Gemmed and Slavery

[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.