Slaves!

[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.