No more slaves

[MarshallDFX]

Thoughts?

Also, as a newb... Is this because the role is so restricted, as I read elsewhere?  Because it was being abused?  I assume those who are slaves already won't be stored.

[Adhira]

There should not be any current slave pc's in game. This policy has been in effect for some time now, it was posted in clan forums and people asking to play slaves have been informed of this policy.  We are now making sure that everyone is aware to save them the trouble of asking to play one.

[5 day lifespan]

Exactly.  I have known several people who WANTED to play slave roles and were not allowed to.  THis policy has been in effect for some time, I believe the official posting is just to avoid trouble than for any other reason.

The matter of being able to enslave characters is, in my opinion, no different than the ability to kill that person.  Both have the same OOC result: you do not get to play anymore.  I don't LIKE that notion, per se, as it precludes you from ATTEMPTING escape, which, in and of itself, can be a great RP experience, as can serving someone properly.  I know people who, IRL, have submissive tendencies, and would rather be directly told what to do and follow someone else's orders and be their bonded servant with no choice in the matter because that is a role they would like to play.  For whatever reason, the Imms do not want to allow it.

Well, I have heard reasons, I just agree with only half of them.    Be that as it may, this is no real change from long term policy.

[MarshallDFX]

There should not be any current slave pc's in game. This policy has been in effect for some time now, it was posted in clan forums and people asking to play slaves have been informed of this policy.  We are now making sure that everyone is aware to save them the trouble of asking to play one.

I had a brief comment on this, so I emailed adhira@armageddon.org, and CC'ed mud@armageddon.org.  Is this the correct way to go about it?

[Gimfalisette]

Be that as it may, this is no real change from long term policy.

I wouldn't call this a "long term policy," since as recently as September 2009, there was a call posted for a slave mul in the Byn: http://www.zalanthas.org/gdb/index.php/topic,36398.0.html

I am somewhat disappointed in this global change, as there were a few types of slave roles (Byn mul, Kurac mul, Lyksae slave) that had reasonable playability for the right player. I had even thought about playing one of these roles, at some point in time, but that is now not a possibility.

I know people who, IRL, have submissive tendencies, and would rather be directly told what to do and follow someone else's orders and be their bonded servant with no choice in the matter because that is a role they would like to play.

To be honest, if that's what the player wants, they can get it simply by joining and sticking in one of the life-oath clans. It's effectively the same thing.

[Kryos]

Mixed feelings.  I thought there were good slave roles out there.  I am, curious, however why staff have taken this position.

[BlackMagic0]

Mixed feelings.  I thought there were good slave roles out there.  I am, curious, however why staff have taken this position.

Could not word it better myself!

[mansa]

Mixed feelings.

I always felt that slaves were more prevalent in the culture of Zalanthas than what is spoke about.  I mean, I always figured the best soldiers were slaves, the best aides were slaves, the best workers were slaves.

Hiring an independant off the street shouldn't be given a trusted position as a slave would have.

[FantasyWriter]

Hiring an independant off the street shouldn't be given a trusted position as a slave would have.

Also if it's restriction issues, as someone said a few post above, there are many roles in game that are as restrictive as a slave if not more so (such as life-oathers, geographically restricted d-elf clans, 'freeman' soldiers, Byn recruits, 'freeman' noble/templars aides.

[Gimfalisette]

Hiring an independant off the street shouldn't be given a trusted position as a slave would have.

Also if it's restriction issues, as someone said a few post above, there are many roles in game that are as restrictive as a slave if not more so (such as life-oathers, geographically restricted d-elf clans, 'freeman' soldiers, Byn recruits, 'freeman' noble/templars aides.

It was me that said that, and I didn't say that any of those roles are as restrictive as a slave role, properly played, should be. I simply said that if a player wants to be submissive and have another PC order theirs around, then playing in a life-oath role is pretty much the same thing.

[Sephiroto]

Mixed feelings.

First, under most circumstances Slave PC = Bad because they are no longer playable.  There are applicable situations, however, as mentioned above (Byn/Kurac mul slaves) and other dynamic scenarios where a long-lived character could viably be played out as a slave PC with little to no negative impact.

Second, I'm not a huge fan of being regulated.  It seems there have been a lot of policy changes with this game lately.  Some good, some bad.  But as far as this one goes,  I'd rather be punished, hurt, or killed for doing something stupid rather than being forbade from doing it at all.  I think the staff should be very careful about how they word things, otherwise they're going to find themself admins of a game with no players.

A well thought explanation and reasoning regarding this issue would have come across a lot "nicer" than the "Thou shall not pass!" sort of message that was issued.  Seriously, get a PR rep or something...

[Fathi]

I think this is a terrible decision. I think a lot of fun will be not-had by people who would have otherwise played slaves or interacted with them.

If this policy had been enacted earlier, there would have been no Aja, no Arad, no Murk, no Phessis, no Saya, no Prophet, no Ehrick, and that's just a handful of slave PCs from 2-3 years ago that I can name off the top of my head.

If unprepared people wanting to play slaves was becoming a hassle, just make it a karma-only role or something. I don't like the idea of that whole avenue of RP just being forbidden.

[Agent Noun]

The problem with slaves has always been the burden on the slave owner to provide enjoyment for the slave, I think. If the definition of a slave in Allanak wasn't so restrictive--and I realize it's about a decade too late to change that--I don't think it'd be such a problem. Being a slave doesn't necessarily need to be a bad thing, and in fact, the difference between someone who has sworn a life-oath to a clan and a slightly-less-restricted slave is that the life-oather gets a salary. Totally viable.

[FantasyWriter]

The problem with slaves has always been the burden on the slave owner to provide enjoyment for the slave, I think.

Most PC roles that have the social standing to own a slave already have creating things for PCs to do in the job description for said role.

[Gobbleneck]

Eh, yeah.  Interacting with PC-slaves is fun for me nearly ALL the time.
Just love it.

While I think it sucks, I don't necessarily think it was a bad decision.

Feel bad for all those slaves getting stored, though.  Now -that's- harsh.

[FantasyWriter]

Hiring an independant off the street shouldn't be given a trusted position as a slave would have.

Also if it's restriction issues, as someone said a few post above, there are many roles in game that are as restrictive as a slave if not more so (such as life-oathers, geographically restricted d-elf clans, 'freeman' soldiers, Byn recruits, 'freeman' noble/templars aides.

It was me that said that, and I didn't say that any of those roles are as restrictive as a slave role, properly played, should be. I simply said that if a player wants to be submissive and have another PC order theirs around, then playing in a life-oath role is pretty much the same thing.

Yeah, the examples were from my head.

[Cutthroat]

Mixed feelings...

There were some good slaves in the not-so-distant past. I can recall two or three staff calls in the past year or so that involved PC slaves. So I am a bit confused by the claim that this has been policy for a long while.

I wonder if there was a problem with slaves or with slavers. I also wonder if there was a better way to stop that perceived problem than to eliminate PC slaves for everyone.

However, a slave role was largely dependent on a leader, and generally highly restrictive. So maybe it is for the best, for enjoyment purposes.

[LauraMars]

I agree that the "absolutely-no-reason" announcement was sort of thrown in our faces like a dead fish.  Perhaps whoever made the decision was afraid that if an explanation was given, it would raise a lot of hue and cry among the player base - forgetting, of course, that any decision made by staff is going to be discussed by the playerbase no matter what.  Perhaps there is some reason they cannot say.  Perhaps someone has been abusing the concept.  Whatever the case,  I know that the staff is capable of sounding far more professional and handling situations like this with more grace.  

I feel bad.  I played an enslaved character for a year and a half.  It was the most dramatic, immersive role I've ever been in.  While initially as restricted as everyone fears a slave role is, by the end I was quite privileged, but that's not the point.  Nothing has topped that role.  I don't think anything ever will.  While some may claim my experience was atypical, I've also seen several slave characters over the years, and in every case their lives seemed thrilling, badass, or beautiful in some way.  Murk?  Erick?  Aja, anybody?  

There is (or was) no typical slave role.  Your mileage, as with everything, may vary.  The bottom line is, while I have no more interest in exploring the role of a slave again, I feel for the players who might have been interested in the option for future pcs.

[Adhira]

Correction.

PC slaves have been disallowed for some time, probably close to a year, except for those instances where clan staff have a defined role and put out a call, for example the Byn slave.  Whether we put out those calls again will be decided on a case by case basis as need arises.

[Kassindra]

Pretty sad about this decision. I viewed slavery as a pretty important aspect in game if done well and as an alternative way to allow a person's PC to live or have some other options should they find themselves in some trouble.

It would've been nice if there were some kind of guideline to follow or only open it up as a special app to certain clans or -something- not just do away with it. Maybe that's stuff that has been considered already, hopefully. I don't know very much as I've only been playing regularly for over a year now.

Having played a slave myself though, I know that it can at times be a challenging role but I have to say that also it's been on of the more fun ones I have experienced so far playing here, I experienced so much immersion getting into that role so yeah, I'm sad about the policy and I had no idea this was in for a long while since there were some recent calls just late last year.

EDIT: Just saw Adhira's addition there. Well that clarifies a little of that part at least.

[FantasyWriter]

I also wonder if there was a better way to stop that perceived problem than to eliminate PC slaves for everyone.

They could have made all slave roles take up a spec app regardless if it was staff sponsored or not to make people think a little harder about applying for the role?
Or made them sponsored ONLY and made an announcement about it.

[Conspiracy Theory]

Just to throw this out there... does this mean that all non-escaped-rogue-muls are pretty much out of the question? You almost might as well remove them as a selectable race, given that they're pretty much exclusively enslaved.

I don't care much for this decision, honestly, but I get the feeling it's because of the high rate of storage of PC slaves, so I understand it. I simply don't agree - if that player couldn't handle being a slave they shouldn't have applied for one.

[Rairen]

I feel bad.  I played an enslaved character for a year and a half.  It was the most dramatic, immersive role I've ever been in.  While initially as restricted as everyone fears a slave role is, by the end I was quite privileged, but that's not the point.  Nothing has topped that role.  I don't think anything ever will.  While some may claim my experience was atypical, I've also seen several slave characters over the years, and in every case their lives seemed thrilling, badass, or beautiful in some way.  Murk?  Erick?  Aja, anybody?  

I'm glad to have had a say in what happened?   It was my choice, I knew what I was doing, and I was ultimately happy with the outcome.  That being said, while I was in that role, I wasn't constructively adding to the game (that had to come later), I felt so neglected when my favorite entertainment was murdered, and I wasn't playing that Kadian master crafter role that I've secretly wanted for the last two years and couldn't app for because I was off being dedicated to my character.  

I guess to put it another way, I'm pretty sure the people who have played memorable slaves are, in and of themselves, memorable players. (As most of us are, it's not that much of a stretch.) The role itself is just the drama that propels those particular stories forward.  And it doesn't sound like this is as extreme as the post could be interpreted if you have your paranoia hat on - no more than certain clans being closed at varying periods.  After all, if a slave player knows anything, there's one key to success:  patience.  

[Adhira]

forgetting, of course, that any decision made by staff is going to be discussed by the playerbase no matter what.  

No, we didn't forget.  We could have just not posted and then never had to deal with any player questions, instead they'd just find that when they wanted to enslave someone, they were roadblocked, or if they got enslaved, they got released again (or killed, or stored) just as quickly.  Or that once you put all that time in to an application that it was turned down due to the no slave policy which... you then could not find.  However, you are correct in that details of the post were lacking. The post was not meant as an explanation, it was a statement of policy.

I will give a brief explanation, likely not as eloquent as some others may have put together, or as detailed as some would like.  Basically we have made a decision at staff level that we will not be supporting slave roles in the game at this time.  We have decided to defer this kind of role to Arm 2 where we hope to find a more elegant solution, or way of defining the slave role.

There are many reasons why this has been decided, some of those expressed here come in to play: restrictiveness of the role, the slave role being used to get around other types of IC restrictions, people being enslaved against their will and not wishing to play out the role, people inheriting slaves with the position and not wishing to have the responsibility for someones RP that many in slave roles expect.

By and large what we have found is that the slave role exponentially increases the job of staff members and that the amount of complaints from people regarding these roles, at this point, outweighs the benefits of having this as a playable addition to the world.

[LauraMars]

There are many reasons why this has been decided, some of those expressed here come in to play: restrictiveness of the role, the slave role being used to get around other types of IC restrictions, people being enslaved against their will and not wishing to play out the role, people inheriting slaves with the position and not wishing to have the responsibility for someones RP that many in slave roles expect.

By and large what we have found is that the slave role exponentially increases the job of staff members and that the amount of complaints from people regarding these roles, at this point, outweighs the benefits of having this as a playable addition to the world.

Thank you for the explanation.

[Spice Spice Baby]

There are many reasons why this has been decided, some of those expressed here come in to play: restrictiveness of the role, the slave role being used to get around other types of IC restrictions, people being enslaved against their will and not wishing to play out the role, people inheriting slaves with the position and not wishing to have the responsibility for someones RP that many in slave roles expect.

By and large what we have found is that the slave role exponentially increases the job of staff members and that the amount of complaints from people regarding these roles, at this point, outweighs the benefits of having this as a playable addition to the world.

Thank you for the explanation.

[tortall]

I think this is a terrible decision. I think a lot of fun will be not-had by people who would have otherwise played slaves or interacted with them.

If this policy had been enacted earlier, there would have been no Aja, no Arad, no Murk, no Phessis, no Saya, no Prophet, no Ehrick, and that's just a handful of slave PCs from 2-3 years ago that I can name off the top of my head.

If unprepared people wanting to play slaves was becoming a hassle, just make it a karma-only role or something. I don't like the idea of that whole avenue of RP just being forbidden.

Though the imms have clarified this more since then, I still don't like the general idea. If you want to play a slave, I think you should be allowed to try it. It's like playing any other character, really. More restrictions, of course, but you can get bored with ANY character. And then you store.


What happens with Lyksae now? Never going to be open to PCs due to the fact that they require slaves as their PC guards?

[Hot_Dancer]

I generally agree with the policy. I've always avoided taking on slaves with my PC's because of the upkeep I've experienced and the
slave character's often total inability and lack of motivation to create their own entertainment/plot lines.

Could've been my own bad luck. I'm sure there's certainly been well played and immersive slaves.

It certainly caught me at an awkward time though.

[brytta.leofa]

Point of discussion: why have we as players seemed to treat slave roles differently from life-oath roles?  The restrictiveness should be almost exactly the same, nyet?

[BlackMagic0]

Point of discussion: why have we as players seemed to treat slave roles differently from life-oath roles?  The restrictiveness should be almost exactly the same, nyet?

They should be the exact same thing as you are a slave - by free will.  A life-oath is another way of saying 'you are my slave, bitch tits'. Though they are restrictive, you have a choice to take the oath unlike a slave, and tend to be a bit less restrict in some things since you still got a bit of free will to go get drunk and have free days to yourself, slaves work 24/7.

[LauraMars]

Point of discussion: why have we as players seemed to treat slave roles differently from life-oath roles?  The restrictiveness should be almost exactly the same, nyet?

Restriction-wise? Yes. The main difference is that the life-oath-taker is usually paid.  A slave might be given money, but he isn't entitled to any as a business arrangement or anything.  And a slave can spend free time in bars as well, if his owner has given permission.

[Kryos]

Awesome life-oathers also can acquire extremely broad freedoms that slaves can never hope for.

[Conspiracy Theory]

Untrue if you ask me. A trusted high-end long-tenured slave of unshakably loyalty would be looked at entirely as an extension of its owner - nigh untouchable. They're at least equal to free servants, but I'd think of even higher station if they were born in servitude and had never known anything else.

[LauraMars]

There are slaves that are treated terribly and horribly, in ways that an oath-taker would not be.  These slaves are not respected, these slaves are treated like disposable pieces of moving meat.  You could buy one for 100 coins in the bazaar, were they concrete and coded.  These slaves are always going to be vnpcs.  They do not have the refined skillsets, intelligence, and hero-focus that a PC has.  So that's your big difference, if you like.

In a direct PC to PC comparison, your power as a slave or as an oath-taker will depend on who you're attached to, how much they like you, how powerful they are, and how savvy you as a player are.

======

Here's my thoughts on this from an OOC perspective -

Oath-taker Amos is loyal to Kadius.  Suddenly his whole clan is wiped out by a giant band of rabid tregils, and things limp along for months, with sponsored clan leaders sucking, storing and dying.  The only interaction he has is with the cook npc and that newbie hunter who died in two days.  He hates life.  It's clear that Kadius is in a big rut.  I think at this point (if Amos can't bring himself to store or rebel) that there is probably more room for negotiation with the imms as to his release from the clan, even if it's ICly as preposterous as a slave being freed.  Exceptional service to the house.  Who knows.

If the same thing happened to Salarri Slave Sam, his only realistic recourse is to be sold to another clan.  This sale must be facilitated by the imms.  It must be negotiated ICly.  The other clan has to be ICly and OOCly open to the idea, and be active enough to direct a new pair of hands.  A slave must always be captive, collared and cared for by its home clan.

I haven't described every possible scenario, and there are obviously exceptions to every rule, including the above hypotheses.  Personally, I don't think the workload of allowing the occasional slave pc need be immense for our staff, but those are a few of the issues I'm guessing they might be concerned with.  They can feel free to set me straight.

[Jdr]

I'd prefer it if slaves were case-by-case. Generalizing from experience, people wish to be slaves purely to serve as nubile, persistent servants about a high-born type. High-borns generally don't always want this kind of attention or duty to one single player. However, if said high-born were to email and request a particular specialized kind of slave and give staff a good reason for it, THEN they can put out a request on behalf of the player.

A prime example would be 'I really think we could do with two more Lyksae soldiers,' or 'Lord Oash could use a whipping-boy because he could never bring himself to flog his brat son.' (even though the latter could be done with VNPC but that's not the point!).

[Bushranger]

I voted of mixed feelings. While I can see and understand most of the concerns raised my only issue is with a Mul in the Byn. This Mul would be a slave, but would have the same restrictions as a Byn Runner with perhaps one more being restricted to the compound. I personally would enjoy this role and have wanted to app this for some time. Does this restriction on slaves include a Mul in the Byn?

[RogueGunslinger]

Yes.

http://www.zalanthas.org/gdb/index.php/topic,38018.msg515661.html#msg515661

[racurtne]

I voted of mixed feelings. While I can see and understand most of the concerns raised my only issue is with a Mul in the Byn. This Mul would be a slave, but would have the same restrictions as a Byn Runner with perhaps one more being restricted to the compound. I personally would enjoy this role and have wanted to app this for some time. Does this restriction on slaves include a Mul in the Byn?

Correction.

PC slaves have been disallowed for some time, probably close to a year, except for those instances where clan staff have a defined role and put out a call, for example the Byn slave.  Whether we put out those calls again will be decided on a case by case basis as need arises.

You can hope for one of these to happen.

[Agent Noun]

PC slaves have been disallowed for some time, probably close to a year, except for those instances where clan staff have a defined role and put out a call, for example the Byn slave.  Whether we put out those calls again will be decided on a case by case basis as need arises.

Everyone seems to have missed this part. It's not like there'll never be another Byn mul role or gladiator slave role. The rule in effect is simply that players can't apply for slaves unless there's a specific call for one--slaves won't be unilaterally gone forever.

[Lizzie]

I'm fine with the idea of no more slave apps except for imm-sponsored roles. The only thing I have a concern with is that "slaver" PCs now have a very easy way to eliminate other PCs without any real effort at all, and no recourse by the PC they're enslaving.

Templar Amos has a gripe against Independent Merchant Talia? Talia doesn't have the opportunity to run away, or arrange for her rather impressive, secret cadre of magickers and mindbenders to burninate Templar Amos and free her now. It's autostore, the end, don't pass go, don't collect 200 sids.

That's the only thing I don't like about it. That the -opportunity for potential plot furthering- is eliminated.

[Niamh]

Templars are not allowed to go enslaving PCs willy-nilly because they feel like it.  This issue has come up in the past, and been dealt with accordingly because of this rule.

[Lizzie]

Substitute templar for anyone with street cred.

Sun Runner Gavram...

Anyone Borsail sends out on a bounty (which would mean, the premeire slaving house in the known world is no longer allowed to go out looking to capture slaves to RP with - they can only go after them if their intent is to get that enslaved PC stored).

Merchant House Senior whose next-ranking officer pisses off the House, but is lots of fun to RP with, and rather than assassinate the next-rank, they confine her to the estate, allowing her access to the entire compound and anyone in it, with no restrictions with the Way and maybe even their own private room so they can practice their evil magicker skills for the period of 1 game-year to remind her of the privilege of being free and NOT pissing off her seniors. (How many PCs spend the vast majority of their time in their clan compounds anyway..it's not -that- much of a stretch from the typical hired crafter)

My character who is a nobody of no particular rank who finds a nearly-dead half-giant, rescues him, patches him up, and then convinces him that she bought him from Winrothol and now he serves her.

Thralls, of any type, and the unfortunate "results" of certain things that are too IC to mention on the GDB, which are, in effect, a very specific variety of slavery.

These are all slave roles. None of them need to be special app, all of them -could- happen (and some HAVE happened) through the course of ordinary roleplay. And we're being told that in every single one of these circumstances, the slave PC would be required to be stored. That's what I don't like about the policy.

[Nyr]

Templars are not allowed to go enslaving PCs willy-nilly because they feel like it.  This issue has come up in the past, and been dealt with accordingly because of this rule.

Substitute templar for anyone with street cred.

Anyone with street cred is generally not allowed to go enslaving PCs willy-nilly because they feel like it, either.

[FantasyWriter]

Yeah, you generally had to bribe a templar first, just in case.

[Kankfly]

I vote mixed feelings.

While I have never had the urge to play slaves and probably never really will, I did encounter times when an ex-char is involved in enslaving someone - in two scenarios, with both sides consenting but due to the rule, we're not allowed to, and with one side nonconsenting, even though the Imm gave it a-okay. Those times were frustrating, but I can see the staff's POV.

[spawnloser]

Gavram are NOT slaves.  They are similar but not the same.

[LoD]

Here were a couple of suggestions I'd made in one of those bloated "Random Thoughts" threads that pertained to slavery, which is probably much more useful and on-topic here, especially if other ideas are added here for the future of slavery in the game.

Original Post

As for slavery, I see the current social system concerning slavery as the primary roadblock toward playing one, having nothing to do with the notion of OOC conflict.  The problem is that most slaves are intended to be the property of an individual rather than a member of a caste or group that interacts within a layered social system.  Slave X has Master Y, and is extremely limited to doing anything when said master is not around.

One could certainly develop a social system where slaves are not required to have a specific master, but are simply part of the social order and treated as such.  One could have a group in charge of the slaves, and perhaps they would choose to order said slaves about when they felt the desire or had a specific need for them to fill -- otherwise, they might exist very much like regular people: forming relationships, finding a job, having fun, perhaps starting a family, etc...

I could definitely see ways of improving the role of "the slave" without it basically meaning a death to a player's free will and ability to have fun in the way that they know.  It could, in fact, provide some more layers to a society and multiply the number of potential relationships that could be formed, leveraged, and manipulated.

-LoD

Wow, that's a great idea.  So Winrothol/Borsail would "own" all the slaves and sorta 'lease' them out?

You could come up with any type of system you desired, but sure.  It might appear something like this:

You are Jacob, Slave of the City of Allanak.

As a slave of the City, you would be obliged to follow the orders of any PC Templar, Borsail Slave-Handlers, or a temporary Master.  This would allow slaves to exist with or without a specific Master, but still have them fall under the larger umbrella of the designated slavers and/or government itself.  Gate guards may not allow slaves to leave the city, certain taverns or shops may not allow them to buy certain items, and there might be other social rules that develop based on what a slave could or could not do within town -- just as there are rules for gemmers, commoners, etc...

Much of the reason people keep slaves cooped up within small estates, houses, or cages, is because there's some fear that the slave will run away or flee from their masters.  However, I don't know why slavery couldn't be a step-below-commoner social layer that simply comes with a few loose rules and restrictions that allow someone to play a slave if they want -- and potentially put themselves at the mercy of one of the PC's whom could alter the course of their lives if they so chose.

Commoners don't try to flee the city, yet many of them are content to remain within its walls.  I think as long as slaves had enough freedoms to have much of the same fun as everyone else, there would be little reason to attempt to keep them "controlled" and simply allow the dangers of the desert to be enough of a deterrent.

You could even create a system for slave-caste players in-game:

> Slaves might be able to obtain minimal amounts of food/water from the slavery organization tent that owns them.
> Slaves might not be able to have bank accounts and are forced to carry everything they own, or store it with their master.
> Slaves might not be allowed to carry weapons, unless they also carry a license - which can only be purchased/registered by an owner.
> Slaves might have access to Arena training grounds, if they want to spar other slaves to compete in the Games.

There's plenty of options that could be created for a "slave" role that make them more viable, fun to play, and useful to the community.

-LoD

[5 day lifespan]

Templars are not allowed to go enslaving PCs willy-nilly because they feel like it.  This issue has come up in the past, and been dealt with accordingly because of this rule.

Substitute templar for anyone with street cred.

Anyone with street cred is generally not allowed to go enslaving PCs willy-nilly because they feel like it, either.

And yet both groups can kill on sight "willy-nilly."  (with the obvious understanding about sponsored roles and responsibility for causing PC death, but still...)  I don't see the difference.

Oh wait, there is a difference.

Typhon Winrothol points to Amos and says to his Half-giant guard, "Shoot this mutha fucka!"
A fight ensues, and Amos flees or dies.
Typhon Winrothol points to Amos and says "You are a slave now." 
BEEP!  Welcome to Armageddon.

I feel that this stifles RP and denies avenues of exploration within the game world.  It prevents Winrothol and Borsail from doing IC what they are very well known for, except by "killing" the PC in question.  No chance for escape, no chance for RP, no chance for revenge.  This is character death.

Not allowing slave PC's denies players the option of exploring that aspect of Zalanthan life.  I do agree with the stance that being a slave can be boring without your master around, but no more so than being a House servant role without your noble.

I like LoD's notion that slavery can and should be treated as more of a caste, allowing that level of restriction.  Like that alot.

[musashi]

The biggest thing I didn't like was the announcement that someone app'ing a mul now has to be an escaped slave ... and they have to store if they are ever caught. It feels like to me like it turns playing a mul into a rat race of "see how long you can hide in the desert/Red Storm until someone catches you". I think people with 7 karma, or people spec-app'ing a 7 karma role should be more than aware about the potentional to end up renslaved, and should be allowed to decide themselves if they want to store or play the role out as a slave.

[Synthesis]

The biggest thing I didn't like was the announcement that someone app'ing a mul now has to be an escaped slave ... and they have to store if they are ever caught. It feels like to me like it turns playing a mul into a rat race of "see how long you can hide in the desert/Red Storm until someone catches you". I think people with 7 karma, or people spec-app'ing a 7 karma role should be more than aware about the potentional to end up renslaved, and should be allowed to decide themselves if they want to store or play the role out as a slave.

Did you really think that playing a mul was anything other than "hide out in the 'rinth/desert/red storm until someone finally kills or catches you?"

That's pretty much what the life of an escaped mul is, bro.

[Nyr]

Templars are not allowed to go enslaving PCs willy-nilly because they feel like it.  This issue has come up in the past, and been dealt with accordingly because of this rule.

Substitute templar for anyone with street cred.

Anyone with street cred is generally not allowed to go enslaving PCs willy-nilly because they feel like it, either.

And yet both groups can kill on sight "willy-nilly."  (with the obvious understanding about sponsored roles and responsibility for causing PC death, but still...)  I don't see the difference.

Oh wait, there is a difference.

Typhon Winrothol points to Amos and says to his Half-giant guard, "Shoot this mutha fucka!"
A fight ensues, and Amos flees or dies.
Typhon Winrothol points to Amos and says "You are a slave now." 
BEEP!  Welcome to Armageddon.

While tangential, I'll point out that this isn't true.  Winrothol nobles (or really any Tuluki nobles) don't enslave people; the templarate has the exclusive right to this in Tuluk.

As for the previously mentioned Lyksae argument:  problems with managing slave roles for Lyksae were part of the reason the clan was closed initially.  Inactivity/death on the part of any slave role would result in a clan that functioned differently from the documentation that revolved around those same slave roles.  It worked great in concept.  In practice, it sucked.  However, using this clan's cool slave roles as an expression of disapproval for this revealed policy is confusing (since even if you could play a slave role, you couldn't play one in Lyksae).

I know people have feelings about this one way or another.  However, I just wanted to point out that I agree a lot with this post, as it addresses almost any role:

I guess to put it another way, I'm pretty sure the people who have played memorable slaves are, in and of themselves, memorable players. (As most of us are, it's not that much of a stretch.) The role itself is just the drama that propels those particular stories forward.  And it doesn't sound like this is as extreme as the post could be interpreted if you have your paranoia hat on - no more than certain clans being closed at varying periods.

[Zoltan]

The biggest thing I didn't like was the announcement that someone app'ing a mul now has to be an escaped slave ... and they have to store if they are ever caught. It feels like to me like it turns playing a mul into a rat race of "see how long you can hide in the desert/Red Storm until someone catches you". I think people with 7 karma, or people spec-app'ing a 7 karma role should be more than aware about the potentional to end up renslaved, and should be allowed to decide themselves if they want to store or play the role out as a slave.

As has been said before, PC slavery is a huge burden on all players and staff involved as well. It -can- be pretty intriguing and fun to play, but being able to dump that workload out of the blue on players and staff -- who have not specifically asked for it -- is kind of rough. The whole "you're enslaved, no time to hatch an emergency escape plot, the end" part kind of bugs me, but overall I agree with the change.

[Twilight]

I certainly enjoyed my one experience being re-captured, then re-escaping, with a mul.  Just wish I had done it with more flair.

In general, I agree that this change is good for Arm 1.  The only thing that wiggles around in the back of my brain is that one of the things I truly look forward to in Arm 2 is that (as I've interpreted what has been passed down from Imm side so far) pretty much any role will be open, and we will have a lot more leeway in what we do.  Meanwhile, I see more and more things restricted on Arm 1.  I understand why this is, I just hope it doesn't create a mindset that continues on both the player and staff side into the new game.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

I am sad that slavery is no longer a playable part of the game.

[Delstro]

Life sworn but you want out? Buy your life back and you have a deal. Unless of course, you are a crafter type, and then we cannot let valuable information free that easily.

[Gloomshroud]

Well...being a slave of sorts myself in my current character...I definitely had to have approval for this role.

So...yea...slaves are NOT outlawed, they just require a bit of scrutiny on the imms' part. I was an ESCAPED slave, more or less.

So far, it's been the best, most intense, most exciting RP I've EVER had in my decade plus of MUDding. Granted, there IS a difference between a hardcore, work-in-the-mines-dusk-till-dawn slave and what I am doing, but the fact remains I still have to deal with the social stigma everyone has as soon as they see a slave collar.

I think working with it on a case-by-case basis is the way to go, assuming the effort isn't a titanic one, and there is enough interest.

Bottom Line: Slaves exist in Zalanthas, and in abundance. Whether we can play them or not...well...who could say? I know I am...and loving it.

[Conspiracy Theory]

Gloom, please don't reveal IC details about your characters on these boards.

[perfecto]

Lame... Less roll options is never an improovement, I've played some really fun slaves over the years.

I voted BAD decision... I also clench my teeth and say nothing further, knowing nothing that I say will change the outcome.

[Is Friday]

I am sad that slavery is no longer a playable part of the game.

I've played an enslaved PC in Lyksae (after creation, through IC means,) a PC enslaved by the Templarate to work for AoD, and a PC enslaved to work for Tor. Every enslaved role I played was absolutely awesome and I felt like I made a difference in the RP community--enriching the environment for everybuddy. I'm sad this is no longer a viable option available to me.

Also: a spec app of mine just got denied because of this policy. :[

p.s. Maybe I'm really into bondage. I play a lot of slaves.

[Jingo]

Why not make this an option for high karma players?

[hyzhenhok]

Why not make this an option for high karma players?

This would actually make sense. It properly follows the "karma players are trusted to okay difficult, isolated, extremely RP-restricted roles" rather than the stream of coded perk suggestions we've had recently.