Gemmed and Slavery

[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.