PC Slavery

[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.