The Allanak Problem

[Fenneko]

Thankfully, because a magicker is untouchable, in that they are feared for their power or possible leakage of such power into unintentional or intentional curses, makes that gemmed role much more convenient to RP a form of slavery without any concerns about the ickiness of being a slave, which is yes, the ickiness of non-consensual erotic RP and so on. That is why I understand it that this game doesn't really support playing as mundane slaves.

Mundane slaves are not really a role I want to RP anymore. I think I used to be interested in them, but then I realized that thanks to human nature, a slave is more likely than not to be used or seen at least partly or spoken about as a pleasure slave at some point or another. I understand that this is a natural thing, and much like prostitution is not necessarily looked down on in Zalanthas, in our RP of this virtual part of the game world, we don't get to play a slave role where consent would become more dubious and the power dynamic is truly absolute.

Rather, an untouchable slave is an easier role to play, and thankfully because this is a fantasy game, the reason for the untouchability isn't a concept that has a direct tie to the real world (thank goodness), so that it isn't based on skin color or what 1% of your genetics make you look like. The slavery here is based on a supernatural phenomenon, which isn't even tied to the actual nature of the person; as the documentation says, mages are not defined by their magick. It is a curse to them, an involuntary condition.

The similarities end in that, in the conceptual core of what being a gemmed is, and thankfully, very little else about the role is similar to actual, RL slavery, which sadly, in this fucked up Earth, is worsening (in terms of the absolute numbers of actual slaves in the world, it's going up; not going up per capita (i hope) but going up in total number of victims of human trafficking now). This is why I don't really want a change either, just a recognition that this one theme of Allanak is very important, but that the de-emphasizing, or the double-speaking or the redefining it as something besides slavery is just something that is an IC construct to justify what is definitely slavery at its core, and we get to enjoy the simulation, and learn from it, and see the parallels in our own lives, hopefully without inciting as much trauma.

I'm just trying to re-iterate a lot of reasons I've seen the treatment of gemmed justified, from an IC standpoint it is what has been already said, but from a standpoint of game design, it is a mechanism to explore this type of existence without it being too triggering.

[triste]

Templar's have ultimate power and authority over Gemmed.

Anyone who doesn't have a signet ring made of metal, really. At a supremely dumbed down level anyway.

As much as I'd like another round of nonsense, I'm done with it though.

This is why my H-1B comparison is more apt than slavery. Becoming a gemmed is literally the same as becoming any Allanki. If you don't like Nakki grittiness and authoritarianism, move your lilly livered butt to Luir's before you get gemmed. The only difference between gemmed and any citizen is maybe 1 or two coded functions of the gem, which leads me to...

And for the action people:

Easy fix, Yes, they are slaves and yes, certain types of slavery to PC is allowed. Simple rule change.

Harder fix, Change the function of the gem and how templars treat ungemmed specially and gemmed to a lesser extent.

Oh thank gawd. You're like rain over the desert X-D.

I vote for the easy fix, because some of us are tough as hell (and maybe a little masochistic) and are fine with the role as is.

The most change I can tolerate here is maybe allowing Templar to only use certain functions of the gemmed if the gemmed is within Allanak. It's lame getting [redacted] across the known. [Redacted by Hestia]

[Hestia]

Okay so we're done discussing slaves in Allanak, since slaves are not allowed for play, and therefore can't possibly be "The Allanak Problem."

Playing a gemmed is not "The Allanak Problem" since your gem can be seen no matter where your character is.

Gemmed being slaves is not "The Allanak Problem" since gemmed can come and go without asking anyone's permission, they can leave the city, do what they do, they can even be hired IF THEY WANT TO by a couple of clans.  And - wonder of wonders - if they do play in one of those clans, and decide they don't want to be in one of those clans anymore, it's entirely possible they would be released from service, and not force-stored or executed.

So enough of that.

Get back to the topic of "The Allanak Problem," please. If you all feel everything that can be said has been said already, I can close the topic.  But it's staying open for the time being, in case you have something new to add to the discussion.

[X-D]

That would actually be another Allanak problem, And game in general Hestia. When a bunch of players say this is a problem and then staff is like, No it is not....And that is an elephant.


Your Jedi mind tricks will not work on me.

Call it anything you want, Defining slave is not if they can work for somebody, Slave can do that, Not if they can travel, Slave can do that. It is a simple matter of who has the ultimate control AND if that is consensual and if the one being controled can end it.

For some gemmed they do go for the gem in order to live and work in allanak where family or whatever is, but they can never end it.

But go ahead, try and convince people it is an elephant, Meanwhile player numbers and player time in game keep going down and there is a thread on what the game needs, started by staff.

A gemmed CANNOT stop being gemmed, He wears a collar that marks him as such and tells everybody who sees who owns/controls him. Exactly as a slave brand/tattoo/iron slave collar. It is the exact same thing. I see the fish and will not claim I see an elephant.

AND that is to the point. Gemmed ARE allanak items, It does not matter that they can be seen anywhere. We are talking about the perception and treatment of gemmed INSIDE allanak, Where they are treated and perceived as slaves.

[Krath]

That would actually be another Allanak problem, And game in general Hestia. When a bunch of players say this is a problem and then staff is like, No it is not....And that is an elephant.

This right here is part of the game problem. XD is right, trying to gaslight players who are telling you WHAT their problem with allanak is probably is part of the reason numbers are dropping.

Fact: if a gemmed declines a templars order ANYWHERE in the world they can be killed by said templar on the spot. Slavemaster tells slave to do work. Slave says no. Slavemaster whips slave until they do job or die.

[Saiseiki]

To Triste's point:  I wasn't being very clear; sorry about that.  When I was writing about the phenomenon I've seen (and participated in) for the last two-ish RL years, it only tangentially related to the status of gemmed.  I was really more considering how IC cultural shifts occur, at least PC-side. 

THIS IS NOT A PROBLEM.

It is certainly not a problem to be "solved".  Rather, something I wanted to get from my brain, out through my fingers, and before other sets of eyes.  Many of whom have been playing this game for three or four times the amount I have been - the reason this is germane is that they've been around long enough to have witnessed/been involved with multiple cycles, as the discussion between X-D and Delirium illustrated.

To Hestia's point:  The problem with Allanak... From my very limited perspective, it's as just about every other person initially answering has pointed out:  silo-ing.  I'll go a step farther than some, and say "silo-ing with damn good cause".  The various factions and classes are NOT friendly, nor natural allies (When the time comes, I'm going to honestly enjoy writing up what is hopefully a deep dive on Noble/Templar relations.).  Characters that have months or years of one's RL sunk into them can be obliterated in seconds with a single misstep.  And so on, and so forth.

This is all directly in opposition to the reason why many of us play this game, and certainly those characters that stick around a potentially deadly city for months or years on-end - social RP.  That can run the gamut from ERP to PvP to simple gossip-mongering and "Mean Girl"-level politicking.  Hopefully, and this is what I try to encourage and seek out, we can get to the point where there's a chance for some serious, in-depth character studies.  Or alternately, those moments where you ask yourself "Damn this scene is hard for me to play through - why is that?"  That last question is actually what got me hooked on this game.  It also happened again as recently as last week.

I'm not saying we need to "Care Bear" one another, but allowing some nod to the internal life of others, who are pouring just as much of themselves into their Armageddon personas as we are is a critical thing to keep in mind.  Again, hardly original to point this out, yet I've noticed there are at least two basic and conflicting impulses in the game, often within the same particular scenario, and sometimes even within the same character in the same moment:  to triumph, and to tell the story.

To triumph is exactly as it sounds:  to kill a rival; to get the girl/guy over the other person; to make the coin so others can't.  I've noticed it often gets reduced to "kill or be killed", but it's actually much broader than that.  For example, there have been moments in heated, politically-charged debates with other characters that I've had a rejoinder pop into my, the player's, head.  I'm all set to type it out as fast as I can, when I wonder "Is this what my character would actually say?  Is s/he emotionally present/vicious/quick-witted/brave enough?" 

That leads me to the second point - the impulse to tell the story.  I almost said "to characterize", but again, this can be quite broad.  Sometimes I'll belt out a rather detailed emote that has almost nothing to do with my character per se.  It's really just dancing with this astonishing setting we share.  Most of the time, though, this impulse comes through as wanting to explore the psyche and experience of either this person I've spent waaaaaay too much friggin' time inhabiting, or those around them.  Why do they do what they do?  What insights can this give me, as a character, or even as a person (and for those of you who played around Overseer Macian back in the day, you know what I mean - that player knew what was up!)?  What's new and unexplored that I can discover about this persona?

Obviously these two impulses can be one-and-the-same, depending on the character.  I'm specifically talking about when our need to triumph, as players, overrides our own personal storytelling.  Have I been hypocritical in this?  Certainly.  Sometimes badly.  I'm still going to keep trying to find the correct balance-point, though.

There have been moments in my Arm. journey where I'm crying at the keyboard.  Sometimes it's poignant, sometimes hilarious, or something else entirely.  Sometimes it's the raw cognitive dissonance from having to be something I'm very much not at all in RL; yeah, I'm cringing at some of the things my character says and does.  That facet has sometimes been so potent I've wondered if I could keep playing them.  None of this could happen without some modicum of trust in my fellow players, though. 


* * *


Actionable part: this is a tough one.  I mean, like really tough.  I'm not arrogant enough to think I'm going to have some special insight into something that's clearly been debated for years, if not decades.  There's the further issue that I just haven't had a broad enough career.  I feel like I've got at least the next five years of characters planned out, and maybe more like ten!  There's too damn much to do here, people!

I'm currently working on how to realistically and thematically interact with more than just one or two rigid strata of Allanaki society.  I forget who it was, but someone did an excellent job of pointing out just how hierarchical the city is - not only that, but the penalties for violating social norms can be far, far worse than getting glared at from across the room, or even losing one's job.  (Apologies to the newbies who felt I was jumping down their throats - I don't want to see y'all on the body pile!)

Looking back, the whole "cross-class rp" is something I've been pursing for a while, now.  It's just the most glaring, consistent, and also difficult issue to sharing wonderful scenes with one another that I've encountered.  Please do not read this as me complaining about Allanak's structure - a central theme of the game is, in my view, how power is used or misused.  In Allanak, that tends to manifest with both fascist and paternalistic overtones, or else just overt fascism.  It's part of the basic tapestry of the setting, and fortunately there are a multitude of other locations to go to for different experiences.

In summation, find reasons to reach out.  Be willing to take some chances.  And maybe hardest of all, stretch yourself as a roleplayer, even if you risk looking stupid.  It can smart getting called on the carpet by the staff, but you gotta bump up against the boundaries to know them, and see where you can expand role-play opportunities for one another while still preserving the integrity of the setting.

Damn, I'm glad to have this game to play in.  Even what it seriously ticks me off.  <3

[Suhuy]

Regardless of where Webster and Oxford weigh in on defining the word slave, gemmed mages have been referred to as slaves (usually as a derogatory term) since practically forever. Calling a mage a slave directly to their face is probably ill-advised but when discussing them in general I've seen plenty of PCs use that term. I think whether they are or aren't technically slaves is irrelevant. What matters is that many see them as such, despite how ever many feathers that ruffles.

[Veselka]

...So confused...

I see one Staffer, Hestia, stating something that is counter to my actual game experience for the last 20 years.

It's a bit phantasmagoric because I've never seen Gemmed referred to anything more than slaves or property of whatever Clan is employing them.

I agree that while this isn't "The Allanak Problem", it is a problem for Staff to state things that are counter-intuitive to the player base, and expect them to just...Acknowledge and move on? It just leads me to think we are and have been playing two different games.

[Dar]

I've never seen gemmed treated as slaves. Slaves are actually valued as commodity. People grew up amidst the slaves. Slaves are a bigger percentage of the city population.

You guys go "slaves have to follow orders" and "gemmed must do what templars tell them to, or die". Therefore gemmed are slaves. This is a fallacy in your logic.

Slaves are property. To roleplay a slave, you are not playing a role of, "if I don't do what I'm told, they'll kill me." That is not how slaves think in zalanthan setting. Most slaves are brought up from childhood. Their thinking is,"if I fail in my master's orders, i will be punished.".   Slave is a social class. They are not oppressed, they are treated the way they are used to and find it acceptable to be treated. 

Gemmed are an actual forced labour. They possess talents that templars find useful and the templars make the gemmed do their bidding because ... They can. But a templar can't sell a gemmed. Nor can a gemmed be purchased. Their labour is either forced, or paid for.  Slaves, in zalanthan setting, aren't forced to work. They are told to work and are expected to obey because they are slaves. Slaves cannot own property. They can't have coin. Bank accounts, or choose their employment.



What's next? Maybe rinthies are also slaves? Because if guild is active and your character lives Westside. You are pretty much guaranteed to work for the guild in some fashion.

This thread began well. But lately I'm getting the feeling that you are trying to suck the 'problem' out of your own middle finger and enlarge it to proportions that make no sense.

What exactly are you suggesting? Are you asking the templars to stop harassing the mages?

[Hauwke]

Slaves are property. To roleplay a slave, you are not playing a role of, "if I don't do what I'm told, they'll kill me." That is not how slaves think in zalanthan setting. Most slaves are brought up from childhood. Their thinking is,"if I fail in my master's orders, i will be punished.".   Slave is a social class. They are not oppressed, they are treated the way they are used to and find it acceptable to be treated. 

I'd like to point out that many slaves are treated fairly well, even. Obviously by our own personal standards it is still abysmal, but they are food and water secure so long as they perform. The expensive ones that have a skill in some kind of trade are valued commodities. They are trained and treated like it.

A carpenter slave in Allanak likely eats better than half of all commoners. A prized mul likely eats better than 90% of the city.

This isn't to say that all are in that good, i highly doubt it. But they are often better off than commoners because to be able to purchase a proper slave from Borsail you need a lot of coin, and they don't just sell to anyone or it would hurt their image as the best slave providers in the South.

I think a lot of what people think of as a common slave when they immediately jump to a mental image is actually an indentured servant, like a criminal sent off to the mines because he has a strong back, he gets treated poorly because his only good feature is he is strong, he knows what freedom is and wants it back.

[Maso]

All citizens of Allanak are slaves to the Highlord.

Seriously though. Almost all of the arguments here for gemmed being considered slaves could be applied to anyone in Allanak when a Templar is involved in the situation. You do what they say or else. Sure you can run away, but so can gemmed.. actually. Maybe not successfully, but they can sure as drov try - a Byn or AoD deserter can't easily run away either and will be hunted down. Gemmed do successfully slip away from Allanak from time to time, being 'caught' requires a Templar to actually care/remember that you're gone. It's just not an easy life. But nothing about playing a mage is supposed to be easy.

The social cost is the necessary price paid for the omfgcrazypower. And that cost is a requirement for balance. And as always, everyone else.. please be shitty to your local mage. If you think we have too many mages in game, it's because we're being too damn nice to them.

[Gentleboy]

All citizens of Allanak are slaves to the Highlord.

Seriously though. Almost all of the arguments here for gemmed being considered slaves could be applied to anyone in Allanak when a Templar is involved in the situation. You do what they say or else. Sure you can run away, but so can gemmed.. actually. Maybe not successfully, but they can sure as drov try - a Byn or AoD deserter can't easily run away either and will be hunted down. Gemmed do successfully slip away from Allanak from time to time, being 'caught' requires a Templar to actually care/remember that you're gone. It's just not an easy life. But nothing about playing a mage is supposed to be easy.

The social cost is the necessary price paid for the omfgcrazypower. And that cost is a requirement for balance. And as always, everyone else.. please be shitty to your local mage. If you think we have too many mages in game, it's because we're being too damn nice to them.

Omg, I was going to write this, but I couldn't put it into words. Maso!! So good.

[triste]

Tuannon posted the exact sentiment yesterday fyi Gentleboy.

Staff have asked us to move on from this topic because it's not a problem we have here, it is the status quo according to the docs. Thanks to people who have experience, read docs, and posted. But the topic is done.

[HavokBlue]

What it looks like to me is folks are asking how something should be depicted IC, being told by staff how something should be depicted IC, and then arguing that because what staff said doesn't reflect what they saw IC, it's the staff who must be wrong.

Every single non-templar (and probably some templars) in Allanak can be executed for disobeying an order from a templar. This is such a weird semantic argument. As far as I can tell, nobody is actually arguing in favor of any specific changes to Allanak or the Gemmed role. They're just arguing about the definition of slavery in a video game. Whatever real world parallels you want to try to apply (free advice: don't) should probably be left at the door because as both staff and documentation state, Gemmed are not slaves and in fact have considerably more rights than slaves. If you don't like that Templars can tell you what to do, probably don't play in Allanak. That's what Templars do.

[triste]

Is part of the problem that the main city we promote as being "newbie friendly" is one of the most brutal cities in game?

Part of why I was all "rah rah open Tuluk," is it has always been more newbie friendly. I know my first long lived PC was a Tuluki. Maybe the problem we're discussing in this thread has been addressed by the reopening of Tuluk. When this thread started Tuluk was closed... so perhaps the issue is fixed now?

[HavokBlue]

Armageddon is a brutal game and there are no character starts which will shelter your PC from potential brutality. Allanak is 'newbie friendly' by way of being safe from wildlife within the walls, density of active players and clans (including clans like the Byn, which are good places to learn the ropes) and access to income via salt or other jobs.

Tuluk is no less brutal - it's just brutal in different ways. A Tuluki Templar can also kill anyone who disobeys an order. This has been a pretty standard part of Armageddon for as long as I have played it.

Nobody is playing a Gemmer for the first PC (and most likely not their second or third, but you never know) so if the debate is about how to make Allanak more friendly to new players, Gemmed aren't really part of that discussion.

[Dar]

, Gemmed are not slaves and in fact have considerably more rights than slaves. If you don't like that Templars can tell you what to do, probably don't play in Allanak. That's what Templars do.

It's likely important not to call it 'rights'. Nobody has any rights in Allanak, unless protected by an organization, or person that's important to the templarate.

[Gentleboy]

If you follow the rules and are somewhat respectable, you can do what you like in the shadows. Gemmed included. Slaves do not get any time to themselves or without needing to check in with someone.

So, there are rights in a way, I guess.

[Patuk]

A Tuluki Templar can also kill anyone who disobeys an order. This has been a pretty standard part of Armageddon for as long as I have played it.

Hi. Like you, I came back to the game after a good hiatus - I last played in 2017. I just returned a bit earlier, in April, and have been playing since.

Templars are a hell of a lot killier than they were before. It isn't the same. The rights afforded to them sure are, and the degree to which they are exercised certainly are: people die about them in droves. They die because they get accused of stuff, they die because they work for the wrong people, and sometimes they just die for annoying them. I have the last one in writing after I angrily sent a complaint. Staff doesn't care, and considers this working as intended.

Given these things, I'm not too surprised Allanak is as empty as it seems to be by just glancing at its taverns, and that both RSV and Luir's were packed prior to Tuluk reopening. Most PCs aren't neck deep in whatever scant few plots the game has going on, and life is a lot more chill without the law breathing down your neck.

[HavokBlue]

I don't want to comment on current characters nor do I have any experience with which to do so but it sounds like maybe if the issue is with trigger happy templars in general, that's a good focus for this discussion.

I would hope that folks playing high-power sponsored roles are always considering how their IC actions contribute to a more compelling story for all involved. I am a subscriber to the belief that if you play stupid games in Armageddon you should win stupid prizes, but there are a lot of ways to flex as a Templar that don't involve execution.

One of my short-lived but very enjoyable PCs got busted early in his career for burglary by Lyvrenxice Oash and instead of executing him or maiming him, she exiled him on the grounds that he might return if he acted as a short-term spy in Tuluk. Probably a bad move on the Templar's part because that PC went on to help burn down multiple buildings in Allanak and played a minor part in attempted insurrection. But the takeaway to me has always been that Lyvren's choice to let my PC's story continue helped create more interesting gameplay for all involved in the subsequent weeks/months.

[Veselka]

Something to note: if you repeatedly run away without RP from people in power (be they raiders or Templars) they tend to not be super duper merciful if and when they catch up with you.

I agree that it behooves those in power (and with actual coded crime code power) to err on the side of caution. There are a ton more options for stories than straight up execution, be that threats, physical violence, mental violence, threats against their loved ones, and so on.

What makes sense in the context of the scene, of the people involved, of the crimes committed (or not committed)? It's a very subjective nuanced 'thing', and sometimes, it makes the most sense to execute someone. Other times, it makes sense to let them go with a warning, or with a physical reminder rather than death. It's different in Tuluk than it is in Allanak, too.

I think people jump to the conclusion that 'The Powers That Be' are always the problem, but I think it's a two way street. If your PC is being a dumb criminal and getting caught often, yeah, they're probably not going to make the cut (especially if they are a dingus and not playing ball). Whether it was on a Templar or Garrison Captain or whatever, it's surprising how stupid people can be when faced with mortal danger. I'm no stranger to getting angry PMs from people after I've killed them. I stand by the fact that it is a harsh setting, that if and when it makes sense for people in power to kill people (whether that means they are a defiler or a templar), if it makes IC sense, it makes IC sense. End of story. On to the next.

Should a Templar always let people off with a slap on the wrist? I am sure most people would agree that would be silly. Some people have to die. And there has to always be the mortal threat of death. That doesn't mean it's always the knee-jerk option, every time. But it is and should be ever present when dealing with a Templar.

[Patuk]

Something to note: if you repeatedly run away without RP from people in power (be they raiders or Templars) they tend to not be super duper merciful if and when they catch up with you.

I agree that it behooves those in power (and with actual coded crime code power) to err on the side of caution. There are a ton more options for stories than straight up execution, be that threats, physical violence, mental violence, threats against their loved ones, and so on.

What makes sense in the context of the scene, of the people involved, of the crimes committed (or not committed)? It's a very subjective nuanced 'thing', and sometimes, it makes the most sense to execute someone. Other times, it makes sense to let them go with a warning, or with a physical reminder rather than death. It's different in Tuluk than it is in Allanak, too.

I think people jump to the conclusion that 'The Powers That Be' are always the problem, but I think it's a two way street. If your PC is being a dumb criminal and getting caught often, yeah, they're probably not going to make the cut (especially if they are a dingus and not playing ball). Whether it was on a Templar or Garrison Captain or whatever, it's surprising how stupid people can be when faced with mortal danger. I'm no stranger to getting angry PMs from people after I've killed them. I stand by the fact that it is a harsh setting, that if and when it makes sense for people in power to kill people (whether that means they are a defiler or a templar), if it makes IC sense, it makes IC sense. End of story. On to the next.

Should a Templar always let people off with a slap on the wrist? I am sure most people would agree that would be silly. Some people have to die. And there has to always be the mortal threat of death. That doesn't mean it's always the knee-jerk option, every time. But it is and should be ever present when dealing with a Templar.

This answer comes up every time, too.

What if X. What if Y. The setting has to be harsh. Death has to be a threat. I don't even disagree.

But ever since returning, Templars have been far more brutal and murderous than they were before I took my break. I don't like it, I don't want to be around them, and my fun is my own, as is that of other people. Your line mirrors the one staff gave me; fine. I'm going to join all these other people and not feel very surprised Allanak is so empty.

[Shabago]

Just pointing out for the sake of it, the sum total of all Templar kills for the year is LESS THAN a handful of single, Indy PCs by themselves that don't play anywhere in or around Allanak.

[Hauwke]

Just pointing out for the sake of it, the sum total of all Templar kills for the year is LESS THAN a handful of single, Indy PCs by themselves that don't play anywhere in or around Allanak.

I truly wonder where people are getting the idea that Templars are murderhobo'ing. In the years that I have played, I've only been killed by a Templar one time and it was very much deserved.

I wonder how much of it is in fact that people don't quite understand? I've seen how people RP while being interrogated by Templars and Other People. Y'all are sassy as fuck while you get your nails ripped out, it's no wonder you end up dead half the time. I'm also guilty of it at times, I get all snarky when I'm losing too, but that doesn't mean I don't deserve an In Character spanking for being dumb ICly.

[Inks]

In terms of executions on behalf of Templars the numbers are much higher though. Not direct pks.

Or assassins/ thugs working for templars etc.

Not even saying it is a bad thing in any way. Just sayin'. I have no problem with Nak at all. For me I like to take a break from bowing and scraping rp so my pcs can be free and independant, so maybe 1/5 pcs is nakki. I enjoy those PCs too though.