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.