoner that defies a Templar's order.

[Inix77]

So are commoners then. Woe to the commoner that defies a Templar's order.

Yes, but a commoner can escape easily, where as a gemmed magicker cannot, and a commoner doesn't always have to deal with the Templars, where as a gemmed would.

[Throttle]

You're not a slave just because you have to obey the law. The law happens to be whatever the templar decides for the moment. In the real world, while laws are a lot less flexible, you still more or less have to do what the judge tells you to do; this does not make you a slave. Gemmed mages are not owned, they're not anybody's property by default, so they're not slaves. Certainly they are subjected to restrictions and circumstances that leave their lives somewhat similar to slavery in some regards, but they have freedom and rights within the law unless those are taken away at an individual basis. Everything else is social stigma.

[Marauder Moe]

Again, I say, the objective, OOC reality of the gemmed social/legal situation doesn't matter!  If there are people in-game, templars or otherwise, referring to gemmed elementalists as slaves then it is an IC problem, if one even considers it a problem at all, which I personally don't.  (I also personally/OOCly don't believe that the gemmed are truly slaves, though, and nor do I believe that Tuluk is less civilized than Allanak.)

[Troicha]

The point was to clarify the position so that players didn't get the mistaken impression that the only play option available to gemmers is dogs of the templarate.

The conversation has since spiraled off onto a completely different topic.

[Salt Merchant]

So are commoners then. Woe to the commoner that defies a Templar's order.

Yes, but a commoner can escape easily, where as a gemmed magicker cannot, and a commoner doesn't always have to deal with the Templars, where as a gemmed would.

This is because the gemmed are more useful than most commoners, not because they are closer to being slaves.

[Gimfalisette]

To throw another twist on the question:

Why are gemmed referred to ICly and OOCly sometimes as "slaves," but (commoner, non-slave) militia soldiers are not?

Neither of these groups are technically slaves. However, if you look at the criteria Southie laid out:

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.

...then militia soldiers come much closer.

I would guess that the difference in perception springs from the fact that soldiers voluntarily join up, whereas gemmers will be forced to take the gem whether they like it or not, or suffer the consequences.

[Southie]

I mean, with all due respect to Troicha and Southie, what difference does it make what the players know about the IC status of gemmers in Armageddon? What matters, is what the CHARACTERS know about it. Because we're not playing this game outside the confines of the game. We're playing it in the game, in character. As if we, the players, didn't exist.

The difference it makes is that players, using perceptions of the role that may not be entirely true, are using those perceptions to color their views on gemmed mages. Players seem to be thinking that the restrictions placed on gemmed mages are as severe as any other slave role. And they're not. Whether or not a character thinks a mage is as restricted as a slave or not is irrelevant to the discussion, which is that players shouldn't think they have to avoid playing a gemmed mage if they want to be "free".

Everything Bebop said in her most recent post was right, while she was talking about the perception of how gemmed might be viewed in Allanak. Neither Troicha nor I or anybody is arguing that gemmed mages should be treated like commoners, or given the same rights, or that treating a mage poorly is wrong. The entire reason I started this thread is statements like:

Do I think it's silly to have several classes dedicated to isolation which leads to a lack of interaction and solo rp?

A gemmed role is not a slave role. Gemmed mages are allowed to have interaction. They are not kept isolated in temples in chains and forced to spam cast until a templar needs them. They are not solely limited to being tools or dogs of the templarate. They often serve as tools at some points, but are not exclusively limited to that and isolated otherwise.

Personally I don't care if every PC in Allanak absolutely hates gemmed mages and stones them every chance they get. That's fine, that promotes conflict. There's nothing wrong with that. What I care about is that some players seem to resist the idea and OOCly avoid playing a gemmed mage because they think it ruins all opportunities for doing anything besides what a templar expressly commands them to do. Some people seem to think that a gemmed mage could never be a trader, mercenary, spy, explorer, travel guide, bard, hunter, crafter, aide, etc. because the templars wouldn't allow it. Some people think every gemmed mage MUST work for the templars and ONLY for the templars. All of that is completely untrue.

Let's take a hypothetical example of Lady Templar Tracy Tor and her relations with a commoner Cathy, her slave Sam, and gemmer George. (This is a general example, quite obviously you could find exceptions with nearly everything, but let's not derail this thread further debating those.) The final italiscized item in each list is the point I've chiefly been trying to make.

Commoner Cathy:
- Must do whatever Templar Tracy tells her to do. Is more capable of disobeying Tracy than Sam or George, but usually can't.
- Must follow every law of Allanak or risk Tracy's wrath.
- Can enter into contracts, buy/sell goods, etc. within the bounds of the law.
- Can travel without restriction, unless Tracy forbids it.
- Can run away and flee Allanak and probably get away with it, unless Tracy cares enough to hunt her down.
- OOCly is free to pursue almost any kind of interaction.

Everybody knows how Cathy's role works because most everybody has played it. As long as Cathy stays inside the bounds of the law and doesn't piss off the wrong people, she can do pretty much whatever she likes without being punished.

Tracy's Slave Sam:
- Must do whatever Templar Tracy tells him to do. Typically cannot disobey any order even if it occurs to him.
- Must follow every law of Allanak or risk Tracy's wrath.
- Typically can not do anything Tracy does not give him permission to do.
- Can not enter into contracts, buy/sell goods, etc. being property himself.
- Typically can not travel without permission, and when he does he's likely under guard... both to prevent a possible escape and/or to prevent something from damaging him. Depending on his function, Sam may not even be able to leave his estate or compound within the city.
- Can run away and flee Allanak, but will likely be hunted as an escaped slave.
- OOCly is limited to whatever interaction the restrictions placed on him allows for.

If Sam is skilled and trusted, he'll still have a very nice life and be well cared for. Sam's role can still be a fun one for players to play, but suffers from more restrictions than many others. Sam's life is completely lacking freedom. He must stay completely inside the bounds his master sets for his existance. If Sam is a well-trained slave, he's probably perfectly happy to live this way.

Gemmer George:
- Must do whatever Templar Tracy tells him to do. Can't really argue or disobey at all.
- Must follow every law of Allanak.
- Outside of the above, is legally free to do whatever he likes.
- Can enter into contracts, buy/sell goods, etc. within the bounds of the law.
- Can travel without restriction unless Tracy forbids it. Whether or not he wants to is up to him.
- Would have a very hard time running away from Allanak, even if he could find another society that would accept him.
- OOCly can pursue any kind of interaction, though he should be prepared for much of this to be negative against his PC.

Compared to the typical slave, then, George has lots of freedom. He's not really as free as a commoner, and social pressures restrict him as much as, very likely more than, legal ones do. But the role of a gemmed mage is not as restricted as the role of a slave. In other words, his role looks more like Cathy than like Sam.

Again, the main thrust of the post is: anything a templar would allow a commoner to do, he/she would also most likely allow a gemmed mage to do. A mage is far more limited in his options to disobey, which is like a slave, but is not restricted by the templars in the things available to him. Whether or not society would allow something is different, and perhaps templars might respond to curtail certain individual mages' actions if enough social pressure was applied. But if you examine the role of a gemmed mage versus the role of a slave, you will find significant differences that result from what they are legally allowed to do. Every single IC factor about social perceptions aside, a gemmed mage has the freedom to go unto the world and be hated upon. A slave typically risks punishment for so much as having an ale in a tavern without permission.

I hope that clarifies at least something of what I've been trying to say.

[Southie]

To throw another twist on the question:

Why are gemmed referred to ICly and OOCly sometimes as "slaves," but (commoner, non-slave) militia soldiers are not?

Militia soldiers are held to mostly the same restrictions as commoner employees of any other House. Whether or not you want to say working for somebody in an oppressive world like Zalanthis makes you their slave would be another interesting topic... for another thread. Legally slaves don't get a say over what they can own or who they can work for or where they can live or travel, but commoners (and gemmed, mostly) do, so there's the distinction.

[Stroker]

Fry: You know what the worst thing about being a slave is? They make you work hard without paying you or letting you go.
Leela: Fry, that's the only thing about being a slave.

I think I've made my point....

[Gimfalisette]

To throw another twist on the question:

Why are gemmed referred to ICly and OOCly sometimes as "slaves," but (commoner, non-slave) militia soldiers are not?

Militia soldiers are held to mostly the same restrictions as commoner employees of any other House. Whether or not you want to say working for somebody in an oppressive world like Zalanthis makes you their slave would be another interesting topic... for another thread. Legally slaves don't get a say over what they can own or who they can work for or where they can live or travel, but commoners (and gemmed, mostly) do, so there's the distinction.

I think you missed my point.

The soldier's freedom comes before making the choice to join the militia. That choice is a free choice. Afterwards, the soldier's role is much more like the slave's role than it is like the commoner's role. Soldiers don't have anything close to the kind of freedom afforded to merchant House employees; other than actually playing a PC slave role, I'm pretty sure the soldier's role is the most restrictive in the game.

The gemmer's freedom is there despite them being forced to take the gem. That is not a free choice; it's gem or die, usually. Afterwards, the gemmer's role is much more like the commoner's role than it is like the slave's role. Though the gemmer is hated/feared/barely tolerated/whatever, there's a ton of freedom in the role.

I'm not saying any of this is good or bad. I just think it's interesting to note--it seems to me the perception that gemmers are "slaves" comes from the mere fact of being forced to wear the gem in the first place. The gem is a symbol.

[Marauder Moe]

Are there so few gemmed mages that we really need a big OOC campaign to get people to play them?  A few months ago we seemed to have the opposite problem.

As an aside, most of the playable slave roles I've seen may be more restrictive than that of a gemmed, but are less isolationist.  PC slaves are often quite free to interact with their clanmates, and in many cases the common population in general.  A Byn mul probably gets as much interaction as a gemmer.  A Borsail pleasure slave probably gets much more, or at least has the potential to.

But anyway, what's wrong with ungemmed mages being afraid of getting the gem because they prefer their freedom?

What's wrong with an IC misconception being backed up by an OOC misconception?

Maybe I'd understand better if there was more discussion about what players should be doing differently rather than how they should be thinking differently.

[Throttle]

Well, one thing that I've seen in the game is that some templars treat gemmers as their slaves, not just in the sense of using them (which is perfectly fine and expected), but by being overly protective of them. I get the impression that nearly all gemmed PCs automatically fall into the "templar's pet" category, especially after CAM closed, and it happens because these mages are generally very useful to the templarate and because most of the plots and events that involve templars and soldiers also include the mages. But when the gemmers suddenly get that kind of attention and protection, even if it's of the less tangible kind, the result seems to be that noone dares treat them the way that the majority of the playerbase feels mages should be treated. I have seen some templars go to completely unreasonable lengths, scolding and punishing commoners for even insulting "their" mages; and even if that doesn't actually happen, I still feel that players are deterred from playing out the documented social stigma towards gemmed mages because noone really knows what might happen.

[Maybe42or54]

Fry: You know what the worst thing about being a slave is? They make you work hard without paying you or letting you go.
Leela: Fry, that's the only thing about being a slave.

I think I've made my point....

From an IC point of view, they feed you, give you good clothes, all you have to do is what they tell you, unless they just forget you exist and you have to tend to the kanks everyday.

[Rhyden]

Gemmers are not slaves. They're gemmers.

[Inix77]

I'd just like to say all of us are slaves............ARM rules us all....

[Adhira]

A gem gives a magicker permission to live in Allanak, without it they are killed.

Magickers are not the same level as your average commoner, they are set apart by their gem. They are marked in this way as citizens, servants an magickers of the state of Allanak.  The statement that gemmed are granted the right to live in Allanak is correct. It is only by the benevolence of the Highlord that they are tolerated to live. Every other person, be the dwarf, human or elf does not need to have this granted.

Are they slaves of the city state? No. They do not belong to the Templarate any more than any other person within Naks walls. But they are not the same as every other commoner. Legally they are not slaves, but as we all know, the law doesn't really apply in Zalanthas.

Once upon a time gemmed were considered Oash's domain, because near all of them worked for Oash, this was the playerbases assumptions based on what they saw IC.  People assumed if they played a gemmed, they'd be working for Oash.  If people are perceiving gemmed to be little more than Templars slaves in game it's more likely a reaction to what they are observing ICly.

To change that perception players of both the gemmed and the Templarate need to make an effort not to perpetuate that ICly. If you're a Templar walking around with a cadre of magickers, if you're a magicker who goes running to a Templar for work instead of working alone, going to an Oashi, finding some other employment, you're just reinforcing the belief.

I'm not sure if this was meant to be a recruitment post to get people to play gemmed, or to try and get gemmers to be something other than Templarate puppets. In the end most everyone is right. Gemmed are not slaves, they are different from your average commoner, they can have lives outside of being puppets of Templar/Noble House/Whatever. 

[Rindan]

I really fail to see the issue and I think everyone is arguing semantics. 

If you are talking about the OOC role, gemmers are not the same role as a slave role.  They will have different types of interaction with different types of people in the same way a Byner has a different experience than a noble.

If you are talking ICly, see the discussion above.  What you want to label it really doesn't matter.  The gemmer has an IC role in Allanak that is very different from the IC role of everyone else.  ICly, it is a restricted life that comes with many more chains than a commoners life.  ICly, you are a Templar's bitch if he wants to make you one.  ICly no one in their right mind is going to hire you for anything they wouldn't also want to tell the Templerate about.  ICly you are marked for death in half the world and can't function in every other place that isn't a wasteland or Allanak.  ICly, you are not an obsidian mining slave.

If you want to call it "slavery", a separate social class, or whatever... it is what is, regardless of the what one word you try and define it by.  I don't think there is any argument about what a gemmer is.  I think there is an argument about how best to define the word slavery.  That is an argument probably better argued on a dictionary forum rather than Armageddon's IMO.

So, is a gemmer by definition a slave?  It depends upon your definition, so lets not argue definitions.  Is a gemmer a radically different beast that a commoner?  Hells yes.

[Southie]

Soldiers don't have anything close to the kind of freedom afforded to merchant House employees; other than actually playing a PC slave role, I'm pretty sure the soldier's role is the most restrictive in the game.

Soldiers (in both cities as far as I know) are comparable to employees of the nobility in terms of restrictions on travel/schedules/rules. Slaves are more restricted, merchant house employees and independents are much less. It's a good note though that gemmed typically are "independent" in terms of employment and aren't bound to schedules and such either, you're right.

Are there so few gemmed mages that we really need a big OOC campaign to get people to play them?

Not at all - this wasn't intended to be a campaign to make people play them, just one to maybe help players understand what the role is and isn't.

But anyway, what's wrong with ungemmed mages being afraid of getting the gem because they prefer their freedom?

Absolutely nothing, but perceptions of how much freedom they lose might be skewed.

What's wrong with an IC misconception being backed up by an OOC misconception?

Depends what the misconception is about. If it's an IC misconception that makes people shy away from a role, city, or clan, I think it's bad. If it's an IC misconception that makes characters play closer to the docs than they would if they knew the OOC "truth", it's good.[/quote]

I'm not sure if this was meant to be a recruitment post to get people to play gemmed, or to try and get gemmers to be something other than Templarate puppets. In the end most everyone is right. Gemmed are not slaves, they are different from your average commoner, they can have lives outside of being puppets of Templar/Noble House/Whatever.

It was much more the latter than the former, trying to get players to understand that gemmers can be much more than puppets. When they're seen as something more than a slave or puppet or tool, there's more options for interaction, which ultimately causes more conflict and plots, and everyone wins.

Is the issue just semantic? Maybe, depending on how you want to define slavery, but when many people see the phrase "gemmers are slaves", they end up twisting that in connotations that it really isn't intended and end up with a too simplistic view of the role.

[some guy]

Bump.

So, how's the current IG gemmer situation, compared to the documentation and such? Just wondering. Not implying anything.

[Akaramu]

Bump.

So, how's the current IG gemmer situation, compared to the documentation and such? Just wondering. Not implying anything.

You mean, if they can currently be considered to be in a slave type role? That would probably be too IC for the GDB, such changes and developments are usually based on politics not everyone might know about.

[manonfire]

sing I have found | You can find | Happiness in slaveryyyyy

[Mood]

Bump.

So, how's the current IG gemmer situation, compared to the documentation and such? Just wondering. Not implying anything.

You mean, if they can currently be considered to be in a slave type role? That would probably be too IC for the GDB, such changes and developments are usually based on politics not everyone might know about.

I think he's asking if they're still running around in silks, pretending to be nobles.

[Salt Merchant]

I think he's asking if they're still running around in silks, pretending to be nobles.

This brings up a more general question. Are silks for nobles only (and for aides when the nobles decide to dress them up)?

Who else can wear them without being seen as a social pretender?

[Southie]

I think he's asking if they're still running around in silks, pretending to be nobles.

This brings up a more general question. Are silks for nobles only (and for aides when the nobles decide to dress them up)?

Who else can wear them without being seen as a social pretender?

Templars, merchants, important slaves, anybody else a noble or templar decides to dress up, and f-mes.

[Mood]

Personally, I'd like to see it restricted to nobles, templars, high-ranking (blood) merchants, some slaves, and concubines.

[ale six]

Personally, I'd like to see it restricted to nobles, templars, high-ranking (blood) merchants, some slaves, and concubines.

It's more fun to just play one of those people and beat the crap out of pretenders if you don't like the way they dress.

[jstorrie]

Personally, I'd like to see it restricted to nobles, templars, high-ranking (blood) merchants, some slaves, and concubines.

So play a Fale and abuse your authority by playing fashion police. Seriously. It'd be sweet.

[Tuannon]

Personally, I'd like to see it restricted to nobles, templars, high-ranking (blood) merchants, some slaves, and concubines.

It's more fun to just play one of those people and beat the crap out of pretenders if you don't like the way they dress.

This is pretty much how a lot of 'bad' decisions that find their way to public notice should be addressed.

Things like half elves who are too chummy with your sister, the variations are nearly limitless.

[Akaramu]

I think he's asking if they're still running around in silks, pretending to be nobles.

No idea, in that case. The last gemmer I saw running around in silks, and dressing his gemmer girlfriend up in silks, was years ago... and I suspected he had good IC reasons for it.

The buxom, rosy-cheeked half-giant covers both of her large round eyes, refusing to look at any gemmers. It makes people blind, they say.