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.