No more slaves

[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.