PC Slavery

[Heade]

I feel like the entire concept of slavery and how common it is in the game world has taken a major blow in the last decade since it was removed from play, and allowing PC slaves again, and for PCs to -become- enslaved again would add a whole lot of flavor back into the gameworld.

Reading some old documentation, for instance, it is noted that of all the classes of society, slaves are by far the most numerous, significantly outnumbering "commoners".

I think bringing PC slavery back could be a positive for the game as a whole. I know one of the major reasons staff said it was taken out was that PC slaves often had their playtimes tied to their "owner", and thus if their owner wasn't on, they really couldn't log in and play, so they stored a lot. I think this issue could be resolved through a similar system to that which is currently employed for PC gladiators, basically allowing PC slaves to be an alternate character so that they could play when their PC "owner" isn't logged in.

[Mr. Fancypants]

Or... you could play a gladiator!

Kidding not kidding.

If you want to see what a slave role might be like, roll up a penned (secondary PC) or a reigning (primary PC) gladiator.

[mansa]

I think I have to look it up but I recall something around 100% of player slaves retired due to bordem and the restriction of the role.

Its basically a noble without the freedom of choice or opinion or expression.

I consider it not fun in a text based game that relies on expression and creativity.

[Bebop]

I'm not opposed to this if people really wanna play House slaves or whatever but I think it should require a karma and the character starting off in Borsail then being sold like the reigning currently IG.

Slaves can be played like life sworn aides.  There's a lot of potential there but as mansa said the role is not for everyone.  Not sure I'd compare them with nobles but observationally I do think this kind of pedestal putting of current slaves (who by default should be amongst the lowest caste socially regardless of accomplishment) does have a bit of an effect on the social standings and culture of the game.  I love what slaves can bring to the game but it's such a fine line making sure they aren't perceived as, played like or treated as nobility.  That requires good play from not only the slave PC but everyone involved with such a character.

Some what related --- When I played an Uaptal I had a PC slave that just constantly mudsexed my aide and found a reason to log off when I gave them IG orders.  Lulz.  It was pretty much like they weren't an effing slave just someone I couldn't fire.  Hence why I request if House slaves are thing karma and a detailed background and intent be required.

Edited to add:. Also most of what can be accomplished by a House slave can be accomplished by being a life sworn aide.  Yes, yes I know it's not the same.  I hate when people just compare something similar but at least aiding gives you the chance to shop for players with similar play times and style.

[Mr. Fancypants]

The only slaves I can think of that are being or should be put on pedestals are gladiators, and that's because they're celebrities. They're the Zalanthas version of a star athlete, except every time they perform they might die. It gives the role a unique flavor because they can fit in with nearly every level of society, but at the end of the day, they are still slaves and that means they are property. Their value descends directly from how much their owner values them and conversely from how much value they provide to their owner. Sure, they are property that talks and presumably has feelings, but who cares about the feelings of property?

Think of a gladiator like a luxury car. So there's this super rich dude who's got a Mazerati in his garage. All your friends get to ride out in it and show off pictures to their friends, and when you roll up to the club in it everyone takes notice. You don't want to risk damaging it, and you definitely don't want to crash it... unless you really dislike their owner and are prepared for the serious consequences which will follow if you are caught as being the one who did it.

I think the reason that gladiators are available to play is because they get this limited freedom of expression and choice. They're property, but they can go out and about, socialize, provide a valuable service to their owners, and what's more, they have a built-in purpose and ticking time-bomb attached to their lives. Those who survive a long time are not only extremely rare, they're also exponentially more valuable to their owners.

That sense of purpose and built-in time limit to the role is something that is lacking from most other slave roles. To a limited extent, fighters for fighting clans such as the Byn and AoD can (and do) have limited slave roles available. Those roles are even more limited than gladiators though sometimes they do get to leave the city.

I can envision a "house servant" type slave, if the right player and circumstances were found. Unfortunately these roles are far more limited and require a high degree of player skill, patience, and understanding of the role which slaves inhabit in the world of Zalanthas. I wouldn't hold my breath looking for these to become a common occurrence. Most of them just get bored and/or do something silly, or just retire within a few months.

[Bebop]

The only slaves I can think of that are being or should be put on pedestals are gladiators, and that's because they're celebrities. They're the Zalanthas version of a star athlete, except every time they perform they might die. It gives the role a unique flavor because they can fit in with nearly every level of society, but at the end of the day, they are still slaves and that means they are property. Their value descends directly from how much their owner values them and conversely from how much value they provide to their owner. Sure, they are property that talks and presumably has feelings, but who cares about the feelings of property?

Think of a gladiator like a luxury car. So there's this super rich dude who's got a Mazerati in his garage. All your friends get to ride out in it and show off pictures to their friends, and when you roll up to the club in it everyone takes notice. You don't want to risk damaging it, and you definitely don't want to crash it... unless you really dislike their owner and are prepared for the serious consequences which will follow if you are caught as being the one who did it.

I think the reason that gladiators are available to play is because they get this limited freedom of expression and choice. They're property, but they can go out and about, socialize, provide a valuable service to their owners, and what's more, they have a built-in purpose and ticking time-bomb attached to their lives. Those who survive a long time are not only extremely rare, they're also exponentially more valuable to their owners.

That sense of purpose and built-in time limit to the role is something that is lacking from most other slave roles. To a limited extent, fighters for fighting clans such as the Byn and AoD can (and do) have limited slave roles available. Those roles are even more limited than gladiators though sometimes they do get to leave the city.

I can envision a "house servant" type slave, if the right player and circumstances were found. Unfortunately these roles are far more limited and require a high degree of player skill, patience, and understanding of the role which slaves inhabit in the world of Zalanthas. I wouldn't hold my breath looking for these to become a common occurrence. Most of them just get bored and/or do something silly, or just retire within a few months.

100% agree on everything here.  A gladiator has a built in purpose while a slave of a different nature is going to be some what reliant on their House masters which could be totally hit or miss due to several factors that could change at any moment. 

I would also love to see a lot more people in their own ways acknowledging gladiators as property and keeping it in their mind that they are human but in Zalanthas that is secondary to the fact that they are property that belongs to someone or an IG entity as Mr. Fancy Pants stated but they certainly have their place in the limelight and on a pedestal within the city.

My point was more to putting slaves (particularly house slaves) on pedestals to the degree of nobilty.  I can't think of a single scenario where a House slave should be looked at on par with even the lowest of nobility.  If so it would be a huge exception, not the the rule to some circumstances I can't perceive here.  Sometimes, IG people have a tendency to usurp caste and social norms due because of an OOC acknowledgement of longevity and that's where I begin to take issue or at least foresee where issue could arise with these types of roles being opened.  The Hierarchy of aide types can be quite subtle and amorphous within their Houses and the city so I can see there being a fine line arising as far as playability between a slave aide and a free aide.

[ShaLeah]

A few years ago there was an auction of slaves. I played a pleasure slave that got purchased by the templarate. She wasn't used as a pleasure slave at all and it was disappointing as hell and borrrring but it was a learning experience. Had I had a different leader I'm sure my results would have been different but a slave is restricted in play. They shouldn't be played like they have their own minds and so I was stuck waiting for someone to use my pc properly. It never happened and I stored.

I'm all for slavery, I'd love it if forced slavery was a thing, a real consequence of a commoners actions. Just the thought of an uppity commoner (looking at you [redacted]) being enslaved is thrilling. I know wayyyyyyyyyyy more commoners would act like their lives are on the line in more ways than one if they could be collared forcibly like the gemmed. Ohhh it brings joy to my cold black heart.

The only unplayable slave in my opinion is the hard labor slaves since projects like that aren't really created by players, they're added by staff. House slaves, rearing slaves, training slaves, scribes, pleasure, military... those are all doable. They just need to be used properly.

If you want to see what a slave role might be like, roll up a penned (secondary PC) or a reigning (primary PC) gladiator.

No way, I disagree completely. A penned isn't an example of anything but a rodeo clown. Fun but just entertainment. A reigning gladiator is not what a real slave is. They get WAY too much freedom, they meddle in commoner affairs, have way too much trust of inside HOUSE affairs that they shouldn't be dealing with in the least, hell, they don't even live with whomever owns them which makes them of questionable loyalty. I see them as walking billboards at best. Things to covet and wanna touch and be in awe and jealousy of but they're a special kind of slave. Not 'normal' slaves at all.


All in all I am +1 allowing slaves to be played as a role and forcibly enslaving commoners at a noble's whim. MOAR CONFLICT!

[Mr. Fancypants]

Heh.

Your first paragraph explains exactly why "normal" slave roles aren't an everyday occurrence.

Your second-to-last paragraph explains why gladiators are the only readily available slave role.

We can debate the finer points to our heart's content, but gladiator slaves are slaves, so they're an option those who want to play that sort of role. Whether as short-lived color as a penned or slightly less short-lived color as a Reigning. No, it's not a more traditional slave role, but those are boring for the average rolplayer to endure.

[Heade]

My point was more to putting slaves (particularly house slaves) on pedestals to the degree of nobilty.  I can't think of a single scenario where a House slave should be looked at on par with even the lowest of nobility.

I think what they were meaning was that, if Lady Moarpowar Fale sends her slave to deliver a message to someone, or negotiate with someone on her behalf, often that slave may be interacted with almost as if it were the Lady Fale herself, because they don't want to piss off the Slave's owner.

I'm all for slavery, I'd love it if forced slavery was a thing, a real consequence of a commoners actions. Just the thought of an uppity commoner (looking at you [redacted]) being enslaved is thrilling. I know wayyyyyyyyyyy more commoners would act like their lives are on the line in more ways than one if they could be collared forcibly like the gemmed. Ohhh it brings joy to my cold black heart.

The only unplayable slave in my opinion is the hard labor slaves since projects like that aren't really created by players, they're added by staff. House slaves, rearing slaves, training slaves, scribes, pleasure, military... those are all doable. They just need to be used properly.

All in all I am +1 allowing slaves to be played as a role and forcibly enslaving commoners at a noble's whim. MOAR CONFLICT!

I agree. I see people complaining all the time about other PCs resorting to PKing as the only option any more, but options like this (forced collaring) have come off the table over the years, narrowing people's allowed responses when they need to impose their will/power in game. I think having forced slavery back as an alternative to execution gives more agency to players across the entire game. It brings back all sorts of fun roleplay, training slaves for roles, trading slaves, and utilizing slaves. Roleplaying the varying mindsets of different slaves in different conditions, from the slave who appreciates the lavish lifestyle their captivity affords them to the hard labor slave that abhors it. It also opens up roles for things that you never see in game any more, but USED to, like career slave traders. Raiders can potentially have alternatives other than "gimme yer sids or die". It just opens up tonz of roleplay opportunities that vanished when it was altered. It significantly impacted the way the world looks and feels. To me, it most certainly doesn't FEEL like slaves make up a significant portion of the world population, because for players, slavery simply isn't a possibility.

That said, No one is forced to play a slave. Storage is always an option, but for some of us, playing the story of that wily commoner with fingers in all sorts of pies, who then gets enslaved, may very well be a story we wish to play that out. There are a lot more options for that story than the story of the same commoner being executed when they -would- have instead been enslaved, were that an option.

As far as the boredom thing goes, I think that can be alleviated a bit by doing what we currently do with penned gladiators: Allow players of a slave to make an alternate character, so that when their "master" isn't around, they can still play the game. Previously, with the 1-character policy, players of slaves were often chained to the playtimes of their "owner", who might not always perfectly match up. Allowing a slave to be played as an alternate, with the understanding that if the slave is ever freed, they will need to store them or their alt immediately, would eliminate that as such an issue.

And who knows? Maybe the ability to give a pleasure slave a shot again will bring back people like ShaLeah and help spike our population a bit. It certainly wouldn't hurt.



Also, I'd like to point out one thing here... "I wouldn't want to play one" isn't a valid argument against bringing the option back for people who would.

[Mr. Fancypants]

You can enslave someone. They will just be stored immediately, unless they are being put in the Arena.

Yes, in some cases, currently living PCs could be enslaved as gladiator PCs. Staff has confirmed this.

So, if you want to enslave someone, go talk to a Templar. Or someone who can talk to a Templar for you.

As for secondary slave PCs, penned gladiators can't leave the arena for a reason. Having secondary PCs that can interact with the wider playerbase is a can of worms that can lead to very messy situations.

[Heade]

As for secondary slave PCs, penned gladiators can't leave the arena for a reason. Having secondary PCs that can interact with the wider playerbase is a can of worms that can lead to very messy situations.

I've considered this aspect, and I think one way to go about addressing it would be to just have laws in place IG that discourage this sort of thing by making an in-game law that slaves are not to be unsupervised at any time by either their owner, or an agent thereof. If they are, any unsupervised slave is subject to being captured and re-enslaved by anyone from a commoner on up. That would make it so that sending a slave to go negotiate on your behalf wouldn't happen, unless you also sent them with one of your guards, which would eliminate the twinky dual-character nonsense that you're referring to as being a potential problem. It would also open up the door for conflict involving slave theft, or accusations of slave theft. And with the closing of Tuluk, I really believe Arm could use some more fuel for conflict between noble houses, between GMH's, and between Independents.

But it would still leave open a ton of various roles involving various types of slaves and slave trading. Someone could play an independent, nomadic tribal slave trader, and noble houses would have more to do to make the roles fun. And it would give templars and other antagonists an alternative to murder/execution. If a player doesn't want to play out being enslaved, as always, they'd have the option to store, so it'd be no different than if they didn't have that option and just got killed instead.

[ShaLeah]

If they are, any unsupervised slave is subject to being captured and re-enslaved by anyone from a commoner on up.

Commoners cannot own slaves much less enslave anyone. A great merchant HOUSE can own slaves but not individual commoners.  The last (and only) commoner I personally have ever seen own a slave was Tasok Salarr.

Enslaving commoners shouldn't be easy,  even for nobility. It should be expensive and only sanctioned through the templarate and should be pardonable and without a doubt NO commoner should be able to own a slave.

[Eyeball]

A few years ago there was an auction of slaves. I played a pleasure slave that got purchased by the templarate. She wasn't used as a pleasure slave at all and it was disappointing as hell and borrrring but it was a learning experience.

I think I remember her sitting in a barracks for the Arm of the Dragon (if it's the same character). The one time anything sexual happened (a soldier PC emoted looking at her and wanking), she reported it (instead of just smiling to herself and letting it pass) and he was punished. These things get handed along the grapevine, so it wouldn't be surprising that no one approached her (or any other slave of the Templarate afterward).

[Heade]

If they are, any unsupervised slave is subject to being captured and re-enslaved by anyone from a commoner on up.

Commoners cannot own slaves much less enslave anyone. A great merchant HOUSE can own slaves but not individual commoners.  The last (and only) commoner I personally have ever seen own a slave was Tasok Salarr.

Enslaving commoners shouldn't be easy,  even for nobility. It should be expensive and only sanctioned through the templarate and should be pardonable and without a doubt NO commoner should be able to own a slave.

Yeah, I don't agree. Allanak law doesn't apply in the sands, or in tribes, which also have slaves. Also, over half of ALL people in the world are slaves. So it can't be THAT expensive.

My suggestion was a way to make slavery work so that it wasn't just a collared aide, but a role where slave owners had to be responsible for their slaves or run the risk of losing them.

[Inky]

The Zalanthan approach to slavery is kind of silly to begin with.

Sure they're expected to perform like mindless drones. And they might have internalized that to some degree.

But that doesn't mean they don't have their own internal thoughts and needs. It doesn't mean they don't form bonds or relationships with other people. Loyal or no, it doesn't mean they are incapable of low-key subversiveness and manipulation to get their way.

A few years ago there was an auction of slaves. I played a pleasure slave that got purchased by the templarate. She wasn't used as a pleasure slave at all and it was disappointing as hell and borrrring but it was a learning experience. Had I had a different leader I'm sure my results would have been different but a slave is restricted in play. They shouldn't be played like they have their own minds and so I was stuck waiting for someone to use my pc properly. It never happened and I stored.

This seems like a missed opportunity to me. How does someone conditioned as a sex slave adapt to a new environment?
Do they flounder and clam up because they don't know the rules? Do they flourish and find their skills in seduction and pillow talk to be useful tools when socializing with other characters? Would they aim to be transferred to new master who fulfills their purpose or would they rather seek another position and become something of an body slave and aide-de-champ to their current master.?

[Derain]

I was forcibly collared by Raleris Winrothal waaay back and I took it horrible I had made the PC to be an outdoors PC who hated being in the city. Well I ended up getting myself killed as being stuck in a barracks constantly was horrible.. I was also Collared by lady Khem Tor once after red fangs captured my tribal. Ended up storing after a month and a half of sitting in the Tor Academy.

[Boogerbear]

Let's take a time machine ride back to 2005-2006 to talk about, IMHO, the best mulish slave character the circumstances allowing that PC to not only be a slave, but also a very important leader within and extremely important asset TO the clan.

For starters, Murk was a slave for a Great Merchant House.  At the time, it was the premiere GMH of the region and had been for as long as anyone could remember because of various IC/OOC reasons.

I take a sponsored role for this GMH, and one of the first PCs I meet is the mulish "Kommandant."  This slave is already the equivalent to Lieutenant of sorts by the time my character arrives on scene, and he, all the while portraying a mul in a convincing, consistent manner, becomes a valuable asset in terms of recruiting, leading hunting expeditions, and acting as a guard/wagon escort.

But what really gave this player the capacity to be so awesome was our clan staff at the time, who was just one individual.  They're still on staff today and know who they are.

What, exactly, did this staff member do that allowed Murk to be one of the best mul PCs that I've ever encountered?

Freedom.  To walk the city.  To earn extra coins.  To even leave the gates alone.

I am not certain if Murk was special-app'd as a leadership PC or started out as something more mundane.

Either way, the end result was a great success.

The only other mulish slave I can think of who had the same great of freedom and success was played in the very early 2000s, rumored to have been played by mostly-well-respected staff member named Krrx, who is responsible for the T'zai Byn and Red Storm as we know it.  It's incredible how one staff member can be responsible for both the most populated clan of all time and one of the most well-written and unique areas. He should be an inspiration, but I digress.

Point is, everyone thought he played the Kuraci mul Davaz, who, like Murk, was a leadership PC that was granted freedoms like being able to discipline lower-ranked PCs, lead training, and leave the gates - even by himself.

Unquestionably for me, those two PCs are the best slave PCs (all, not just mul), and what allowed them to be this way was that they were allowed freedom and not restricted to a certain area (I have played Borsail mul slaves like this, blargh).  Going rogue in these rolls should not be entirely out of the question but it should be the exception to the rule.

[crymerci]

I'm all for slavery, I'd love it if forced slavery was a thing, a real consequence of a commoners actions. Just the thought of an uppity commoner (looking at you [redacted]) being enslaved is thrilling. I know wayyyyyyyyyyy more commoners would act like their lives are on the line in more ways than one if they could be collared forcibly like the gemmed. Ohhh it brings joy to my cold black heart.

The only unplayable slave in my opinion is the hard labor slaves since projects like that aren't really created by players, they're added by staff. House slaves, rearing slaves, training slaves, scribes, pleasure, military... those are all doable. They just need to be used properly.
...
All in all I am +1 allowing slaves to be played as a role and forcibly enslaving commoners at a noble's whim. MOAR CONFLICT!

The problem is that recently-captured slaves would be the greatest security risk and generally just used for hard labor or breeding, because they cannot be trusted as much as a slave conditioned from birth. This is great, in that it creates opportunities for conflict around escaping, but it would be a lot more cumbersome to roleplay not rebelling.

Lifesworn employees are already essentially indentured servants who chose their masters.

[Dar]

I was forcibly collared by Raleris Winrothal waaay back and I took it horrible I had made the PC to be an outdoors PC who hated being in the city. Well I ended up getting myself killed as being stuck in a barracks constantly was horrible.. I was also Collared by lady Khem Tor once after red fangs captured my tribal. Ended up storing after a month and a half of sitting in the Tor Academy.

I think I was the rf who did it. Was it you who was all "Not the face!" When we were branding you?

I'm sorry it didnt work out for you. It was an effort to not end your plot in death.

[ShaLeah]

The Zalanthan approach to slavery is kind of silly to begin with.

Sure they're expected to perform like mindless drones. And they might have internalized that to some degree.

But that doesn't mean they don't have their own internal thoughts and needs. It doesn't mean they don't form bonds or relationships with other people. Loyal or no, it doesn't mean they are incapable of low-key subversiveness and manipulation to get their way.

Oh I agree .. with the addition of ... within THEIR realm.  Not outside it. My pleasure slave/ gladiator / scribe / wet nurse / handmaiden should ALL be scrambling within my House for higher,  more trusted position.  They should be going outside the house if they wanna be purchased by someone else with more money and prestige. They shouldn't be worried about which aide hates which merchant save for information purposes.  They're property and showing and acting upon basic human emotion is (or should be imo) faulty conditioning.  It's why you don't see elf slaves in civilized society.  Or breed or hg slaves.  They're not trustworthy or easy to condition. Look at muls, SO profitable a physical slave that slavers continue breeding them because that few runners can't equal the mounds of sid and power that brilliant breeding brings them.

The problem with PC slaves in game is that they don't really have equals with their house structure. Gladiators are a perfect example.  The only PC slave that has any mobility is the Doyen and there aren't any other doyen pcs. Th3 reigning are SUPPOSED to kill each other.  You don't see them zalanthafying the role and killing their doyen to get promoted.  Whether they can't cause it's a staff mandated no no or they haven't cause they're loyal slaves,  it just has not been done. Missed opportunity imo.

A few years ago there was an auction of slaves. I played a pleasure slave that got purchased by the templarate. She wasn't used as a pleasure slave at all and it was disappointing as hell and borrrring but it was a learning experience. Had I had a different leader I'm sure my results would have been different but a slave is restricted in play. They shouldn't be played like they have their own minds and so I was stuck waiting for someone to use my pc properly. It never happened and I stored.

This seems like a missed opportunity to me. How does someone conditioned as a sex slave adapt to a new environment?
Do they flounder and clam up because they don't know the rules? Do they flourish and find their skills in seduction and pillow talk to be useful tools when socializing with other characters? Would they aim to be transferred to new master who fulfills their purpose or would they rather seek another position and become something of an body slave and aide-de-champ to their current master.?

I suppose that would be up to the slave in question,  their personality,  background,  ambitions.

She was not used to her potential because her master was the allanaki templarate and the blue robe that purchased her DID use her as SHE saw fit,  it just was completely wasted.  I won't go into ic detail but I'm sure plenty of people remember the stunning and expensive slave seated in the ray infested Gaj not speaking with anyone.  Hooray for following the docs and putting yourself into the mindset that you do as your master asks. -I- could have snowflaked and maneuvered into action but I'm an advocate for being the norm. ESPECIALLY in restrictive roles like that. Like the infamous mulish slaves that Boogebear mentions.  Those that aren't the rogue runners  no. We're talking the easiest slave roles in the Known.
The muls that rank up the military branches of said houses like bosses, those exemplary trophies of breeding.  Sponsored roles who aren't gonna be escaping those houses.

I'm all for slavery, I'd love it if forced slavery was a thing, a real consequence of a commoners actions. Just the thought of an uppity commoner (looking at you [redacted]) being enslaved is thrilling. I know wayyyyyyyyyyy more commoners would act like their lives are on the line in more ways than one if they could be collared forcibly like the gemmed. Ohhh it brings joy to my cold black heart.

The only unplayable slave in my opinion is the hard labor slaves since projects like that aren't really created by players, they're added by staff. House slaves, rearing slaves, training slaves, scribes, pleasure, military... those are all doable. They just need to be used properly.
...
All in all I am +1 allowing slaves to be played as a role and forcibly enslaving commoners at a noble's whim. MOAR CONFLICT!

The problem is that recently-captured slaves would be the greatest security risk and generally just used for hard labor or breeding, because they cannot be trusted as much as a slave conditioned from birth. This is great, in that it creates opportunities for conflict around escaping, but it would be a lot more cumbersome to roleplay not rebelling.

Lifesworn employees are already essentially indentured servants who chose their masters.

I have a cool and evil solution for that trying to escape thing ... BUT... that trying to escape,  risky   disloyal and disgruntled forced slave is also a HUGE added conflict.  It's a dimension that born, raised, conditioned and sold slaves wouldn't have and isn't conflict born between PCs sooo much better than chocolate?

Slavery being playable? +1 

[Is Friday]

Slaves need some culture doc changes in order to be more playable. I felt as though every time I did anything semi-interesting the noble/master smacked it down hard and that's boring. I've played quite a few slaves, too.

[ShaLeah]

Docs need an update and detailed clarification so that the person reading them can know what's expected of them. 

I happen to think "open to interpretation" is bad for Zalanthan slaves.  Tell me EXACTLY what to expect so I, 
a) know what I'm getting into from the get 
b) can't be jerked around in stupid ways
c) can't blame not knowing on conflict or dissatisfaction
d) know when my pc is breaking a rule or risking it's life or dancing on lines
And subsequently I can be a good or bad slave without running the risk of forced storage.

Leadership is key.  I would keep my expensive family tool safe and my expendable commoners frolicking.

[Heade]

I was forcibly collared by Raleris Winrothal waaay back and I took it horrible I had made the PC to be an outdoors PC who hated being in the city. Well I ended up getting myself killed as being stuck in a barracks constantly was horrible.. I was also Collared by lady Khem Tor once after red fangs captured my tribal. Ended up storing after a month and a half of sitting in the Tor Academy.

The alternative in both of those situations is character death. Would you be happier if you were summarily executed both times? By not being executed, it grants, you the player, agency. Sure, some collared slaves may kill themselves rather than live that way. Others wouldn't, but you, the player may not wish to play the life of a slave. That's what storage is for. In both of those cases, by collaring someone instead of killing them, it let's players who would have preferred death move on to a new PC just as if death had occurred, while allowing players who'd like to explore that aspect of RP the opportunity to do so. You lose nothing if you don't enjoy it, but others who do enjoy it gain a lot.

The problem is that recently-captured slaves would be the greatest security risk and generally just used for hard labor or breeding, because they cannot be trusted as much as a slave conditioned from birth. This is great, in that it creates opportunities for conflict around escaping, but it would be a lot more cumbersome to roleplay not rebelling.

I agree that this creates opportunities for subversion, but it creates lots of other opportunities for RP as well. And what you consider cumbersome, other people may consider extremely engaging RP. It gives people the opportunity to RP through breaking the will of a slave to escape, or perhaps simply convincing them that is in their best interest not to. A Noble's slave, for instance, probably lives FAR better than many commoners. It gives opportunities to RP through the entire training-phase of slaves as well, training them in how they are expected to behave, along with all the backfighting and psychological conditioning that this may entail. Some of the most engaging RP in the game occurs when people hardly have to use the code at all, and emotes abound. This is exactly the sort of situation that encourages those sorts of scenes.

You can curtail the idea of rebelling through making some minor culture changes in the game. Slave collars that can't be removed easily already exist in game. If we expanded the culture docs to add that it was against the law for slaves to be unsupervised in public, and that if anyone wearing a slave collar was found to be unsupervised in public, they were allowed to be captured by any free person and re-appropriated as the slave that they are, it would make escape a far more daunting task. I also know a relatively simple way to support that with code, basically resulting in unescorted slaves not being protected by the crim code.

I'm under no illusion that this would be a simple fix, just saying, "OK, PC slaves are allowed again." Done.
It would require someone who is passionate about the flavor in the game world really taking a look at how the culture would fit, and spending time fleshing out and carefully designing that culture. If I were to be tasked with doing this, I'd make a literary project out of it. I'd publish extremely robust documentation detailing how slavery was handled in the game-world, in various areas before I'd re-open slaves to PCs.

But, there are many, many novels full of literature exploring the master/slave dynamic and how that can play out in the mind. I'd hope that whoever took up the mantle of overhauling this was at least familiar with some of that literature. There really is a lot that could be done with it.

Taking PC slavery away actually ended a LOT of RP opportunities. Bringing it back has the potential to restore them, and so much more if handled properly. Tribal/Nomadic slave traders, Slaver Raiding groups who capture potential slaves, more robust opportunities for certain houses(and more house positions), Slave trainers who specialize in training certain types of slaves, Slave owners, the slaves themselves, and perhaps even freedom fighters who believe slavery is wrong, among many others. It's a HUGE untapped economy in the game that currently is not really able to be explored, which is a shame, since like half of all people alive in Zalanthas are slaves. As such an enormous part of the economy, it currently can't really be interacted with at all, which gives the illusion that it really isn't anywhere near as common as it is. I'd really love to change that.

Slaves need some culture doc changes in order to be more playable.

I wholeheartedly agree.

[Renenutet]

I thought a lot about Zalanthan slavery while we were planning the gladiators and writing the docs.
I really wanted to get away from the point of view of western slavery in the past few centuries.  I think that some things that make it accessible is that as someone said about Slaves are people. They are at their owner's beck and call. They have pretty limited input into the big decisions in their life. That said both in theory and in practice some freedoms make sense. While this isn't true for labor slaves, whose lives are probably fairly miserable, most slaves will be better and more productive slaves with down time. They have emotions and drives and it's probably more cost effective to indulge those drives. They don't get to decide for whom to work or when to work, but when they're not working it makes sense for them to be able go places and see people.

One complication with the concept of pc slaves and the documentation that is currently in place for gladiators and I would think, by extension slaves generally, is that they can't have coin. They can carry coin for their owners, but the possession of coins of their own is just not a thing.

Also, if we were talking about slave playability generally, I think that those limitations are good for the role. It seems silly to play a slave pc and then act as if they were a commoner. If you wanted to play a commoner you can already do that. (In general I'm a huge fan of limitations in roles. It's what makes the roles distinct along with the benefits. )

That said, gladiators and Byn slaves have stuff to do built right into the role. They have places to be. They don't require directions. But other slaves require an owner to direct their lives. Not only is it often not fun to play a slave, it's really not fun to play a pc that has a slave. Having to log in to make the game fun for someone else sucks. Even if a slave has the freedom to go to bars and hang around with people, it's still not fun to just hang around waiting for someone to give you something to do that makes your pc's life meaningful.

[Harmless]

multiple roles feel close enough to slavery that they meet a modern definition of it. I wouldn't mind there being more opportunities to play certain kinds of slaves. Perhaps slavery should be allowed as a Family Role experimentally. Perhaps being enslaved should be a little more tangible of a threat. I leave it all up to staff, because I don't have a lot of experience with true slave roles, but I get the feeling of slavery plenty as is.

[Heade]

Not only is it often not fun to play a slave, it's really not fun to play a pc that has a slave. Having to log in to make the game fun for someone else sucks.

Yeah, I really don't agree with any part of this. What's fun for one style of player may be horribly boring for another. See merchant players, for instance. There ARE players who enjoy the RP of heavy mercantile PCs, while there are other players who wouldn't touch those roles with a 10 foot pole because they think they're boring. Same thing sort of applies here.

And regarding having to log in to make the game fun for someone else...I mean, that's pretty much every leadership role ever. I log in for the sake of other people's fun all the time. I've sacrificed my own successful, long-lived characters for the sake of a compelling story and other player's fun. It's a big part of what I'm here for.

And that's really what this is about. No, not every player will want to play a slave or slave owner, but the ones who do, could. And we could do a lot to ensure we've created a culture that makes that play as compelling as possible. Would it take some effort? Sure it would. But there are people who'd be willing to put in that effort, I think. I would.

[Brytta Léofa]

One complication with the concept of pc slaves and the documentation that is currently in place for gladiators and I would think, by extension slaves generally, is that they can't have coin. They can carry coin for their owners, but the possession of coins of their own is just not a thing.

So here's a thing I found:

Yes, it was common for Roman slaves to 'earn' a little money. This was often in the form of tips but, as Gaius, a Roman jurist, wrote in the second century AD, "whatever property is acquired by a slave is acquired by his master" – whether the slave kept his or her 'earnings' seems to have been at the master's discretion.

If slaves saved that money, they could use it to buy their freedom for a sum agreed by their master. The Romans had an official system for freeing slaves that was unique in the ancient world.

Called 'manumission', from manumissio, ('release from the hand' of power), it came in several forms: the most formal involved a magistrate, and gave the freed slave not only his freedom, but also the right to trade and make his own living, as well as to make and to benefit from a will.

Lifelong obedience and services (obsequium et operae) towards the former owner were part of the deal, and a freedman (libertus) remained part of the familia, the ex-owner's extended household. Less formal forms of manumissio even meant that when the freed slave died, everything he had reverted to his former owner.

Obviously Allanak is not Rome, but it's perhaps the nearest well-known RL analogue.

This sort of thing (a path to freedom when the slave-owner allows it) could work admirably in Armageddon.

[Renenutet]

From a sociological standpoint definitely. From a game play standpoint, would playing a slave feel sufficiently unlike playing a commoner. (My opinion right or wrong is no.)

Also, you'd still have a rrole with no autonomous purpose. I think that is the one element that presents the biggest challenge with slave roles. The difference would be that you'd have a pc with sid. And still nothing to do if an owner wasn't logged in.

[Brytta Léofa]

Why does a slave have no autonomous purpose? And why does a slave have nothing to do if his owner isn't logged in?

To me that seems true only of slaves who are
(1) cheap labor slaves who are basically being worked to death, or
(2) recently enslaved and at high risk of freaking out and try to escape (a clearly irrational decision with terrible consequences for them).

Some roles that could reasonably be played by either a slave or a citizen:
- AoD soldier
- Byn mercenary
- GMH crafter
- Kurac prostitute
- noble/templar aide/secretary/bodyguard/valet

The only 100% necessary difference is that as a a slave you can't quit your job: your advancement opportunities are only with your owner. (Unless your owner does allows you to earn and save money on the side to pay him for your freedom.)

Couldn't we solve 90% of the problems here with two OOC rules?:
(1) Players of slave owners: never restrict slave PCs from leaving clan areas. They must have at least time to roam the city as a Byn runner.
(2) Players of slaves: never make your PC try to escape, full stop. (You're welcome to encourage someone else to buy you.)

[Brytta Léofa]

From a game play standpoint, would playing a slave feel sufficiently unlike playing a commoner. (My opinion right or wrong is no.)

But I think you're correct here.

Part of the problem is that "citizens" really have no rights that can be appealed to, so it's hard to create a social level beneath that. You have to either give citizens some rights or stomp really noticeably on slaves' rights...of course we've wound up doing the latter.

It should be possible to oppress slaves in interesting ways that don't make them unplayable or unfun. For instance...
- Prevent slaves from leaving the City without a special token (like a merchant's token).
- Forbid slaves from striking a free person for any reason. (Need a little more nuance in the crime code for this to matter.)
- Require slaves to give up a seat to any free person. (You'll regret doing this to an important slave, but in the moment...)
- Insist that any offspring of a male slave belong to his owner, even if their mother is free.

[Delirium]

Maybe of interest to the discussion, the slavery documentation on the old website:
http://old.armageddon.org/general/slavery.html

Some of it is way out of date, but most of it looks very applicable to today's game.

[Heade]

Maybe of interest to the discussion, the slavery documentation on the old website:
http://old.armageddon.org/general/slavery.html

Some of it is way out of date, but most of it looks very applicable to today's game.

Yeah, that's what I'm talking about. I can't help but feel like maybe the lack of those docs on the main site led to a lot of the later PC Slave storage that occurred. Without having those docs easily accessible, people might not have had a good understanding of slave PCs, both the owners and slaves alike.

I like those docs, for the most part. Though they could use some minor modifications, I think they're pretty good.

[ShaLeah]

Maybe of interest to the discussion, the slavery documentation on the old website:
http://old.armageddon.org/general/slavery.html

Some of it is way out of date, but most of it looks very applicable to today's game.

Good link share,  this is what I remember.

From a game play standpoint, would playing a slave feel sufficiently unlike playing a commoner. (My opinion right or wrong is no.)

I agree but it SHOULD be unlike playing a commoner. It should feel like a different role.  I guess the trick would be how can we show they're different? Documentation and adherence to it would be a start. It'd take a while for people to adjust and be taught how to treat them since they're used to the freedom,
adoration and envy public gladiators get.

Part of the problem is that "citizens" really have no rights that can be appealed to, so it's hard to create a social level beneath that. You have to either give citizens some rights or stomp really noticeably on slaves' rights...of course we've wound up doing the latter.

It should be possible to oppress slaves ....

No, it shouldn't be... hard pass.
Pretty much any house owned slave is HIGHER than any free and unaffiliated commoner. Would you as owner give anyone freedom over YOUR property? No. You wouldn't.

YOU (commoner you) don't have the power to oppress someone else's property. On Zalanthas it'd be more likely to covet the ease of a slave's life than to look down on them. 

Affiliated commoners are even taking a risk if they decide to fuck with someone else's property since you'd both have someone having your back but it'd be way more likely.  Above social ranking, seniority would also have to be taken into account.  Everyone has their place on Zalanthas and the power hungry can get brazen but everything has consequences,  fucking with the property of someone powerful and rich can result in a whole lotta consequences.

[Cind]

Here's a simple, short example....

Think of that House Oash slave as a very expensive, painted ceramic vase decorated with gems that you could never afford. He's been bothering the shit out of you in Red's, and you decide to hit him. You've now tried to damage Lord Amos's vase, an affront to Lord Amos himself. Depending on the type of slave he is, you might have bruised an important part of him, like his face or writing/fighting arm. Whoops.

Best to just sit there and drink until he gets bored of you, or go to another bar, and just hope he ends up bothering someone important and gets whipped for his behavior.

[Renenutet]

From a game play standpoint, would playing a slave feel sufficiently unlike playing a commoner. (My opinion right or wrong is no.)

This is not a disagreement per se but a clarification. The above quote is specific to the decision not the let slaves carry sid. This is the sort of inconvenience that is worth the trouble because it really gives some outline to the role. It's a concrete way that a slave is not a commoner with a collar.

[ShaLeah]

From a game play standpoint, would playing a slave feel sufficiently unlike playing a commoner. (My opinion right or wrong is no.)

This is not a disagreement per se but a clarification. The above quote is specific to the decision not the let slaves carry sid. This is the sort of inconvenience that is worth the trouble because it really gives some outline to the role. It's a concrete way that a slave is not a commoner with a collar.

I was agreeing with what you said and looking for ways to additionally show the differences between commoners and bred slaves.  It was brytta's suggestions I was disagreeing with  but separated your quote from theirs cause in a general sense I really thought it rings true and should be addressed.  That's all.