Slavery

About a month ago, a few people expressed interest in playing slave characters.  Around the same time, a few players also expressed interest in playing slave-catchers or small-scale slave dealers.  Quite curiosly, a coupe of staff members made posts implying that slave PCs probably simply wouldn't do, and that interested players would do better to play free PCs.  

There was some discussion on this, and in the end it seemed better to drop it at the time.  As such, I've decided to wait until the arguments had someone died down to revive the topic.

And so a month has gone by, and I hope that everyone is better disposed to a more in-depth examination of the topic of slavery in the context of the game world.  

Certainly, I feel that the contention that slave-PCs are unplayable stems from a few misconceptions.

Some players/Staff have misconceptions about slavery.
Slaves are always uneducated.
The truth is that some slaves were well-educated by their masters.  Some were educated to the point that they were BETTER EDUCATED than their masters with the idea that they would be able to take care of intellectual drudgery that their masters had no interest in doing.  Slaves were trained to be artists, entertainers, clerks and advisors.


Slaves are never treated with trust.
Some slaves were regarded with a large degree of trust.  When people think of mistrusted slaves, they are usually thinking of Field Slaves.  Field Slaves and Gladiators were often considered flight risks, and were closely monitored during their work and sometimes shackled at night.  House Slaves, by comparison, were often regarded with a large degree of trust and were considered low flight-risks.  They often had little incentive to run away.

Slavery is always accompanied by brutality
Obviously, this veried from master to master and plantation to plantation.  In some cases masters treated slaves with with inhuman brutality, one of the principal reasons for the abolishment of slavery.  In many cases, masters were comparatively kind to their slaves.  A prized slave might receive days off, education, reasonable privlidges, salary, medical care, vocational training and reasonable social standing.  In some cultures it was even customary to take adopt slaves into the family.

Slaves are not trusted and not allowed to travel.

Any Master who was accustomed to having slaves wait on him while he was at home would need slaves with him while he travelled.  In some cases, slaves were sent on errands that required significant travel.

Slaves never have any fun.
Slaves had friends.  Slaves had families.  Slaves had hobbies.  Slaves played games, had songs and stories.  Slaves had recreational sex.  

Master's never enjoy intimate relationships with Slaves

Some Masters were quite fond of individual slaves and regarded them as friends, advisors or confidants.  

Only Nobles Own Slaves
Historically, nobility has been the largest owners of slaves but this was by no means exclusive.  Even fairly poor people could sometimes own slaves, particularly in rural areas.

Slaves never earn their freedom
Upward mobility is uncommon on Zalanthas.  However the idea that slaves never gain their freedom is inconsistent with both Earth History and Game Documentation.

These misconceptions are inconsistent with history, modern fiction, game spirit or internal game documents.

Slaves in History


Song-hai Empire

The Songhai Empire (West Africa) was an example of a culture where slavery was practiced under circumstances where slaves received good treatment.  Specifically, when a Songhai warrior captured a prisoner in a conflict, the prisoner became a slave to the warrior's family.  The slave worked alongside members of the family.  The slave received instruction in the family history and the spiritual beliefs of the family.  After several years of indenture, the slave was freed and was generally retained as a member of the family.

http://www.quaker.org/tqe/wealth-and-poverty/08africa.htm

Slaves in America

While American slaves were frequently subjected to mistreatment, many American slaves received quite good treatment.  American slaves were often well-educted, given a salary, and medical attention.  For example, Phyllis Wheatly, an American Slave, became a published poet while she was a slave and even wrote poems praising her Masters for bringing her over from Africa:

Quote from: "Phyllis Wheatly"
`TWAS mercy brought me from my Pagan land,
Taught my benighted soul to understand
That there's a God, that there's a Saviour too:
Once I redemption neither sought nor knew,
Some view our sable race with scornful eye,
"Their colour is a diabolic die."
Remember, Christians, Negroes, black as Cain,
May be refin'd, and join th' angelic train.´

.

Certainly not the words of someone subjected to daily beatings.  George Carver, another slave went on to become a famous botanist.

Quote from: "Wikipedia

This episode caused George a bout of respiratory disease that left him with a permanently weakened constitution. Because of this, he was unable to work as a hand and spent his time wandering the fields, drawn to the varieties of wild plants. He became so knowledgeable that he was known by Moses Carver's neighbors as "the plant doctor."

One day he was called to a neighbor's house to help with a plant in need. When he had fixed the problem, he was told to go into the kitchen to collect his reward. When he entered the kitchen, he saw no one. He did, however, see something that changed his life: beautiful paintings of flowers on the walls of the room. From that moment on, he knew that he was going to be an artist as well as a botanist.

.

We can see that George's masters were quite proud of the fact that their slave, despite being unfit for field work, was regionally recognized as being skilled at plant-care.  In fact, he was kidnapped once as a boy and rescued at great expense to his masters.  Somewhat surprising is the fact that Harriet Tubman, an American slave, married a free man.

[qoute="Wikipedia"]

During this period Edward Brodess sold three of Harriet's sisters, Linah, Soph, and Mariah Ritty, permanently breaking apart the Ross family. When she was a young adult she took the name Harriet, possibly in honor of her mother. Around 1844 she married John Tubman, a free man.
[/quote].

From this we infer that slaves did not always have lower social station than free people, and could under certain conditions enjoy social interaction with them.  Perhaps more scandalously, Benjamin Banneker's mother was reported to have married one of her own slaves.  Conflicting accounts of this.

Quote from: "Wikipedia"
Benjamin Banneker's mother was Mary Bannakay, whose mother, Molly Welsh, was accused of stealing milk and sent from England to America as punishment. She became the owner of a farm and married one of her slaves, whom she freed.

.

Janissaries

There are plenty of examples in history of slaves being trusted enough to bear arms and to make military service.  Janissaries, an example of slavery in Arabic history, were noted not only for their military prowess, but additionally for their loyalty.  They were in fact so well regarded that they were entrusted to protect the Turkic emperor personally.  This is an example of slaves having a higher social standing than average citizens or even of average soldiers.  Turkish regulars were frequently jealous of the prestige in the Janissaries.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/J/Janissar.asp



Slaves in Fiction
Spartacus

Spartacus (1960, Stanley Kubric).  A film that's largely about slaves.  What's interesting about the film is that it does depict several types of slaves, instead of just field slaves which are stereotypically shown in film.

Sadira

Prism Pentad Series  (Troy Denning).  I mention the character Sadira specifically because she's a slave in a Dark-Sun novel.  She's allowed wide latitude of movement both within her city and occaisionally outside it to fulfill her duties as a slave.  

Louis de Pointe du Lac

I'm not a huge Ann Rice fan, but she depicts an intimate relationship between a Plantation owner and one of his slaves in her novel Interview with the Vampire.

Game Document References to Slavery that support a more liberal interpretation.

Slave Roles
from http://www.armageddon.org/general/slavery.html

Quote from: "Arm Web Documentation"
Guard slaves are trusted with keeping a household or person safe. Slaves in this role normally come from a long line of slaves with distinguished service to the organization, and it is seen as an honor for such a slave to be allowed to continue to defend the owning family and its property. Dwarven slaves, with their quasi-spiritual foci, are sometimes found in this kind of role. Guard slaves are usually raised within the organization they serve, and go through comprehensive combat and etiquette training so that they are not only competent with arms, but suitable to accompany the owners to almost any kind of social function. Guard slaves normally stay with the same organization for life, and are almost never traded or sold.

Most certainly a revealing passage.  In fact, much of this page seems to contradict the stereotypes that have become common.  A worthwhile read.

Social Rank

http://www.armageddon.org/general/ranktable.html

Although I am not able to cut and paste the table onto this GDB, one interesting implication of the table is that a Templar's Slave has more status and credibility than an unemployed commoner, or a Cook in House Kadius.

Help Slaves

Not satisfied with website documentation?  How about a look about the In-Game telnet documentation.

Quote from: "Help Allanak"

The city is divided into several Quarters. While most citizens are free to come and go as they will, three sections of the city are worthy of special mention: the Templars' Quarter, the Nobles' Quarter, and the Labyrinth. The Templars' and Nobles' Quarters are open only to the nobility and the Templarate of Allanak, and to their servants and slaves.

.

From this we see that the slaves of the rich and powerful have access to parts of the city where even commoners in high-standing cannot freely go.  I'll abstain from making direct quotes of in-game rooms and descriptions, but some of these go far to refute many of the misconceptions that have become popular.


Select References

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAslavery.htm

Excellent site with slave accounts, slave history and slavery in a factual, modern context.

http://www.unrv.com/culture/roman-slavery.php

Slavery in Ancient Rome.  Arguably more relevant to Arm Gamers.
http://www.earth-history.com/Sumer/

Slavery in ancient desert cultures.

Player and Imm enjoyment could improve with analysis of current de-facto policies

Some players are naturally submissive
We should respect their desire to serve us and allow them to play slaves.

Slavery could improve law-enforcement
It seems to me that many Law Enforcement PCs are disposed to hand out one of two types of sentences:  Fine or Death.

I'd like to see players have the option of accepting (short-term) slavery, which could add variety and creativity to the sentences that get handed out.

Slavery could add status to the slave-owner
It's hard to imagine the wealth and power of people like Joe Kadius and Bob Oash unless they have a couple of slaves tending to them publically.

Slave roles could provide role variety to people who are tired of playing hunters and crafters
Some veteran players complain of boredom with the stock roles.  Slave roles might be the change that they're looking for.


Having PC slaves in game would add a layer of realism.


In conclusion, I'd like to state that slaves are sometimes educated, sometimes trusted, sometimes well-treated, sometimes well-traveled, sometimes close friends of their Master.  Slavery is not always permanent and not all slaves belong to the wealthy and powerful.  Based on these understandings, I feel that slaves roles could in fact be quite fun, and that current policies should be modified to allow people to play slaves.

This is a behemoth post.  I did not read most of it.

I've played an enslaved PC once, back when I was still new.  My character's owner was a good player, interesting to play with, and logged on almost daily for three or four hours at a time, if not more.
I still found myself sitting bored in many times.

The problem with PC slavery is almost completely in who plays the master.  When you play an employee somewhere, you still have your basic freedoms.  You can have your friends, go socialize, go drink, go do whatever.  When you're a slave, even if you're given some liberty, you will never be as free as that nobody employee.

Playing a PC slave is a great idea until you get stuck with an owner that can hardly keep himself entertained with you, let alone make you entertained with yourself.

And on the owners' side, owning a slave and keeping them entertained and involved is hard.  And this is the problem.  If you play a captured slave, you can be given 'leisure time' to relax, but it's a very silly thing to trust your character.  If you play a bred slave, your character wouldn't even know what to do in a tavern.  You'll be involved wherever your owner is involved, and that's about it.

There have been a number of instances in Chinese history when court eunuchs dominated the Imperial families, ruling in all but name. These were indeed slaves, but bred for a purpose: To rule day to day life, in order to allow their 'betters' freedom to persue other things while still recieving the prestige and stipend that came with being a member of the court. Just to throw that out there...

I would love to see more of a PC slave presence, though I'm sure it's not for everyone. Would I be interested in a slave role? Maybe, but I would be eager to have, possible, an in-game sitdown with my PC owner and my Immortal, in order to chat about things to keep the role from chafing me too bad, while still allowing for realism.

In an entirely OOC conversation, I would like to discuss the possibilities of setting up some sort of previous virtual relationship, in order to gain a bit of IC trust. Nothing too large, like leading armies, keeping black secrets, or handling huge accounts, but possibly freeing me up for a number of smaller, day-to-day activities. Patrols, material gathering, virtual duties like sweeping a floor or keeping M'lord's pants free of dust. Ensuring his booze cabinet stays stocked, and maintaining a large supply of them delicious nuggets he loves so much... etc.

Most of what would prevent me from enjoying the role would be a possible tendency of the slave-owner's Player too keep too tight of a rein on me. I would hate to play a cliche, bug out and run away slave, but I would also hate to be stuck in such a restrictive role without a little bit of OOC understanding on the part of both slave and master.

That's my own take on the whole slave thing. Not that I really care, but I felt the need to ramble.

Nice post, Ibusoe. I liked it.

-WP

Quote from: "ibusoe"Slavery could improve law-enforcement
It seems to me that many Law Enforcement PCs are disposed to hand out one of two types of sentences:  Fine or Death.

I'd like to see players have the option of accepting (short-term) slavery, which could add variety and creativity to the sentences that get handed out.

When playing a templar I've actually created situations where I allowed criminal PCs to either win their freedom in the arena, or win it by serving as my indentured servant for a period of time.

I have had successful results with this experiment and I encourage other players of templars to try it.  The thing to remember is that you should always give the player of the criminal a choice to refuse to be your servant, even if their only alternative is death in the arena.  From the stand-point of their player, that's still a choice.

My observations of Armageddon PC slaves (Southern):

Higher-end slaves (belonging to senior nobles and such) always seem to be played just like extra-snobby aides.

Lower-end slaves always seem to earn their freedom and become regular employees within the organization.

Muls seem to always end up running away.


From these observations, seems like most players of PC slaves decide that they don't really like the true slave role.

*shrug*

Quote from: "Marauder Moe"Higher-end slaves (belonging to senior nobles and such) always seem to be played just like extra-snobby aides.

Great.  I think that the entire point of this thread is that not every slave has to be a passive, limp-wristed pleasure toy that never raises her voice, and such roles are better reserved for NPCs anyway.

Quote from: "Marauder Moe"Lower-end slaves always seem to earn their freedom and become regular employees within the organization.

Great.  If they decide that playing a slave isn't right for them, and so they find a way to cease being one that fits into the game world rather than retiring or suiciding their character, that's all the better.  If nothing else it gives their character a certain unusual history that they wouldn't have possessed if they had simply created a character without any special application.

Quote from: "Marauder Moe"Muls seem to always end up running away.

Great.  Plotlines for the masses.

Slavery is an extremely, extremely, extremely restricted role. PCs should never be forced into it, and I think the idea of "either take this extremely restricted role or DIE" isn't much of a choice at all.

It takes a certain kind of player to enjoy being a slave, and there's a reason we see so few of them in game.

Quote from: "Cale_Knight"Slavery is an extremely, extremely, extremely restricted role. PCs should never be forced into it, and I think the idea of "either take this extremely restricted role or DIE" isn't much of a choice at all.

Because when I'm sitting behind the keyboard offering this to you, if you refuse I'll fly over to your house and beat you to death with a two by four.

Actually, it really isn't that dire.  If you have ever played a templar you would understand that when it's so easy to kill another player, you always try to think of ways to avoid it.  If you want to offer this to another player and you're prepared to take the responsibility of having a PC slave, then more power to you.  This works best if you both understand that it's only on a limited time scale after which the player will then be free to go be a commoner again.  If they refuse, just do whatever you were planning to do to them in the first place.  It's no biggie.  And I promise there won't be any two by fours involved.

Cale, by the time most people are face to face with a Templar and are given a choice to play a highly-restrictive role or die, most of them should, by all rights, have been dead already...and the player of that Templar is being nice by allowing you a second chance at your character.

As ERS suggested, it should be a temporary thing.  This would preclude there being too much problems for the new slave.  Plus, a creative enough criminal turned slave could make the most of the oppurtunity to get in the Templar's good graces, make contacts, etc.

I think being a slave could be a fantastic role, if your city had 20 or 30 PC slaves.  Slaves do have friends, families, lovers and so on, but most of those people are also slaves.  Slaves might get time off to socialize, but for preference they'd socialize with other slaves.  


A skilled, valued slave is in an awkward social position.  They may be better fed and better mannered than a low-class freeman.  So, in a way, they are like a higher socio-economic class than many commoners.  But in another way the commoners are in a higher class, because they own themselves if nothing else.  It is hard to socialize when you are both busy looking down on each other.  They are separate sub-cultures within society.

This may be another area that would work with a bigger player base.  If we routinely had several hundred people logged on at the same time, a couple dozen of them could play slaves and have a good time.  As it is now, the slave generally has only a very few (non-virtual) people they can interact with easily.  It tends to be stressful and unfun.



Angela Christine

Speaking from experience with special apps and slaves:

99.99% of all PC slaves will store or suicide within a relatively short period of time, no matter how much "freedom" they have or who their master is.  I have seen slaves treated like dirt and kept locked in rooms and I have seen slaves given as much responsibility and freedom as a clan leader.  The result is nearly universally the same.  They store or suicide.  When PCs special app slaves I tell them this.  Without exception they say "Yeah, but...I wouldn't do that."  And nearly without exception a short while later they are storing or suiciding.  It doesn't matter what clan, what guild or what area of the game they are playing in.

I would like to think that it might be fun for some players to be a slave, but all evidence points to the fact that it is not.  I would rather not do more to encourage players to play a role that seems to be universally unfun.

Quote from: "Naiona"Stuff.

This, however, is a good reason to not encourage it.

I did see such a thing happen once, though.  That worked out with a long-lived character that got its freedom back.  That's the only time I've seen a slave not suicide or retire, I have to admit.

Perhaps something more...moderate could be encouraged instead?  Turn the person into a servant?  They are not allowed to work away from the Templar for some time, but pay them and make sure there is a time frame from the beginning that doesn't include too much time?  (One IG month)  Maybe for a set number of tasks?  (7 tasks)  Maybe a set amount of total time to be split up as the Templar desires?  (3 IG days of service maybe)

I think AC hits the nail on the head.  Sure, slaves live interesting lives.  Unfortunately, those interesting lives are played out with other slaves.  Unless the 'rules' on slaves are clarified to the point where it is okay for a slave to go hang out in the tavern and kick back with his freemen friends, a slave is going to live a lonely life.  The only exceptions I have seen are in Kurac and the Byn.  Why is Kurac and the Byn seemingly able to pull off having slaves?  They are large communities with enough internal interaction to keep your average person relatively happy.  Even then, they don't exactly have a perfect track record.

Look, playing a boring old vanilla commoner is very hard.  Try it some time.  Why is it hard?  Nearly every single other person is NOT a commoner.  They are gemmed, 'rinthers, working for a noble house, in the Atrium, or in some way or another not really classed as a "normal" commoner.  When it comes to interpersonal plots and relationships, Armageddon a lot of the time comes up a little short.  Armageddon shines in its ability to create conflict within and between organizations, not in the day to day living conflict that people might have.

Right now there is a huge grey area in the slavery documentation.  The documentation really doesn't do much to describe how slaves and commoners interact.  Is it okay for a slave to go have a drink at the bar?  Can he hang out with his commoner friends at the bar?  Can he have a commoner girlfriend who he MUD sex00rs when he isn't working?  If the social barrier between commoners and slave is made to be only a small barrier, I could see PC slaves being a lot more successful.  If the barrier is the sharp divide that we currently see right now, then I think playing a PC slave is going to be a very lonely role.

Personally, I think the documentation is pretty murky about the PC/slave social divide.  I think that this section of the documentation could be added in to swing it such that playing a PC slave is an entirely viable role.  The real issue is if we want to blur the lines between commoners and slaves, then what becomes the difference other then that one is paid and the other isn't?

Just to chime in based on a few other replies...

 A couple of years back I played a mul combat slave in the Byn. Over time, he gained a lot of trust (actually made it to Sgt) but it did take time. He was pretty content in life and never, to the best of my memory, thought about running. He had food, water, and achieved likely the most amount of 'respect' and 'authority' over others that is possible in our little world (for a mul at least). Now, this may not be the norm for PC slave muls, but it was my experience.

I loved the role and had a great time with it. I did end up storing him and always regretted it. If I could do it again, I would have tried to keep him around long enough to die from old age. I must say that it was my most memorable and favorite role to date (with a certain noble in close 2nd).

There is a certain old yellow slave that I am 99% sure died of old age..

But that is probably the exception to the rule.

In general, unless documentation is written up to flesh out the life of a PC slaves in ways that add vast playability, it is a role that I would not wish on many, unless they had an extremely creative, active, and long-lived leader who they could roleplay with - and a dependancy on one player to be able to do anything at all is a dangerous one.

Quote from: "Rindan"Look, playing a boring old vanilla commoner is very hard.  Try it some time.

So true. So very true.

I tried this maybe two or three months back in Tuluk. I had exactly one other PC to RP with. Everyone else was way too high-class for my character to comfortably interact with.

My experience, both as a slave-owner, slave and an observer, is that everyone seems to go into the situation thinking Kunte Kinte.  The completely restricted slave shackled to his owner's ankle.  That's just unplayable.

I made a thread about this a while back bringing up the slave who was right hand man to Julius Caesar in the HBO series Rome as a great example of what I think a playable Armageddon slave would be.  The slave's quality of life was directly affected by Caesar's success, so he was depicted in the series as being exceedingly loyal and shrewd on his master's behalf.  He was trusted with things others wouldn't be trusted with because his loyalty was unquestioned.  Why?  Because he could be put to death in an instant, or relegated to some menial and grueling task for the rest of his days.  Trust a citizen with certain information and if they turn on you then you've got to think about how to get them killed legally or quietly.

The slave in the show traveled on his own and did a lot of Caesar's dirty work.  At one point Caesar is talking to someone then abruptly stops talking and his slave starts in doing the actual negotiating over money because, at least my impression was, quibbling over money was beneath a man who was rich enough to own slaves.

In the end the only difference between this sort of slave and roleplaying an unquestioningly loyal commoner who works in a non-combat role for a noble house is a roleplay one.  Restrictions on activities and movements are identical, just for different reasons.

I have had a concept for a slave in my head for a while, and I would like to think that it would be playable. I fully intend to app it at some point, and I'll have to apoogize to Naiona for naivette if I end up storing.

That said, the sort of situation I was thinking about was closer to what CRW described. A trusted slave whose comfort directly reflected the position of their master, who's existance would be to serve that individual, but in a more disconnected way. Someone who could move important supplies, assist aides, etc. Perhaps it's a pipedream, from the sounds of the track record for slaves, but maybe I'll still give it a try at some point.

That said, what sort of insight can the staff give us into general commoner/slave interactions?

CRW and bloodfromstone, I agree that it is an interesting and realistic concept, but lets follow it all the way through.  I watched Rome and thought that that slave kicked ass as well for the record.    Does this slave have the ability go to a bar, sit down, and have a drink?  Does he have commoner friends?  Or is he simply a full time aid that is either with his master or in the noble quarters?

The real question is where are you when your master is gone?  Answer the question literally.  Your master is gone, where are you?  In a tavern, sweeping the floor in the compound, where?  This is a really serious question for slaves.  This is what kills off slaves.  ICly your life might rock, but OOCly sitting around in your plush quarters interacting with VNPC slaves is a quick way to suicide.

I think the biggest issue is that there is a massive grey area in what is acceptable for slaves.  Sure, we all know slaves don't have to be locked in a cage when the master is away, but what is acceptable behavior?  Anything a commoner could do within reason?  How do commoners deal with a Borsail slave?  Do they sit down and have a drink and friendly chat?

I would happily consider a slave role if 'trusted' slaves were allowed to wander freely, have a drink, and chat at the bar.  In that case, you would really be talking about a commoner of sorts who is property.  Being property would complicate his relationships and provide something interesting interactions.  The issue is that right now we play slavery like American slavery.  Slaves, even trusted ones, are kept separate from the general population.  Black slaves in the US didn't wander over to the pub and shoot the shit with his white friends.

Personally, I like the concept of slave roles.  Outside of temporary enslavement via the templerate (which I would take up in a heartbeat to save my character's life), I think the real challenge for out of the box slave is developing an interesting interactions outside of the presence of an owner.

I for one am glad this is discouraged especially the capture of slaves.  If people wanted to play a slave and not to actually get to RP their character they would app a slave.  I don't like the idea of Wyverns or whoever romping off to capture PC's just because they can or just to give them something to do.  There are plenty of critters that can fullfill that challenge.

I don't mind when someone who plays it well is obviously experienced in RP and it it for the long term does it when it's an alternative or IG.  But the idea of a group of warriors gang banging a half elf ranger alone in the sands and throwing them in  a cage for like an hour of RP then fucking up the other characters whole world.  Hell, even do it with VNPCs if you want to have some RP but I just don't think there are enough PCs for other PCs to get into the habit of it if that makes sense.

Rindan & Others,

Just to rehash - even when PC slaves are given freedom of movement, trust and encouragement to go out and make contacts, meet people and do other things on their own - they store or suicide.

I do have new slavery documentation that has been worked on for some time.  But I do not feel it will ever make the role of slave more palatable to Armageddon players.  You guys just do not like playing slaves, overall. The one exception is probably the runaway mul - which is really a rarity considering how hard it is to breed muls and how deeply conditioned and trained they are from birth.

There are plenty of slave roles that should be fun if you ask me.   I've yet to see players enjoy them yet, though.  We've had high ranking roles in noble houses played by slaves and there are some slave NPCs that outrank most commoners.  Yet, the fact remains that when players try it they don't have fun.

QuoteMy experience, both as a slave-owner, slave and an observer, is that everyone seems to go into the situation thinking Kunte Kinte. The completely restricted slave shackled to his owner's ankle. That's just unplayable.

Really?  I've found it as just the opposite.  I've never once seen a character playing a slave as your typical run of the mill slave, shackled and forced to endure a back breaking life under the sun.  Instead, they were either old yellow muls who worked as clan leaders (in which case, they were a slave in name only) or worked in a prim and pampered position which really wasn't far off from simply being that of a House Aide role (which begs the question, why play a slave at all?)

9 times out of 10 what people are really looking for when they say "I want to play a slave" is an elite house servant type.  I think they just want the nifty quasi-unique title of being called 'slave' to make it sound cooler.

Every time the discussion about slavery crops up umpteen players invariably announce that not all slaves are shackled to the ground, mistreated and not trusted.  Yeah, yeah, I know.  Ancient Egypt had high ranking slaves.  Chinese Dynasties had slaves who could read and write.  Etc. etc. etc.  That's great and all but it's important to remember that while such slaves exist in Arm, MOST slaves are actually your typical "used and abused" sort.  They comprise the bulk of the slave world.

The slave mentality is the hardest thing to capture when it pertains to Armageddon.  Slaves fill a myriad of roles from laborers all the way up to running of Households - but, slaves do not have freewill.

In other words, no matter how trusted a slave is, they always act within a set of rules, procedures, and guidelines that they do not deviate from.  A slave has little to no initiative.  

For this reason, playing a PC slave can be boring as hell.  Unless your slave has been giving a full set of activities to pursue while the master is offline - you'll be struggling to play a slave well during those periods.

Does a slave go down to the bar and drink?  No.  Why?  That's not a activity role for a slave.  Is it possible that a slave would be ordered to go to a tavern and pay attention to the crowds - sure but it'd be better, from a powerful character's point of view, to send a trusted _servant_ who can act with initiative.

Slaves typically don't have any form of leadership.  They are always led and given orders.  The most trusted slaves in noble houses have, over many many years and careful conditioning, developed some level of leadership but a servant (or noble, depending on the house) always oversees the slaves.  And their "leadership" role is very well defined - that same role has existed for hundreds of years and a slave that ends up in the position knows exactly what it needs to do in every given situation.  If blood is spilled on the marble floor - order another slave to clean it up.  If a slave gets killed - call in the guard, replace the slave with another one, have the body removed and destroyed, etc etc.  All situations that it has standing instructions on how to deal with them.  

A slave, for the programmers out there, is exactly like code.  A slave operates within the structure of its programming and cannot step outside of that unless something exceptional happens to break the conditioning.  Something, like a mul losing its bondmate, raging, killing all of its handlers, and then in that extreme moment of emotion fleeing.

Will a slave correct a master when the master does something wrong?  Possibly - again, it is a matter of what role the slave is filling.  Slaves fill positions where everything about that position is clearly laid out and defined.  There are no uncertainties.  If a slave ever encounters a situation that they do not know how to react to - they ask for guidance.  They don't make a decision - they go back to their master or House to find out what to do.

To go with the slave example from Rome - will a slave negotiate on behalf of a House?  Sure, if that is something that the slave was taught and knows exactly what the House's objectives are, what it is allowed to negotiate with, what the bottom line is, how to get a better deal, etc etc.  Again, no uncertainties.  The slave didin't initiate the deal, the slave doesn't offer a solution that is 'outside' the box, the slave is following a set of instructions.  

In terms of where does it go wrong for players playing slave roles?  That's simple - they don't have the role fully defined as a slave would be.  A slave that is born to slavery spends its life learning what it is.  A slave is not a person a slave is a role.  For example, a slave is not Amos, the guard the slave is a guard.  For all intents and purposes, free will and self-determination do not exist.  A slave cannot decide, on a whim, to go and do X when X is outside of its underlying instructions.  

The problem is that players don't have the fifteen years of training and conditioning that a slave goes through.  Because of this, they often don't _know_ how to react and interact to every situation and thus end up making initiative choices as opposed to following what should be their training.  Therefore, they screw up, get punished and shit on.  Eventually the PC becomes frustrated because they don't know how to react and constantly need guidance from their master(s).  Then the PC just suicides or retires because the role is so restrictive and confining.

Most PCs who think about being a slave are, as pointed out earlier in this thread, actually thinking about being a trusted house servant.  Servants have initiative and freedom.  Slaves have roles and defined activities.

I would never ever suggest that anyone play a slave.  If you want to be a trusted House representative then play a trusted House Servant.  If you want to play a submissive character then play a submissive Servant.

I've played a number of Slaves. Ironic, isn't it?

The one rule that will define all of you interaction and action in general is this: You can and do think up to the level at which your character is allowed to think. Going beyond that is extremely rebellious. Doing less than that is extremely punishable. You are on a straight and narrow path, and it will always be straight and narrow.

Marko's post says just this, but in a different manner.

I think slaves should be set free. I don't like the politcal part of slaves in armageddon. This game is structured very poorly in the fact that it lacks a good democrary politics. Slaves should be set free, no oppressed.