Slavery and Slave Roles in Armageddon

[Jherlen]

By popular demand! Posts from the RAT thread:

We have got to brainstorm a "soft" slavery that fits the setting, does not require copious imm involvement, is not isolating, and has imm approval. Someone make a thread!

Desertman started a good topic with these thoughts:

I never saw the problem with slavery.

In a perma-death game you can kill people at will and end their ability to enjoy their character/keep playing them.

But, you can't take them into slavery because it might end their ability to enjoy their character/keep playing them. It would be harder to take a slave IC than it would be to kill them. A lot harder. I remember a dwarf I once sold into slavery with a PC leader of mine. I also sold a half-elf into slavery once. I feel like both of those characters preferred that to just being straight killed. Both also went on to enjoy their roles from everything I saw going forward.

I just never understood the argument against it. "People might not like being a slave and have to store." Well, now I will just auto-store them instead and never give them the option, also known as killing them.

Maybe it created more staff work somewhere that I'm unaware of.

I'd like to explore this more.

Players in general, do you want to play a slave? Why or why not?

How would we feel if templars or crews working for the slaving houses were actually allowed to capture PCs as slaves?

Staff, what were some of the problems you saw with slave roles that led to the current "no slaves unless a sponsored role" rule in place?

Players who played slaves previously, how did you find the role? Did you end up storing due to boredom of restriction? What were some of the challenges/fun things about the slave role?

And to everyone, how can we make slavery fit into the game world better, seeing as how much of the population of the two cities is enslaved and two of the largest Noble Houses are slave-oriented?

[Desertman]

I would play a slave sure. Not one where I just apped a slave most likely, but one where I was forced into slavery through IC events. I could get into that.

I don't think anything needs to be "changed" to make playing a slave or taking slaves "viable". It already is on both fronts. The concept that they aren't is purely an OOC concept/rule. I think people just need to toughen up and stop crying/complaining if they end up on the bad end of a slave trade.

Don't want to be killed in Armageddon? Don't put yourself in "get killed" situations.

Don't want to get slaved in Armageddon. Don't put yourself in "get slaved" situations.

That being said, we can already take/capture, own, and roleplay slaves, we just don't call them slaves. We call them fearful underlings that get paid with getting to stay alive.

[Erythil]

I've always suspected that the problem here is less that people will be forced into a situation where they are a captive servant, but more that they would be forced to participate in weird BDSM style sexual shenanigans.

[Lutagar]

I've always suspected that the problem here is less that people will be forced into a situation where they are a captive servant, but more that they would be forced to participate in weird BDSM style sexual shenanigans.

you're entitled to ftb yo

[Jherlen]

I've always suspected that the problem here is less that people will be forced into a situation where they are a captive servant, but more that they would be forced to participate in weird BDSM style sexual shenanigans.

I'd hope that any character with the IC clout to take and own slaves (we're talking, mainly, templars and nobles here) would be well versed with the rules around ooc consent and not forcing someone to roleplay situations they weren't comfortable with. After all most slaves, ICly, aren't sex slaves, and a templar or noble who was enslaving commoners for those purposes would be ridiculed (at the least) in Allanak, and probably have even worse happen in Tuluk because of the whole no-touchy rules between Chosen and commoners.

[LauraMars]

I've always suspected that the problem here is less that people will be forced into a situation where they are a captive servant, but more that they would be forced to participate in weird BDSM style sexual shenanigans.

Pretty sure "help consent" rules the possibility of that out completely - but maybe staff don't want to have to arbitrate consent complaints, and they're more frequent when slave roles are a possibility?  But I find that pretty difficult to believe.

I've always been a little sad that slave roles are no longer allowed. My longest lived character was a slave who was enslaved under IC circumstances.  59 DAYS PLAYED!  Of course, she wasn't a "typical" case, didn't resemble a slave much at all by the time her story was over (one and a half real life years later), and it isn't really fair of me to bring her up as an example; but I have a soft spot for slave roles because of that character.

I'm not sure I'd want to play a slave again, since I've already "done" that in Armageddon.  It's also a very, very tough role to play - the isolation can be extreme if you aren't allowed a ton of freedom, and cause you as a player to go a little nuts.  I dunno, though - the fact that the option no longer exists feels a bit limiting. I feel like under special, case-by-case circumstances, in-game slavery could be appropriate and allowed.  I understand staff don't necessarily want to have to deal with the extra work of making judgement calls each time slavery comes up - but does it really come up that often?

[Kronibas]

Does anyone remember Murk?

Murk was a Kadian mul who was a slave but also a leadership character.  Because he had ICly proven his trust, he was allowed a lot of freedom and really added a lot to the clan.

I don't see what's really wrong with a role like that, just like with Byn muls.  Murk did not require supervision, he played a believable slave character, he added a ton to the clan in ways most PCs don't, and, well, he just kicked a lot of ass.

It was probably like ten years ago or something when I played a slave.  Even though I was friends with the Borsail noble, it got old because there weren't many players.  I think the best slaves would be in clans with lots of PCs, and maybe not noble houses, even though they own a ton of them.

If you have a slave that can keep busy during periods of inactivity... doing, ummm, stuff like crafting or whatever else, then that's even better.

[ShaLeah]

I've always suspected that the problem here is less that people will be forced into a situation where they are a captive servant, but more that they would be forced to participate in weird BDSM style sexual shenanigans.

That's kind of disappointing.


I'd guess SEX SLAVES would be the least common slave roleplay requested.

My guess is that the slavery role is a) boring (for those who don't really like solo rp) most of the time since it's dependent on your master's usage of you which b) leads to a whole bunch of slaves wanting "freedom". 

The problem is that the word slave takes away the realization that it's just a lifer role. You want to be there and just like any lifer clan role, you're gonna have days you wanna claw your eyes out from boredom or having to roleplay with a master you can't stand. The issue is the allure of the role far outweighs the necessity for this mentality to be the primary understanding of this possible character.

I think that's easily fixed by:

a) Making it a karma option.
b) Having detailed documents for slavery who does NOT want to flee.

[ClanAlt123]

Aside from not being entirely in control of it....

What exactly is the difference between lifesworn clan members and slaves?

[X-D]

Nothing....oh wait..slaves have greater value.

[Jherlen]

Slaves are property, and so can't really own property themselves. Anything they use can be given and taken away at a whim by their master. They also usually have less places they're free to go on their own, and can't really fall in love or settle down with somebody. A really sadistic or micromanaging noble/templar might do the same with their lifesworn employees, but I imagine all those restrictions are far less common for commoner lifesworn people vs. slaves.

[FreeRangeVestric]

...A really sadistic or micromanaging noble/templar...

So...A noble/templar? 

Joking aside, there is quite a variety of differences between slaves and lifesworn employees. One major one being that while slaves have service ingrained in them from birth, lifesworn employees have room to be (at least more so than a slave) sort of punch-clock servants, who have a life outside their work. A slave trained from birth might have almost nothing in the way of a personal identity. A lifesworn employee could get time off and go to a tavern, buy an apartment, wander the markets, smoke spice, etc. It's hard for me to imagine a slave doing any of that.

[Omn]

I played a slave-type role for the last year and half in another game. It was really difficult - it's hard when you have a little space to maneuver socially because of your status, and that tends to restrict your circle of individuals to roleplay with. From what I've heard of why slaves were closed previously, it wasn't viable because there was more effort put into sussing out slave characters who stored or had issues in play. I'm not sure that staff can make documentation which would cause less storing: it's really down to the master and slave players to make it fun for themselves. It requires a lot of energy on both side to keep it up.

That being said, without slave PCs being played slaves don't really seem to be as big in play as they are in the setting documentation, which I think is a shame. Someone mentioned making slaves a karma role - maybe the master role should have a certain minimum requirement of a karma as well. Maybe either would be best requiring a special application.

An idea of how to keep slaves more engaged: give them reasons to interact with one another. Maybe there's a communal space where they have to spend a portion of their time doing something tedious for His Shadow/Light. Maybe they're all innately spies for the city-states. So forth.

Count me pro-slaves.

[ClanAlt123]

I seem to remember reading something about slaves even being higher-up on the social ladder compared to commoners in most cases. Even that slaves were treated far better than most commoners, depending on their purpose.

I did a report on Aztec slavery in high school, and the whole time I couldn't help but think how Zalanthan it sounded, at least compared to European slavery in the setting. Especially if tweaked a bit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aztec_slavery

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

I'm way pro slave.

The reasoning behind slaves being taken out of the game never sat well with me. I'm not staff, have never been staff, and I don't have the behind-the-scene look they do, but from my end, it's always been a simple solution to a simple situation. Establish acceptable slave roles in clans that allow players to have fun, ie: fighters in military clans (Kurac, Tor, Byn, GMH hunting divisions), aides in non-military clans (Fale, Borsail, Militias).

If someone who plays a slave wants to retire, I don't see how that would be an issue. Otherwise, inform that player of the restrictions of the role in clear-cut documentation, and let them do it.

BTW, barring very few exceptions, slavery is the only way you should be able to play a mul. Playing a free mul should be a special application. And I love muls. But I love them the most in an appropriate setting, which is slavery.

[Omn]

One of the huge benefits of playing a slave character is that if you're playing for someone of influence who is playing politics, you very well may be the only person they can truly trust to keep a secret, or to be entirely loyal (if that's the relationship you have built). You could be entrusted important tasks, and are likely to either be overlooked when accomplishing said tasks, or wield a very moderate amount of sway when acting in the name of your master.

I see it as likely being a very interesting position to view the game in - possibly one more 'clued in' and engaged at a level most commoner PCs might not be.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

I'd also note that escaping slavery should be a potentially karma-reducing thing. Playing a slave should be the same as playing a life-sworn freeman, but with more expectation as far as loyalty and role-playing fortitude. Escape should be something that you AND your clan staff agrees makes sense for the situation, and not just a whim. Failure to coordinate with staff on such a choice should invoke karma or trust reduction towards your account.

The slaves that people should be allowed to play are the roles that have transcended the menial labor roles most slaves IC are entrenched in. They should be the upper crust of slaves, and as such, privy to both more involvement (player excitement), more trust (having 'cool shit'), and conversely, more loyalty (murder, betrayal and all that still applies, but it should require some serious event to invoke it).

[Omn]

To add, I think that it might be fair if people play a slave role and it's just not cutting it for them, they can store with no big. If they wanted to play another slave role they would have to make a strong case for why they'd be invested in to stick to it.

Because I suppose that's the roughest part: people who have the interest in investing in a slave PC could get burned out after two or three get bored. It'd be sad to lose people who were willing to take it on.

[Eurynomos]

We had a slave role app in the last few months.IIRC, we put up the app in part because of GDB griping about no slave roles. We got one application, and it was from someone who played a slave role previously.

Just sayin'. ( by just sayin I mean those are the raw metrics. I can't really speak to the "why" verbosely at the moment).

[HavokBlue]

Edit: nevermind I'm an idiot

[Welda]

We had a slave role app in the last few months.IIRC, we put up the app in part because of GDB griping about no slave roles. We got one application, and it was from someone who played a slave role previously.

Just sayin'. ( by just sayin I mean those are the raw metrics. I can't really speak to the "why" verbosely at the moment).

Eurynomos is right.

To give you full story: After a handful of "I want to be a mul-slave" requests and years-long-talks about how slaves are cool on GDB, we made a role call for a mul slave in AoD. We didn't get a single app, but we got complaints it's not fair that the role is only for high-karma race. We changed it to "any race" then... and got two apps, where one was for a secret magicker (normal slave would be too boring).

The main problem with slaves is that the role is very limiting for a player and that other players often aren't sure how to react to the slave. There were some greatly played slaves in the past. But there were also many poorly played, complaining to staff about boredom or/and their masters, playing unrealistically or expecting unrealistic treatment etc.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

We had a slave role app in the last few months.IIRC, we put up the app in part because of GDB griping about no slave roles. We got one application, and it was from someone who played a slave role previously.

Just sayin'. ( by just sayin I mean those are the raw metrics. I can't really speak to the "why" verbosely at the moment).

I seriously thought about apping for it, too. Unfortunately, I'm playing a character I can't bear to store. But slave roles should be open most of the time. I'd say a single such role in each clan appropriate for such a role would work fine.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

Sorry, didn't read your post, Welda.

Here's a question, though. If I apped for a slave, today, in the Legion, assuming the Legion was a fine place for a slave, would I be approved?

Because while I understand not wanting to play something right this moment, what I don't understand is not having the option available to me without some sort of special consideration.

[Welda]

I am sorry, but it would always require some sort of special consideration simply because we need to take a lot of things in account to approve/decline a slave role - things like "Are there enough PCs in the clan atm, so the slave won't be bored?", "What kind of PCs is in the clan now, are there strong leaders who know how to deal with a slave?", "Is there enough of What-To-Do for a slave?" etc. That's why we prefer "a role call" for slave roles and otherwise keep them closed.

That said, if you badly want to play a slave, you could always submit a Clan Related request with your character concept.

[Bushranger]

I was one of the people who placed a gripe on the GDB about there being no slave roles announced on the GDB. I was told that for the last few years staff had been able to open up calls for slaves but had not done so until that specific call. I was really happy to see it. Given these are roles that staff have said are only available when a call is made I had hoped there would be more interest so we could see a call or two for such roles every year instead of having only on one call in three years. I am disappointed it was not met with greater enthusiasm.

On the other hand I was playing not only my longest lived character but one of the most enjoyable I have ever played. I was not going to store that for any role staff put out a call for*

I also know staff have said they don't want people to ask if a special application idea they had in mind was feasible or not before they apply for it. Does that include people with the karma to apply, or make a special application, for Muls or can we make a request to the staff overseeing organizations that would purchase Mul slaves and ask if they have an opening for such a role when we're between characters? If not I hope it's not another three years till we see another call from staff for a Mul slave (unless my current character lives that long!)

EDIT: As my question is asked and answered by the time I write this post. Thank-you Welda

* Maybe a call for Tektolnes' bastard son would have tempted me - he would have the biggest trust fund in Nenyuks!