Slaves!

[HailTheAbyss]

One thing I noticed, is that everyone seems to forget how many slaves there are in Allanak...

No one ever talks about them, or acts like they are around, or even seems to have vnpc slaves.

They are supposed to make up nearly half the population in the city - it would be good if people acknowledged their existence, or would at least know how much they cost.

For example, would a relatively well to do commoner be able to afford to keep a slave?

Would the nobility usually be followed by a retinue of slaves?

I know they are no longer allowed as PCs, but I really would like them to be a more active part of people's roleplay and the gameworld.

A rather disjointed post, I know, but I wanted to hear some thoughts...

[Marshmellow]

Slaves aren't people.  They are property.  It is completely understandable that they are as disregarded as the clothing on all the NPCs populating the city.

[Erythil]

It would be nice to see more cultural awareness of slaves in both cities.  Personally I find their presence in Tuluk to be one of the city's more interesting contradictions, what with being outwardly fixated on a relatively egalitarian society.

[Cutthroat]

One thing I noticed, is that everyone seems to forget how many slaves there are in Allanak...

No one ever talks about them, or acts like they are around, or even seems to have vnpc slaves.

They are supposed to make up nearly half the population in the city -

At least they did many IC years ago. To my knowledge the updated numbers after events like the destruction of RSE, the recent HRPT and such haven't been publicly shown yet. It might be safe to assume this is roughly still the case. It's also worth noting Tuluk is/was roughly split down the middle too.

it would be good if people acknowledged their existence, or would at least know how much they cost.

Sure, people should acknowledge their existence. I imagine the only thing most would know about pricing is that they cost a lot initially, and a lot post-purchase to maintain. It's hard to reasonably assume they would know exact numbers unless they were potentially in a position to buy a slave themselves, or were taking messages for someone with that position.

For example, would a relatively well to do commoner be able to afford to keep a slave?

I would say that out of commoners, higher-ups in the Great Merchant Houses have the means to keep a personal slave. Being rich enough to afford the purchase, and even being rich enough to buy the food and water for it isn't enough. Slaves need protection and, often, can't be put into an environment that is easy to run away from.

Would the nobility usually be followed by a retinue of slaves?

Beyond their Estates? I doubt it, for logistical reasons.

If you want to see slaves represented more, you can't go wrong with some safe vNPC emoting. It stands to reason that there are slaves kept for city maintenance and cleaning in each city, you could easily emote about these slaves as you move around. You could do it in your clan - some noble and merchant houses have slaves do a lot of the things most other people won't do. You can mention these tasks in conversations as well, if you want.

Slaves aren't people.  They are property.  It is completely understandable that they are as disregarded as the clothing on all the NPCs populating the city.

This... to an extent. Like free commoners, slaves too have ranks in their organizations. Many groups hold some of their slaves in higher regard than others. I would completely agree with your statement if it read "It is completely understandable that the most worthless of them are as disregarded as the clothing...". But some are well-trained chefs or household servants, some are pleasure servants/sex slaves to the nobility, templarate, or GMH family, and some are elite fighters (e.g., Lyksae warriors, Allanaki gladiators). It stands to reason the top slaves would not be disregarded, and might even be treated better than the average Amos Freeman.

It would be nice to see more cultural awareness of slaves in both cities.  Personally I find their presence in Tuluk to be one of the city's more interesting contradictions, what with being outwardly fixated on a relatively egalitarian society.

Compared to Allanak, sure, it's relatively egalitarian - the castes get along, but there are castes, and everyone is supposed to understand the implicit distinction between each caste. I don't think that makes slavery in Tuluk contradictory; I'd see it being outwardly treated more like a necessity in Tuluk (to keep the status quo people have had going for a long while) whereas it's more of a convenience for slave-owners in Allanak, although undoubtedly these two treatments overlap from time to time.

[HavokBlue]

Random thoughts on the subject:

Just because a lot of commoners don't have the means to easily take care of slaves doesn't necessarily mean they wouldn't try to own them. Think back to real world instances of slavery where in some cases, the slaves were given no place to sleep, little or no food, etc etc. I could see a family of commoners bitching their old slave around their little hut or whatever.

And if I'm Mister Rich Nobility Dude, perhaps slaves might be a status symbol? Oh, Joe Winrothol only has thirty slaves in his retinue? How disagreeable! Now that Amos Kadius on the other hand...

[HailTheAbyss]

I would say that out of commoners, higher-ups in the Great Merchant Houses have the means to keep a personal slave. Being rich enough to afford the purchase, and even being rich enough to buy the food and water for it isn't enough. Slaves need protection and, often, can't be put into an environment that is easy to run away from.

So, even though they are half the population of the city, the vast majority of them are the property of noble and merchant houses, as opposed to commoner individuals?

I just thought that with such a large population of them, the price would be relatively low, at least affordable to a tradesman of some kind, or an officer in a military organization.

[DustMight]

It would be interesting to have the occasional slave PC if for nothing more than to remind us of the reality of the issue.

[Drayab]

There's a NPC in Tuluk that is clearly a freeman's work slave. No doubt about it: commoners can and do own slaves.

I think we forget about slaves because players generally dislike the role.

[Grey Area]

As far as I know, commoners don't own slaves. Merchant Houses do, but the slaves in question generally belong to the House, not the individual merchants. Nobles can naturally own all the slaves they want.

It is not currently possible to play a PC slave.

[Marshmellow]

Technically, GMH families are commoners.  They're commoners with more clout and money than the average commoner, though.  Even so, other commoners can and do own slaves, but most sellers of slaves will not sell to you unless you have proof that you can both care for and manage the slave, as in keep the slave in captivity.  The problem with PC slaves is that they are, almost without fail, not enjoyable to play when realistic restrictions are placed upon the slave character.  This means that almost every slave PC in Arm's history has run away, even the ones that are treated well.  We, as people, do not find it enjoyable to be someone's 'bitch', truly and completely.  I really wish that everyone understood this, because this is why we aren't allowed to play them any longer.

Oh, and Cutthroat, I think you were taking my earlier words a bit too literally, or maybe just interpreted them a bit too strongly.  Honestly, there are NPCs out there that are wearing some very fine clothing, and people would admire that property owned by that NPC.  Slaves are the same.  You can value and admire someone's spiffy clothes and jewelry, and you can likewise admire that same someone's other property, like slaves.  I said only that they should be as disregarded, in general, as expensive clothing because they are simply that, valuable property.  They aren't people in the minds of most people.

[palomar]

So, even though they are half the population of the city, the vast majority of them are the property of noble and merchant houses, as opposed to commoner individuals?

And property of the templarate, in both Allanak and Tuluk.

[Cutthroat]

Oh, and Cutthroat, I think you were taking my earlier words a bit too literally, or maybe just interpreted them a bit too strongly.  Honestly, there are NPCs out there that are wearing some very fine clothing, and people would admire that property owned by that NPC.  Slaves are the same.  You can value and admire someone's spiffy clothes and jewelry, and you can likewise admire that same someone's other property, like slaves.  I said only that they should be as disregarded, in general, as expensive clothing because they are simply that, valuable property.  They aren't people in the minds of most people.

Ah, sure. I can agree with that. Going along with that, I think most people would refer to particular slaves as "it" rather than "he/she", at least sometimes. It is possible that free people might develop a special attachment to slaves, though, just like people can come to favor certain objects over others. Just like I might have a favorite knife to cut throats with, so too might Amos Fale have a favorite pleasure slave he has feelings for, or 2.Amos Lyksae have a favorite fighter.

I also think slaves themselves are aware of their state as property - muls in particular are supposed to struggle with this at first - and would not raise a fuss at all at how they are treated by their owners. How other people treat them, however, can be very important, and such people risk angering the owner of the slave if they act overly haughtily towards a valued slave.

[Oleupata]

This link, as part of this document might be useful for this discussion.

[HailTheAbyss]

Another thing that is interesting is whether slaves can ever get their freedom for good and loyal service to their masters. Would that be a widespread practice, or would it not cross an owner's mind to reward a slave in this way?

Also, what would be the status of a slave whose legal private owners had died? Would they become the property of the city?

Would someone be allowed to play a slave Pc that gained their freedom?

Another thing that the Docs mention is enslavement as a repayment of debts - does this mean that upon the passage of a certain amount of time the slave is freed?

[Talia]

Another thing that is interesting is whether slaves can ever get their freedom for good and loyal service to their masters. Would that be a widespread practice, or would it not cross an owner's mind to reward a slave in this way?

Also, what would be the status of a slave whose legal private owners had died? Would they become the property of the city?

Would someone be allowed to play a slave Pc that gained their freedom?

Another thing that the Docs mention is enslavement as a repayment of debts - does this mean that upon the passage of a certain amount of time the slave is freed?

Slaves do not get freed for service. For the most part, slaves are not owned by individual V/NPCs; they are owned by the organization. Amos the PC noble/templar/merchant does not own any slaves of his/her own. This is why you don't see large numbers of slave NPCs trailing after PCs, though some of the NPC guards in game are slaves. (They are almost always not personally owned by the PC they are following, however. Certainly never by a newbie PC noble/templar/merchant.)

Slaves whose owners have died still belong to the organization they have always belonged to. PC nobles/templars/merchants don't truly own anything of their own; whatever they "own" passes back to their organization after they die.

Slaves that are taken into slavery aren't freed, ever, unless they can somehow buy their way out. This is highly unlikely to happen, since the products of a slave's work already belong 100% to their master.

Slavery in Zalanthas is almost nothing like Earth slavery.

[Marauder Moe]

I dunno.  There have been many kinds of Earth slavery.  If you're talking about racially-instituted African slavery, then no, it bears few resemblances.

If you're talking about ancient Roman slavery, where slaves are sometimes trusted and given a fair amount of responsibility and autonomy, then I think you're getting a much closer.


That said, in response to the OP, I'm not sure what players really should be doing more to "acknowledge" slaves.  For the most part, commoners aren't really supposed to just go up and talk to some random slave, even if they aren't depicted as being in the middle of their labors.  Nor should you just walk up and start whipping them either.

Personally, though, I have seen a lot of great roleplay regarding slaves (PC, NPC, and vNPC) going on in the noble clans.

[Talia]

I dunno.  There have been many kinds of Earth slavery.  If you're talking about racially-instituted African slavery, then no, it bears few resemblances.

If you're talking about ancient Roman slavery, where slaves are sometimes trusted and given a fair amount of responsibility and autonomy, then I think you're getting a much closer.

Yes, but the Zalanthan system doesn't have certain important features of the Roman system, such as freeing slaves on the master's death, etc....stuff the OP is asking about. That's all I meant. I think it's pretty useful to abandon the majority of our ideas about slavery on Earth and just take on the Zalanthan view of things.

[Nyr]

There has been at least one instance where a noble house slave was made into a commoner.  However, this was done flippantly and mostly to prove a point, as the slave was a slave in everything but caste at that juncture, and never would have left said house.  In short, they were not "freed."

[FiveDisgruntledMonkeysWit]

I'm curious... what's the rationale behind the "no PC slaves" rule that somebody linked to? Does somebody have a link to further discussion on that? I always assumed that mul PCs were encouraged to be slaves... kind of weird that every mul PC ever from Februrary 2010 on will be an escaped slave. I mean... playing a mul born through a loving union between human and dwarf is against the rules (docs make it clear that this just doesn't happen). Playing a slave is against the rules. Having a slave freed by its master is, according to the posts of the Imms above, a highly unlikely scenario.

Are we to understand then that the only background available to PC muls is "escaped slave?" I'm not complaining about that, or anything. I'm just wondering if I've missed something.

[Marshmellow]

It's been mentioned many times why, because it isn't a fun role and nearly everyone either stores or runs away.

[Delstro]

A slave is only worth what soemone will pay. I am sure elven captured slaves are dirty cheap.

[brytta.leofa]

It's been mentioned many times why, because it isn't a fun role and nearly everyone either stores or runs away.

That's clearly not the issue.  One part of the policy is that PCs who become enslaved will be force-stored...a 100% storage rate, if you will.

[Qzzrbl]

A slave is only worth what soemone will pay. I am sure elven captured slaves are dirty cheap.

If it were anywhere close to possible to keep them from escaping, sure....

But would you -really- want an elven slave?

An elven slave is a good way to wake up with a knife in your throat....

For the slave's master, an Elven slave = an Early grave.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

I am so sad that slaves can not be played any more.

[Feco]

Dwarves have a very long history of being slaves. Many Ages ago, during the Empire of Man, it is rumored that dwarves as a race were effectively totally enslaved by humans. Today, most dwarves are free citizens, and an accepted part of society, but there are still many who are born, live, and die as slaves. Born dwarven slaves are normally incredibly loyal, due to their powerful foci being dedicated to the service of their owners. As the owners prosper, so the dwarves serving them prosper. Captured dwarven slaves are another matter entirely, for their foci are usually not directed in a positive way towards their owners.

I hope this isn't too big of a derail, but I thought that part from the slavery docs was interesting.

I think I saw a topic not too long ago asking if dwarves would be terrible slaves due to the focus.

shrug.

[Sephiroto]

In a way it saddens me that there is a consesnsus that PC's don't usually enjoy playing a slave, not because I think it is wrong, but because most people don't enjoy the restrictions of a PC slave.  The idea that I could play a PC who is the valued property of a noble house is pretty cool.  Most commoner PC's spend years showing their masters that they can be loyal and valuable.  Slaves are valued for these things from day 1.

It would make sense to see nobles use slaves as aides anyway, rather than unproven commoners.

I'd like to play a slave sometime.  I promise I won't run away.  That should be one of the conditions to playing a slave, actually.  ...that, and not to mudsecks often/ever.  *cringe*

[Marshmellow]

It's been mentioned many times why, because it isn't a fun role and nearly everyone either stores or runs away.

That's clearly not the issue.  One part of the policy is that PCs who become enslaved will be force-stored...a 100% storage rate, if you will.

Actually, that is the issue, because the player of the newly enslaved PC will either store the character or the character will run away.  A freshly enslaved character, by the way, should be given NO freedom, because they can't be trusted to have any.  They can't be trusted because they haven't been raised with the indoctrination given to characters raised as slaves from birth.  I've played a noble from one of the slaving clans, and that is in the documentation for that clan:  people captured and/or enslaved are used for breeding stock only.  (Or at least it was part of the documentation.)  You want to play that character?  Locked in a room and used only or breeding?  I doubt it.

[Marauder Moe]

Hmm.  I've been thinking... why exactly is it a problem that a high percentage of PC slaves run away?

[Nyr]

search is your friend.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[HailTheAbyss]

I know this might sound a bit obvious, but just to confirm...

So we are not allowed to play even former slaves, period? Even if they are slaves escaped from another city state a long time ago?

[Marauder Moe]

Ah, fair enough.  So it's not just "PC slaves always run away or store".

[brytta.leofa]

Ah, fair enough.  So it's not just "PC slaves always run away or store".

"PC slaves are a huge hassle for staff and they rarely enjoy it anyway."

I'm good with that, even though I fancy that I'd do fine if enslaved.

[Barzalene]

I wish we could have those roles back. I mean, how many pcs are killed every day? How many are stored? In the end, no roles work out with happy endings. Almost all templars and nobles store, and we still have them.

I'm not claiming it's a role that's destined for success. I'm saying that it's a role we can enjoy while they're around. Make them 4 karma or something. I dunno.

[Marshmellow]

You know that bit about the players of slaves rarely enjoying it?  That was just another way of saying that they store or run away, if you ask me, because those are the results of the players not enjoying the role.  If you ask me, this is why it was a hassle for staff, because they go through the work of getting a slave PC set up... and then the player goes and undoes the work the staff put into it.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

A long while ago, I suggested a system for slavery that would take some of the work off of staff hands. I'm not going to try to find it, because it's not going to change anything and I don't want to go through this battle again.

I do miss slaves.

[Talia]

I believe even the staff, overall, feel that it is a shame to have to close off a role option to players.

However, when you look at the ARM playerbase as a whole, the typical player is unable to remain satisfied and un-bored in a role like Byn runner or Tuluki Legions recruit or GMH family member agent or junior noble or iso clan. The playerbase seems to have a nearly-allergic reaction to "restriction" of any kind, so it's no big surprise that the role of slave is, essentially, unplayable.

Note that I'm not knocking the playerbase, here. I have BTDT with role-restriction frustration and boredom myself. I'm just saying that roles that are even more restrictive than the ones we already have problems with are not playable overall.

I think lifesworn positions are as close as we need to be to slavery for the current game. They really have all of the "you must do my bidding" roleplay opportunities of slavery, with a decent dose of the social and organizational flexibility that slavery doesn't have. I don't see why a player who wanted to, for example, roleplay a pleasure-slave type of role couldn't instead just become the lifesworn concubine of a noble/templar/merchant family member; or if a player wanted to roleplay a guard-slave type of role then lifesworn soldier for Tor or Borsail or another House of that nature is a pretty close fit. This leaves it up to player choice on getting into those roles (rather than being forcefully made to play the role), and when there are changes to the PC leaders in the organization then the lifesworn role can continue without interruption.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

Honestly, do you, as staff, want to know why the slave role is so missed, particularly by me? Because we can not, now, play a mul in any other role besides that of the escaped slave. Aside from the mul race, no other race has to have slavery in their background. On top of that, muls are less likely to run away from slavery than any other race besides for elves. Beneath dwarves, muls are the most likely to live out their lives as 'happy' slaves.

I don't want to play an escaped mul. I want to play an enslaved mul.

I've played at least three slaves. I have never run away with any of them. Two died quickly. One lived for over an RL year, and I had to store because of RL, not because of boredom.

The reality is that a PC slave should be special app, or karma. I suppose I can support the bit about not making free PCs slaves, but it's the bit where a player wants to play a slave, applies for it, and gets turned down, that bothers me.

[Talia]

I don't want to play an escaped mul. I want to play an enslaved mul.

I sympathize with you. I too would prefer to play an enslaved mul to playing an escaped mul. However, if anything, setting up a mul slave requires even more staff time and oversight than other slaves, and the players of muls are more likely to become bored than the players of other slave races because the mul role has restrictions on top of restrictions. Policies unfortunately cannot be set based on the players who are exceptions, as you might be; they have to be set based on the playerbase as a whole.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

Fair enough.

[Velliscaryus]

Code Select Expand

The figure in a blue hooded templar's robe exclaims, in southern-accented sirihish,
 "Strip off his tabard, and all emblems of the filthy northern witches!"
The figure in a blue hooded templar's robe tells you, pointing a bony finger, in southern-accented sirihish,
 "Never again shall you haunt our borders, spy of the barbaric heathens. From henceforth you shall be my--"
The figure in a blue hooded templar's robe tells you, after a moment's pregnant hesitation, in southern-accented sirihish,
 "--much-despised ever-watched heathen lifesworn employee."
The figure in a blue hooded templar's robe tells you, in southern-accented sirihish,
 "I mean, if you want to? We can kill you. We're real good at the killing part."

[Old Kank]

I miss the slave role because it's unavailable.

I get that it's kind of a shitty role.  I've tried it, and it didn't work for me, but thankfully I had that opportunity.  I don't understand the logic behind closing the role, though.  Lots of people try playing elves, or gemmers, and find that the role doesn't work for them, but those haven't been closed.

I missed the original discussion when it was first announced, but it seems like the staff just closed the role rather than put out a few simple rules in order to keep slavery a viable option:

Rule #1:  Slave roles are highly restrictive, and may be extremely difficult.  The staff is not responsible for your enjoyment of the role.
Rule #2:  Players wishing to create a slave PC must coordinate with the player of a land-owning PC to accept responsibility for the slave PC.
Rule #3:  Escape is not an option for characters created as slaves; storage is.
Rule #4:  Enslavement of free PCs is subject to OOC review, and is only allowed by templars, in cases of high crime.
Rule #5:  Escape is an option for enslaved PCs, but there may be IC consequences.

[FiveDisgruntledMonkeysWit]

Three quick things:

1. Thanks for the quotes, Nyr. My search-fu is weak. I bow to you, search-master sensei.

2. LOL @ Velliscaryus. Only six posts, but I guess he/she makes them count.

3. I wish some sort of special exception could be made for muls. It seems odd to me that all muls now have to be escaped slaves. I'm worried about players automatically assuming that PC muls are escaped slaves, which isn't fair to those mul players. I'm not saying muls should be allowed to be slaves; if it's a headache for the staff, then I understand why it can't be so. I'm all for doing anything that makes the lives of our (volunteer) staff easier. I'm just saying that I wish there was a background available to PC muls other than "escaped slave." I have no idea what that could be, though, so I suppose I'm just whining.

[X-D]

I think that the idea of slaves should be simply reworked into life oath for all and be allowed to be coded again.

The problem as I see it right now is that most clans do have a life oath, it is an option in most of them to take it, but if you do or if you don't you can still be coded into the clan.

Just not as a coded slave. What is wrong with having the option to life oath first and then be coded slave? A clanned slave in most any house is still over that of most commoners anyway.

If the slave docs were redone in a manner that allowed them certain freedoms and worked more on playability I doubt so many people would have a problem with it and suicide/store, Hell, slaves should be some of the most trusted people in a house.

In short, I miss slaves and a far as muls go, I think when coded slavery was taken out, muls should have been as well. They really serve no purpose in the game PC wise otherwise.


And so what if some or most run, it gives other PCs something to do, adds conflict, and that should never be a bad thing even if it does give staff a bit of extra work.

[Delstro]

A slave is only worth what soemone will pay. I am sure elven captured slaves are dirty cheap.

If it were anywhere close to possible to keep them from escaping, sure....

But would you -really- want an elven slave?

An elven slave is a good way to wake up with a knife in your throat....

For the slave's master, an Elven slave = an Early grave.

Well, loose elven slaves would surely mean something bad happens. I can agree with that, but how much freedom does a slave have when they are tied into groups of twenty-thirty and are then supervised by two-three armed guards every moment of the day. It is always easier and cheaper just to kill them whenever they act up than to deal continuously with an alpha male 'animal'. Elves are too untrustful to be more than just labor slaves, and they aren't even good at that! Just use them until they die and get a new one.

I disagree that muls should be taken out, but that is just a selfish desire.

[Barzalene]

I preapped a slave role for later, back in '08. And it was approved. Can I play it anyway?

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

What always struck me as stupid (on the part of the houses and clans) was that they did not take advantage of mulish leaders. Every Military house should have a mul leader of the army. It's what muls were -made- for, apart from the Arena.

[Talia]

I preapped a slave role for later, back in '08. And it was approved. Can I play it anyway?

I think it's best that if you have specific questions about your own play options, you direct those questions through the request tool in order to get an official answer.

[Barzalene]

I was kidding. I would assume the answer is no.

[Spice Spice Baby]

I can support the bit about not making free PCs slaves, but it's the bit where a player wants to play a slave, applies for it, and gets turned down, that bothers me.

There are a lot of other roles where people get bored or frustrated and quickly store. Roles that require a lot of staff support. I imagine based on sheer numbers, there were a lot more quickly-recycled GMH family members in the last few years than there were quickly recycled special app slaves.

But oh well. C'est la vie, I guess. It's just another role we'll never get to play.

[Talia]

There are a lot of other roles where people get bored or frustrated and quickly store. Roles that require a lot of staff support. I imagine based on sheer numbers, there were a lot more quickly-recycled GMH family members in the last few years than there were quickly recycled special app slaves.

Sure, but templars, nobles, merchant family members, etc. are actually necessary in the game. PC slaves aren't.

[Synthesis]

There are a lot of other roles where people get bored or frustrated and quickly store. Roles that require a lot of staff support. I imagine based on sheer numbers, there were a lot more quickly-recycled GMH family members in the last few years than there were quickly recycled special app slaves.

Sure, but templars, nobles, merchant family members, etc. are actually necessary in the game. PC slaves aren't.

By the same token, the consequences of storage for a templar, noble, or GMH family member are much greater than for storage of a PC slave (which I imagine would tend toward the inconsequential).

Now that we have the request tool available to keep track of storage requests, I really don't see what the problem is.  So a PC slave gets bored--let them store.  What's the big deal?

[Nyr]

The reason we did this was not solely because people store the roles.

[Synthesis]

The reason we did this was not solely because people store the roles.

All of that stuff falls into the general category of "staff inconvenience," which seems like it should be mitigated by the request tool.

If a player keeps complaining about the role, can't you simply encourage them to store or STFU?

As far as circumventing IC restrictions is concerned...what does that mean? Kadians buying elf slaves to get around the " we don't hire elves" restriction?  It seems like it would be pretty easy to resolve that by releasing, force-storing, or killing the slave PC and giving the Kadian a good smack upside the head (IC and OOC).

[Nyr]

It may seem that way to you but it is not.  It's a bigger burden than it is worth.

[Talia]

All of that stuff falls into the general category of "staff inconvenience," which seems like it should be mitigated by the request tool.

Staff still gets inconvenienced by storages done through the request tool, we just get inconvenienced in a much more efficient manner

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

I believe that muls, at least, should be revisited as a viable (and as perhaps the only) slave role. If staff wished to produce less work for themselves and more fun for the player, I have some suggestions for handling them, and in fact, handling all slaves. I'll tune these suggestions towards the mul slave, though, as there are, of course, nuances, and because they are the only 'slave' race.

1. Limit slaves to X karma or called for roles. Allow only one per year, per account.
2. Allow them to roam the city.
3. Because of the beasts they are, prohibit weapons and armor during any social ventures into the city. Per this, a simplistic mobprog in which the soldier frowned at the PC if they had x item(s) on would probably do the trick.
4. Have soldiers automatically stop slaves from leaving the city, via the normal guard skill.
5. Do not allow slaves in clans without strong current leadership, without at least discussing the matter with the player.
6. Refine social mores within certain clans to allow for mul soldiers. To me, Tor, Borsail, Lyskae, Winrothol, and the GMHs should have places for mul soldiers.
7. Suggest that bad account notes will be given to runaway slaves. This would not be strictly enforced, but the PC would need a serious and well-roleplayed reason to leave. Most slaves are fine with being slaves. Most slaves would never run away, even given the chance. Life as a slave is multitudes easier than life as a free man.

[X-D]

While I agree with 7DV.

My take on what staff has said on slave roles is mostly the setup not being worth the result, which is usually quick suicide, storage, escape (Though I think escape should not be an issue since it would give the people complaining of lack of plots something to do).

So, to add to 7DVs suggestion and help out the point of setup and escape.

First, setup, automate it. Set up a slave pen/auction/merchant in Tuluk and move the one in nak to where it is passed often, say meleths circle.

Have it so muls can only point Tuluk or allanak, let it be known they will start in the slave pen in that city, where they get to wait till somebody buys them. Hell, it would be easy enough to even set it to charge different prices dependent on guild and age.

Make it so only nobles can buy.

On to escape, and this one is easy.

Modify crime code for muls (or anybody with the slave rank) outside the home city. Including Red storm and Luirs. IE, nobody will be flagged for crime against a PC mul outside the home city. And lastly, make it so slave rank cannot be rebeled out of. For anybody. You must be dumped (freed) Or promoted.

There, after that is done then mul slave setup is no harder then any other PC.

As for the merchant houses or the byn, who might be able to get mul slaves, well, they can deal with the nobles on that.

[Semper]

Maybe special app only? You'll have to use up one of your 3 apps for it, with the possibility it might not even pass.

And for clans that have a strong playerbase/leadership.
Limit to humans/muls only, in only a few select clans that have a well-documented, supportive culture for slaves. (Borsail, Lyksae, Winrothol, Legions?)

[X-D]

Actually, that is going the direction that staff stopped slaves to begin with. IE, more staffside work.

[Marshmellow]

I don't know how much setup work special applications actually take, though.  There's probably discussion staff side and consideration, true, and in those cases when people are requesting strange modifiers (like modified skills or stats or miscellany) there is some additional work, but if it was an on/off setting on the account like those special applications for classes/races beyond karma limit, it could take some investment in coding, but little investment in staff time after, very possibly.  I'm not saying this work is worth the effort or not, but just putting for the devil's advocate position.

[Scarecrow]

I think slave Pc's don't work in the long run. If you were a mul waiting in a pen, someone might not buy you for a long, long time, probably before which you'd get dead bored and ask to store the poor sucker. A slave PC would be shackled with so many restrictions you'd just be boned from the get-go. I just think it might seem like fun in concept, but in practice it would very quickly get tiresome. Not to mention you'd have to hope your master logs on when you do, keeps interest in the game, yada yada yada. I just think they're more hassle than they are worth.

[X-D]

If you were a mul waiting in a pen, someone might not buy you for a long, long time, probably before which you'd get dead bored and ask to store the poor sucker

Yup, your right, that is the point.

A slave PC would be shackled with so many restrictions you'd just be boned from the get-go. I just think it might seem like fun in concept, but in practice  it would very quickly get tiresome. Not to mention you'd have to hope your master logs on when you do, keeps interest in the game, yada yada yada. I just think they're more hassle than they are worth.

Both 7Dv and myself addressed much of the restrictions.

And if the overall process is automated then they become no more of a hassle then any other PC that enters the game and dies 4 hours later to something stupid. But I suppose none of them are worth the hassle either.

I feel sorry for you people with more then 100 dead/stored PCs in 2 years, according to some your too much a hassle to be worthwhile.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

Technically, you could even have an NPC in those pens who'd auto-store you, taking even more work off of staff.

I disagree with X-D about Tuluk or Nak being the only places to point. Luir's and Storm should still remain. But if you do start in Nak or Tuluk, then you should only start in a pen.

The point here is that X-D and I both don't understand the staffs' position on this, and it's doubtful we will. We both believe that muls have a place as slaves, not just freed slaves, and we both think that that aspect of slavery, unique to muls, needs to be in the game. I believe that we both think that mul slaves add something to the game that freed muls don't, and we think it's worth the time.

We both also know that the issue will probably not be resolved as we would like, but with the staffs' attitude of allowing us to talk about things at length, we're both suggesting ways to simplify things and make them work within the framework of the staffs' concern.

[Scarecrow]

If you were a mul waiting in a pen, someone might not buy you for a long, long time, probably before which you'd get dead bored and ask to store the poor sucker

Yup, your right, that is the point.

A slave PC would be shackled with so many restrictions you'd just be boned from the get-go. I just think it might seem like fun in concept, but in practice  it would very quickly get tiresome. Not to mention you'd have to hope your master logs on when you do, keeps interest in the game, yada yada yada. I just think they're more hassle than they are worth.

Both 7Dv and myself addressed much of the restrictions.

And if the overall process is automated then they become no more of a hassle then any other PC that enters the game and dies 4 hours later to something stupid. But I suppose none of them are worth the hassle either.

I feel sorry for you people with more then 100 dead/stored PCs in 2 years, according to some your too much a hassle to be worthwhile.

You're kind of slightly missing what I'm saying. If a regular PC dies rather quickly, that's just part of the game. I'm talking about slaves in particular. and FYI I don't have 100+ stored/dead characters or anything like that. I'm just saying what I think, about slaves in particular, as they are a special case. As for an automated process, I don't see why it should be implemented. It would be a tonne of work for little gain, as It is almost certain any succh slave playing scenario would quickly stop being used as people got bored of either being cage-bound or just shackled down into the realities of being a slave, and all it's restrictions.

[Kiara]

You make it sound as if there would be a mass exodus of slave storages.

If people do not like roles, they generally do not play them. I'm quite certain players like 7DV like the slave role, at least in regards to muls.

I happen to know for a fact 7DV is quite skilled with this role. Players like him should not suffer because of a few retards.

[X-D]

You're kind of slightly missing what I'm saying. If a regular PC dies rather quickly, that's just part of the game. I'm talking about slaves in particular. and FYI I don't have 100+ stored/dead characters or anything like that. I'm just saying what I think, about slaves in particular, as they are a special case. As for an automated process, I don't see why it should be implemented. It would be a tonne of work for little gain, as It is almost certain any succh slave playing scenario would quickly stop being used as people got bored of either being cage-bound or just shackled down into the realities of being a slave, and all it's restrictions.

No, you missed what I said. Also, you don't seem to have an understanding on what slave roles used to be or what we are suggesting.

And I never said or suggested you had 100 past PCs, it was a bit of sarcasm aimed at other people reading this, the ones that do in fact have that many or more. IE, the argument that quick storage or death is too much a hassle holds no water IF the hassle is reduced to the same as any other PC.

When slave roles were still open, they were not so restricted as being shackled to a wall or something. And what 7DV and I are suggesting would make them about as restricted as any noble house clanned PC.

But they would get the slave RP that some people actually DO enjoy.

As to starting out in the pen, Muls are rare, they are a status item for the owner. If the pen was where people pass all the time, the mul would be picked up by some noble or templar in short order, you can be sure of that.

It is also a tempering period, if you cannot make it in the pen for a few hours, maybe days, you will never make it as a slave.

Generally people on the GDB argue that you have no idea how much work something might be and it is not our concern anyway, but I can say that, almost 100% of the code to set such a thing up already exists in the game, Morg or others could set it up in a few hours I'm sure, maybe a couple more hours to build the rooms and npcs.

As to them being a special case...Um...ya, that is why you would set it up this way, so they are no longer a special case taking no more staff time then any other PC that might live an hour or might live two years or more.

Oh, and 7DV was correct in his summation on how I feel on the matter.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

I've been further thinking about how to manage these slave roles, for even further ease for staff. I'll be incorporating X-D's thoughts here, as well. The list looks pretty solid. I'm re-posting it in a proposal format, rather than an idea.



Control of Population
1. Limit slaves to mul karma or called for roles. The option to point to 'Allanak (slave)' or 'Tuluk (slave)', in HoK, appears to players with mul karma or those set up see it.
2. Slaves beginning play in Allanak or Tuluk are given no coin. A shirt, pants, and area-appropriate collar are the only equipment provided.
3. Slaves beginning play in Allanak or Tuluk are spawned in the slave pens of Borsail or Winrothol, respectively.
4. Water and food, per clan cooks, are available in the pen. Other accommodations are also provided, ie: cots, sparring weapons, etc.

Purchasing Slaves
5. Via automated merchant, PCs of Noble rank in their clan are able to outright purchase slaves available in the pen for a unfair fee, which is calculated by the age, guild, and race of the slave.
6. If a PC noble of the local slaving House can be found, better prices can be had. This is also the only way for a GMH purchaser to obtain a slave.

Player Freedoms and Restrictions
7. Slaves are allowed in the city, unescorted, both for social purposes and for errands, provided their masters do not have them occupied.
8. It is an uncoded crime for muls to bear a weapon, or to wear anything other than cloth, unless an owner is with them.
9. It is an uncoded crime for slaves to not have ownership collars fully displayed.
10. Soldiers automatically stop muls from leaving the city, via the normal guard skill.
11. Revise IC social mores within Tor, Borsail, Lyskae, Winrothol, and the GMHs to accommodate muls.
12. In any city that is not their coded hometown, other than Red Storm, a mul is provided no lawful protection. Neither is the attacker rendered assistance.
13. Negative account notes will be given to runaway slaves who do not have a pertinent, well role-played reason IC to do so. Logs of those events must be provided, as well. In the event of un-IC action, Karma may be reduced, negating possible slave roles for some time.




The wording I use is very precise. It should read precisely how I see it, without room for reading between the lines. Some of the rules apply to all slaves. ALL of the rules apply to muls. Muls are the only race who are always slaves. Therefore, some of the rules are geared towards them ICly.

Disclaimer: With the exception of rule #12, nothing at all changes for players who wish to play free, escaped muls.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

I've been further thinking about how to manage these slave roles, for even further ease for staff. I'll be incorporating X-D's thoughts here, as well. The list looks pretty solid. I'm re-posting it in a proposal format, rather than an idea.



Control of Population
1. Limit slaves to mul karma or called for roles. The option to point to 'Allanak (slave)' or 'Tuluk (slave)', in HoK, appears to players with mul karma or those set up see it.
2. Slaves beginning play in Allanak or Tuluk are given no coin. A shirt, pants, and area-appropriate collar are the only equipment provided.
3. Slaves beginning play in Allanak or Tuluk are spawned in the slave pens of Borsail or Winrothol, respectively.
4. Water and food, per clan cooks, are available in the pen. Other accommodations are also provided, ie: cots, sparring weapons, etc.

Purchasing Slaves
5. Via automated merchant, PCs of Noble rank in their clan are able to outright purchase slaves available in the pen for a unfair fee, which is calculated by the age, guild, and race of the slave.
6. If a PC noble of the local slaving House can be found, better prices can be had. This is also the only way for a GMH purchaser to obtain a slave.

Player Freedoms and Restrictions
7. Slaves are allowed in the city, unescorted, both for social purposes and for errands, provided their masters do not have them occupied.
8. It is an uncoded crime for muls to bear a weapon, or to wear anything other than cloth, unless an owner is with them.
9. It is an uncoded crime for slaves to not have ownership collars fully displayed.
10. Soldiers automatically stop muls from leaving the city, via the normal guard skill.
11. Revise IC social mores within Tor, Borsail, Lyskae, Winrothol, and the GMHs to accommodate muls.
12. In any city that is not their coded hometown, other than Red Storm, a mul is provided no lawful protection. Neither is the attacker rendered assistance.
13. Negative account notes will be given to runaway slaves who do not have a pertinent, well role-played reason IC to do so. Logs of those events must be provided, as well. In the event of un-IC action, Karma may be reduced, negating possible slave roles for some time.




The wording I use is very precise. It should read precisely how I see it, without room for reading between the lines. Some of the rules apply to all slaves. ALL of the rules apply to muls. Muls are the only race who are always slaves. Therefore, some of the rules are geared towards them ICly.

Disclaimer: With the exception of rule #12, nothing at all changes for players who wish to play free, escaped muls.

[Lizzie]

I fully support 7DV's proposal.

[Cutthroat]

I would rather see PC nobles from the slaving Houses handle all slave sales, and for the process not to be automated at all for anyone. It seems like that would provide more interaction between the seller and the slave, and the seller and the buyer. That way, the spawn-in-pen system can be disabled when the area is relatively inactive (and thus no one would be interested in buying slaves), and it can be opened to allow sellers to tote around slaves and perhaps auction them off. If the system depends too heavily on automated purchases, slaves are going to be stuck in there for a while. Otherwise, I like the ideas you have, 7DV.

[Marshmellow]

Cutthroat, I don't think you understand the purpose of the suggestion... because slaves aren't allowed because there is too little automation.  It takes staff time invested to set up a slave, and the time invested isn't worth the returns.  So, do we increase the return (can't do it, if you ask me) or do we reduce staff time invested?  They're proposing reducing staff time invested by automating the setup.

[Is Friday]

I can see why staff wouldn't wanna keep apped slaves. I dunno why they'd wanna nix ICly enslaved PCs. Those are the best. It's practically 0 upkeep for staff that way too, isn't it?

[Cutthroat]

Cutthroat, I don't think you understand the purpose of the suggestion... because slaves aren't allowed because there is too little automation.  It takes staff time invested to set up a slave, and the time invested isn't worth the returns.  So, do we increase the return (can't do it, if you ask me) or do we reduce staff time invested?  They're proposing reducing staff time invested by automating the setup.

I think I do understand it. The question that came to my mind at first was, "why let PC nobles purchase slaves automatically while GMH family merchants wouldn't be able to?" Even if this is balanced out by letting the automated purchase happen at an unfair rate, why not just make sales require that nobles and templars find a PC seller, too?

Ideally the setup would still be automated. The slave automatically gets put into the slave pen, automatically gets food and water, automatically gets sparring weapons to keep busy... what is the difference if that slave has to then wait for someone to auto-purchase him or her or if the slave has to wait for a PC slaver to sell him or her? The only actual problem is if there are consistently no Borsail/Winrothol PCs to handle the sale, in which case one would wonder why that would be since both of those Houses are open.

[Barzalene]

I liked all of XD's and 7's suggestions except for starting in a pen and waiting for a buyer. I may not be the norm, but I think after hour two I'd be thinking, 'Well, I can watch tv without a mud client." Some other ideas might be some limited mobility though the city, perhaps in shackles. Or the option to start with a house that has an active membership and might have asked previously for a slave.

[Twilight]

My random thoughts on slaves:

• I think slaves should be allowed, but only for sponsored roles.  These roles should come about via player plotline or request (i.e. a noble asks for a supporting slave role in their application).  Or staff plotline, obviously.
• Very few slaves should be combat slaves, and restricted to a fairly small number of potential owners.
• Most slaves should be mid- to senior- level slaves with influence in the House they come from.  Aide, advisor, spy, skilled craters, etc.
• No slaves should be low level, unimportant, menial labor types.
• PC Slaves should be a possible reward for getting to a more senior role in certain positions (noble, templar, GMH Family).  Again, with combat slaves being very rare.

[X-D]

I would rather see PC nobles from the slaving Houses handle all slave sales, and for the process not to be automated at all for anyone. It seems like that would provide more interaction between the seller and the slave, and the seller and the buyer. That way, the spawn-in-pen system can be disabled when the area is relatively inactive (and thus no one would be interested in buying slaves), and it can be opened to allow sellers to tote around slaves and perhaps auction them off. If the system depends too heavily on automated purchases, slaves are going to be stuck in there for a while. Otherwise, I like the ideas you have, 7DV.

I will expand on the reasoning for the slave pen and the automated selling.

First, let me remind you all that GMH, even GMH family members are still commoners, So they have no actual rights to slaves and it should be harder for them to get them. Which is why they MUST deal with a noble on the matter ICly.

The slave pen part of the idea not only adds atmosphere, it also accounts for the very real possibility that Winrothol or Borsail might not have an active noble at some times or that the noble might not be active during the times the slaves player is. Hence, automated selling, no staff needed, no Borsail or Winrothol noble needed. Also, the pens should be in high traffic areas of the cities. One reason for that is to make sure the nobles and templars know when new slaves are in, but the other reason is to allow some interaction for the slaves as well while they are waiting. No reason they cannot see out and others see in, no reason they cannot talk to others or others talk to them.

It also helps with the player side mindset of playing a slave. Really, if you cannot handle that part of the deal then you should not be thinking about playing a slave from the start.

Also, if the price is unfair on the automated end, then if Lord Fale wants a slave but knows Lord Borsail is around, he is far more likely to go get Lord Borsail to purchase the slave then do so himself. And Borsail would be willing because he in turn will be able to still make a personal profit, because for him the slave only costs3k not 10k, so he can still easily charge 5k and afford that new silk codpiece he has been drooling over.

I also think this system would make the slave a more valued possession then they have been in the past, to the buying PCs. In the past, yes, staff ran a real or virtual auction or something, but that is not quite the same as doing it yourself.

[FiveDisgruntledMonkeysWit]

My random thoughts on slaves:

• I think slaves should be allowed, but only for sponsored roles.  These roles should come about via player plotline or request (i.e. a noble asks for a supporting slave role in their application).  Or staff plotline, obviously.
• Very few slaves should be combat slaves, and restricted to a fairly small number of potential owners.
• Most slaves should be mid- to senior- level slaves with influence in the House they come from.  Aide, advisor, spy, skilled craters, etc.
• No slaves should be low level, unimportant, menial labor types.
• PC Slaves should be a possible reward for getting to a more senior role in certain positions (noble, templar, GMH Family).  Again, with combat slaves being very rare.

I agree with your thoughts in general, but I have to wonder why you insist on rarity for combat slaves? Personally, I think if any slaves were allowed, it should be combat slaves. Because combat slaves actually get to go out and -do- shit sometimes. They get to spar and go on adventure RPTs and follow nobles around as they guard them. It seems like the one slave role likely to resist boredom, if only because you have the threat of death lingering around.

If slaves were given just a little more autonomy (and why aren't they? I see NPC slaves walking around with no apparent supervision all the time), then the differences between a lifesworn soldier and a combat slave would become largely academic.

Still, all this amounts to is a whole lot of bitching and whining. Staff have said no more slaves, and they've given some pretty good reasons. I wish there was a special exception for muls, but ah well. It's honestly not like I was going to play a slave anyway, haha.

[X-D]

Still, all this amounts to is a whole lot of bitching and whining. Staff have said no more slaves, and they've given some pretty good reasons. I wish there was a special exception for muls, but ah well.

But remember, a few years before they said no more slaves they said no more free muls, IE, all muls MUST start as slaves.

Just pointing out, They have changed thier minds before on the matter.

Also, there have been other cases of no more this or no more that, but later ended up coming back after the problem was fixed.

So who knows, maybe some staffers will think they are good ideas and give them a try, or maybe not, no reason to not have the ideas out there.

[FiveDisgruntledMonkeysWit]

True. I wasn't trying to squelch discussion or anything.

[Twilight]

Because combat slaves, -especially- mul combat slaves, should be rare the gameworld itself.  Because other than certain exceptions, like the Legions, you don't want your slaves walking around with weapons.  In fact, there was a law on this somewhere, at some time.  And because combat slaves different, in terms of how the law should view them, if they say, murdered someone.

And because a slave aide, etc. is essentially doing what the role would be if it were a free person, but with a different dynamic.  So, yeah...political or merchantile slave roles, rather than combat ones.

[Delstro]

Why do we have to choose one or the other?

If a Noble/Merchant PC requests a slave for combat, let a combat slave be app'ed for.
If a Noble/Merchant PC requests a slave for assistance, let the aide be app'ed for.

If noone wants either role, either role will not get filled. No harm, no foul.

Everyone gets to app that wants to, then the Noble/Merchant PC picks between the various descriptions and play times. If the Noble/Merchant doesn't want a Mul PC, they will not pick that one. If they do, they run the risk of being slaughtered by a crazed mul.
The Noble/Merchant PC doesn't get to see the backgrounds of each.

[Nyr]

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.

Sorry to bust in here and lock the thread, but we're not considering anything new with slaves at this point.