Slaves and combat

Questions and suggestions about the rules of the roleplay and how things work

Moderators: L`aquera, Stormbringer, Ehlanna, lyllamarie

Slaves and combat

Postby Kydo on Mon Mar 07, 2011 6:25 am

Alright, a question I've come up with recently and the ruling I'm already aware of, my question though in this is just curiousity. Slaves are not allowed to fight, alright, I completely understand. Slaves are not allowed to own a weapon with an attack mod better than a +1... but there is nothing saying they can't learn 15 slots of spells for a +15 attack.

Moreso I would like to set up a tournament for slaves to be entered into, only with their master/mistress' consent. No armor, but any weapons that their owner chose for them fitting their class. Now, I know that this has been shot down before but my question is why? If slaves exist for entertainment (and since this game is often compared to a medival setting) why wouldn't there be gladiators trained to fight and battle for the enjoyment of spectators.

I am not trying to be trite, so please don't take it that way. I'm just curious, and I think that doing this would open up more for slaves to do than just to simply wait around to be used as a fucktoy or whatever fate they have. Even doing this the current weapon laws could well stay in effect for slaves anywhere but inside the arena if they were allowed such.
The Works Skills
Metal Smith x5 (Master), Mithril Smith x5 (Master), Valencite Smith x5 (Master)

HoF Skills
Hunting/Trapping 5, Soldiering 5, Scouting 5, Winged Riding 3

Image
User avatar
Kydo
Novice
Novice
 
Posts: 24
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2007 6:13 pm
Location: Hell, I mean uhhh 29 Palms...

Re: Slaves and combat

Postby Infernis on Mon Mar 07, 2011 8:18 am

Blame the insomnia for this...

I could easily just say 'slaves are property and it's not proper.' but that wouldn't be entirely fair.

The longer version is that in any society that encourages enslavement of other beings, you run the risk of an open and outright slave uprising. Now, yes, this is a fantasy world where we could easily just say "That can't happen cause we say so." But that wouldn't be very conducive to the flow of the setting...

I can't see the Empire being okay with not just allowing slaves to use weapons and armor, but also go into combat to see who the 'best' slave fighters are, training those slaves to be better at combat.

Yes, there are the examples of the gladiators of Rome, but history shows us that the government of Rome 'feared' the gladiators and the examples that they set for the rest of the slaves. They were not trusted, least of all by their owners.

Spartacus and his rebellion comes to mind when you consider the end results of having slaves trained and equipped for combat.

In an OOC sense, I like the idea. ICly, I can't see it happening.

Just my two cents.


~I~
Image
User avatar
Infernis
Predominate
Predominate
 
Posts: 265
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 7:56 pm

Re: Slaves and combat

Postby kitten on Mon Mar 07, 2011 9:21 am

on one hand.. i could see it happening once in a blue moon to maybe let those frustrated slaves just out into the area to have at it against anyone. might quell some back talking yip-yaps.

on the other hand.. just take your property home and make it day where you let them take out some anger on you. it might be just as fun to let them know that you set aside a day for them to get any anger out that they need to.

I'm not sure on the idea because there are enough unruley slaves running around already. why do we need an arena when they do it everywhere else? "hey! hey! take that shit to the arena!" which leads to "i can hit you all i want.. im in the arena!" :roll:
User avatar
kitten
Adept
Adept
 
Posts: 63
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 6:30 pm

Re: Slaves and combat

Postby Joshua_Jericho on Mon Mar 07, 2011 11:41 am

We could always just scrap the weapons and armour part. Throw some slaves in against one another in a ring just to see who wins. But that's not really following the idea of a fair tournament.

Or we could throw a bunch of slaves in with the lions to see what happens. If we have lions..

JJ
Since I can't figure out how to change display name...player of Catiline, Umber and Saphamira! Often around on IRC GMT evenings and weekends.
Joshua_Jericho
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 176
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2010 10:37 pm

Re: Slaves and combat

Postby Vysanth on Mon Mar 07, 2011 11:44 am

I like that lions thought. Though, ressurrecting might be a bit of a Touch N Go depending on how well digested certain body parts eventually end up...
User avatar
Vysanth
Initiate
Initiate
 
Posts: 38
Joined: Thu May 19, 2005 12:11 pm

Re: Slaves and combat

Postby Stormbringer on Mon Mar 07, 2011 1:31 pm

Slavery isn't necessarily a permanent condition so slaved characters don't lose their class, spells etc when they take a collar.

Slaves are precluded from fighting, partly for what Infernis said. Also partly to avoid 'slave as bodyguard' situations. It also doesn't really suit a slave's training and demeanor to be swaggering around like Xena on steroids.

The concept of gladiator-slaves has been brought up before. It isn't exactly impossible but to my mind, a gladiator/gladiatrix slave would either be owned by the arena, or privately owned but permanently housed at the arena. That way they wouldn't cross any of the desired restictions on them.
Image
--------------
Charm’d magic casements, opening on the foam
Of perilous seas, in faery lands forlorn

(John Keats)
Check your baggage at the door and bring some magic through your
window onto the world of Belariath
User avatar
Stormbringer
High Council
High Council
 
Posts: 3270
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2005 3:02 pm

Re: Slaves and combat

Postby Tawny on Mon Mar 07, 2011 11:36 pm

I completel agree with Stormbringer on this idea. Slaves have rules that keeps them submissive and they are not allowed to be fighting for that reason alone. Even having ones owned and housed at the area would not in my opinion,be a good idea. As in time, i am sure if this is allowed to its going to lead to other slaves wanting the right to fight and then we are right back here and in worse shape. Leave the fighting to free people. I havent seen where its hurt the tournments any leaving the rule of no fighting for slave in affect.
Image
User avatar
Tawny
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 696
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 2:16 am

Re: Slaves and combat

Postby Miss Magical on Tue Mar 08, 2011 3:31 am

Kydo wrote:Alright, a question I've come up with recently and the ruling I'm already aware of, my question though in this is just curiosity. Slaves are not allowed to fight, alright, I completely understand. Slaves are not allowed to own a weapon with an attack mod better than a +1... but there is nothing saying they can't learn 15 slots of spells for a +15 attack.


After speaking with Tawny about this for clarification, there are no rules about what a slave may own. If their owner wishes them to decorate them with Uber Weapon +5 of Amazing, they can, but rules against attacking or assaulting Free People still applies, as a slave is not to fight one, period, so it would almost be a waste. There could be a question of a slave walking around with a weapon openly, but things like daggers would be acceptable as they can be as much a tool for other things beyond fighting.

And I'll voice my approval of the concept of a gladiator-type slave who exists to fight, but I would mention that I think it'd be cool if a concept came about of a Coliseum-type thing: of prisoners who could be sold to the arena or to masters within the arena to pay off their debts (this would be practiced rarely, as gladiator slaves would seldom live long enough to repay whatever debts their owners decide they own, and even then greedy bastards that slaveowners are they'd likely only free their slaves grudgingly.). I always imagine such being a staple of a society like Belariath has, where a slave might be forced to fight, say, a Jhore.
Never robust as a melody, only a broken chord to sing.
User avatar
Miss Magical
Adept
Adept
 
Posts: 66
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2010 8:52 pm

Re: Slaves and combat

Postby Miss Magical on Tue Mar 08, 2011 3:37 am

Infernis wrote:Spartacus and his rebellion comes to mind when you consider the end results of having slaves trained and equipped for combat.


Was Spartacus a gladiator? I had thought that he was a former soldier enslaved because of debt or conquest or some such. In Rome, being a gladiator was different from being what we might think of as a "slave". You were owned, to be sure, but the culture of Rome was one that was glory-driven: in large extent how much glory you earned judged your fate of your afterlife: while not as glory-driven as the Greeks, a quote from "Gladiator" can be used to sum up their thoughts on the matter: "What you do in Life echoes into eternity."

Edit: Apparently I'm both right and wrong; he was a soldier who was then enslaved for any number of reasons and then sold to become a Gladiator.

Truthfully, and especially in the capital city of Rome, Gladiators = Celebrity, and many free people willingly gave up their freedom for the chance to compete and earn fame. Most of the rebellions were minor things from small cities and towns ill-equipped to deal with a sudden swell of violence, so the fear of rebellion could be mitigated in that way.

Beyond that, we have magic here: a collar that prevented one from going so far from the coliseum or, at a word, grew so hot that it burned, or a shock collar, or something like that could easily be employed to control slaves, couldn't they?
Never robust as a melody, only a broken chord to sing.
User avatar
Miss Magical
Adept
Adept
 
Posts: 66
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2010 8:52 pm

Re: Slaves and combat

Postby Ishtori on Tue Mar 08, 2011 12:17 pm

I have been wondering whether or not to post here but with so much going on I'll add my thoughts.

I view slaves a little differently than probably most people will here. A slave from a slaver point of view is not a person, a slave is a thing and you do what you want with your things. You can fuck it, you can spoil it, you can break it and you can make it fight for you. Those are my personal views on slaves. They shouldn't even have "rights" to beggin with. They should have as much rights as a sword or as dildo wich is from the slavers point of view (or master) "I do what I want and when I want with you". I also don't see a reason for paying monthly for a slave. It is a slave, not my employee, it is why I paid in the first place to register it, to mark it as my slave and not pay anymore. Just the same way I can't think of a reason for a slave occupying 2 equiment slots for a character. I don't carry my slave in my pocket and it certainly doesn't use or confers me special abillities in a fight either. That's why I simply chose not to own slaves. The rules as they are make no sence to me at all.

I could also say I understand some of the reasons behing some of those rules but of curse, understanding and agreeing are 2 different things.

As for the specific topic, why not allow them to fight in gladiatorial matches or less specificly in the arena against anyone who wishes? If they have their masters permission why not? There isn't going to be an armed rebelion going around and hey, they can already use magic or weapons and armor as long as their masters allow it... Also a slave uprising is usually easy to deal with once the army is mobilised and slaves are well aware that an uprise is going to end up in the only way it can, their permanent death. I'm not really going to take examples of RL in this one especially because my knowledge on that field is quite limited and well, this is a fantasy setting. Slaves should be well aware that uprising = death and that while they might do damage, the outcome is going to always be the same. So again, I don't see why not allow them to fight at the arena and the arena only.
"The heavens burned
The stars cried out
And under the ashes of infinity
Hope, scarred and bleeding breathed it's last."
Ishtori
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 119
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2010 4:51 am

Re: Slaves and combat

Postby kitten on Tue Mar 08, 2011 12:41 pm

There is this old saying.. lemme think.. what was it..
OH!


"Give a man rope.. and he'll want to be a cowboy."

also:

"Give someone an inch.. and they will take a mile."

Lets add:

"Give a slave a weapon.. and it will kill you."

yes? no? maybe so?
User avatar
kitten
Adept
Adept
 
Posts: 63
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 6:30 pm

Re: Slaves and combat

Postby Miss Magical on Tue Mar 08, 2011 1:02 pm

Ishtori wrote:I have been wondering whether or not to post here but with so much going on I'll add my thoughts.

I view slaves a little differently than probably most people will here. A slave from a slaver point of view is not a person, a slave is a thing and you do what you want with your things. You can fuck it, you can spoil it, you can break it and you can make it fight for you. Those are my personal views on slaves. They shouldn't even have "rights" to beggin with. They should have as much rights as a sword or as dildo wich is from the slavers point of view (or master) "I do what I want and when I want with you". I also don't see a reason for paying monthly for a slave. It is a slave, not my employee, it is why I paid in the first place to register it, to mark it as my slave and not pay anymore. Just the same way I can't think of a reason for a slave occupying 2 equiment slots for a character. I don't carry my slave in my pocket and it certainly doesn't use or confers me special abillities in a fight either. That's why I simply chose not to own slaves. The rules as they are make no sence to me at all.

I could also say I understand some of the reasons behing some of those rules but of curse, understanding and agreeing are 2 different things.


If you don't understand why slaves take 2 equipment slots then you're not thinking hard enough. There's a myriad of reasons for it, I'll list one: to prevent people from taking everyone and their mother as slave. It's a commitment that requires sacrifice on the part of the owner, you're gaining something that is worth far more than a sword or a suit of mithril, or at least you're getting something with far more potential.

But to the other point you condense above, I wouldn't compare, really, a slave to a dildo -- it's important to differentiate the difference between what we as players might feel about slaves and what Belariath as a whole feels about slaves. Slaves are generally seen as a possession but not an object, in the end. Something lesser than one who is "free" but still a person (indeed, if we call them "Free Persons" then it makes sense the counter is "Enslaved Person" who still has some degree of rights. In very, very, very few cultures -- not even the Deep South of the very pro-slave America of the 1800's, was it okay to simply kill your slave, and that situation had deep prejudices and racisms that are not present in the Empire.

A slave is a commodity as a horse might be, but far more valuable to most. Pleasure slaves might be a bigger thing in Nanthalion than across the Empire, but then the laws extend beyond the Empire: out in harsher climates I would think slaves used in far more manual labor where they can be, with pleasure a thought for after all the work that must be done is done. All this is trying to reinforce my point that it's my belief that slaves are very valuable and important members of society within Belariath, albeit in a lower social caste than those who are free. Like the pyramid caste-system of India, it could be said that slaves help support those above them, but at the cost of the rights to those above. Still people, but with far fewer rights -- though in the end whatever role Stormbringer wants slaves to have makes sense, because this is Stormbringer's world in both an in-game IC point of view as the Emperor and in an OOC administrative point of view as the Owner, so I might be completely wrong about my thoughts on the matter.

Ishtori wrote:As for the specific topic, why not allow them to fight in gladiatorial matches or less specifically in the arena against anyone who wishes? If they have their masters permission why not? There isn't going to be an armed rebelion going around and hey, they can already use magic or weapons and armor as long as their masters allow it... Also a slave uprising is usually easy to deal with once the army is mobilised and slaves are well aware that an uprise is going to end up in the only way it can, their permanent death. I'm not really going to take examples of RL in this one especially because my knowledge on that field is quite limited and well, this is a fantasy setting. Slaves should be well aware that uprising = death and that while they might do damage, the outcome is going to always be the same. So again, I don't see why not allow them to fight at the arena and the arena only.


First off, the fear of death has only stopped so many people. Many times the beginnings of revolution are mired in those that knew death was certain but pressed on otherwise. I do not feel as if Belariath is a world without ideals, and while those who are against slavery might be more common than a man with a ten-inch dick in the palace of the Vestal Virgins, they still might exist. Beyond that, a slave might feel as if they have nothing to live for anyways, so why bother the rest of living when a rebellion might bring you infamy and peace? For every one of us players who treats a slave with love and care, I would imagine there's ten out there who treat their slaves with cruelty and complete depravity, especially some of the NPC Slave collectors and traders.

Secondly, it's important to remember that this is an IC rule enforced by the ISA! People talk about how slaves "cannot" fight as if you do an OP will swoop down bringing the Great Sword of Banning in one fist and the Shield of Pwnge in the other! If you want your slave to fight someone else, do it but be aware that the Empire might not support your methods. How fun of roleplay might that be, too, an "underground" slave-fighting business? It makes sense for there to be IC laws of the Empire that your character might not agree with, indeed, would they really be laws if 95% of the population didn't bitch about them in some way?
Never robust as a melody, only a broken chord to sing.
User avatar
Miss Magical
Adept
Adept
 
Posts: 66
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2010 8:52 pm

Re: Slaves and combat

Postby Ishtori on Tue Mar 08, 2011 2:11 pm

Again, this is just my point of view. I didn't said it was right or not nor I am trying to press it as correct, just my point of view!

Taking equipment slots is still silly. If that was to stop a character from owning every slave from here to araby it wouldn't because a person who doesn't cares for fighting and so on could basicly start out with 5 slaves and get 3 more with each level up. Again this rule makes no sence but this is just my point of view.

Yes there might be different views and it varies from person to person as to what a slave is or isn't I was just giving mine, not impling it as being correct. You have yours, SB has his and everyone has their own. That is just mine.


What you said about the slaves not being allowed to fight in answer to my post you just give me more reason. The slaves are not allowed to fight but also there is nothing to stop them currently from rebeling and going against the ISA rules as the threat of death isn't really much for many people. So with that in mind what would again be the problem of allowing them a bit of free room to fight in the arena? It's not going to make it more or less likelly to spring up uprisings anyway.
"The heavens burned
The stars cried out
And under the ashes of infinity
Hope, scarred and bleeding breathed it's last."
Ishtori
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 119
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2010 4:51 am

Re: Slaves and combat

Postby L`aquera on Tue Mar 08, 2011 2:29 pm

Sparks sparks everywhere but not a drop to throw.. I wish I may I wish I might talk of a slaves fight.....

Stuff and nonsense!

NO! Ompaloompas!

Ok, now that I've got your attention. ;)

I would like to bring you all back to an incident that happened not to long ago and... I might add, many of you that are commenting in here, had a different story to tell at the time.

A slave took a crop and hit a free person. Not once, but twice.

The reaction? "I wouldn't let a slave get away with that shit!" "That a slave would even think to hit a free person!" "How the heck did the slave get a crop? Where was the Master/Mistress?"

And then, said free person, killed the slave. My initial reaction was.. Wow. The Master was right there, if the Free person was having issues, he should have taken the slave by the hair the first time the crop came down and marched them right over to the Master and let the Master handle it. Had that been my slave he'd killed, he would be a flaming pile of ash. Why? Because its MY duty to discipline my slave. Especially if I'm there. Then of course, the Master was there and was watching so why didn't the Master handle it there and then?

It begs several questions. Not for what happened but also what did happen. Reactions. Now, I know, its not really the same as is being discussed here and yet, it is. This slave wasn't really attempting to be an upstart "I can hit you because I have a weapon!" mentality. At least... I don't think so. But if you think about it, you give a slave a weapon, train them to fight and their mentality is no longer servitude of knees and loving smiles or fear. Its... Hey wait a second! I don't have to take your gump! I just beat the snot out of Snuffalupagus in the arena, I can beat the snot out of you!

Of course.. Would that be every single fighting slaves mentality? I can't say that either. I can't put myself in each slaves shoes and think as the player might behind it. But is it a possibility? History in TLI tells us, it could be. Some of you are relatively new, some of you aren't. I do remember a slave that his Master would deliberately push out front to go beat up some free person that bothered him. Laws were stricter on what you could do to said slave so free people were leery about harming the slave. And if the slave was getting overwhelmed, then the Master stepped in, now it was two on one. Is that a good example to bring to the table? Yes and no. But true none the less. When we say "You players end up making the rules." we really aren't kidding. Thus different rules went into slaves.

Now, while that sounds like I'm saying, I hate this idea, what a dumb idea... please do not think so. I find the very idea intriguing. Why? Because I have a slave character that would love nothing better than her Master to set her into the Arena and beat the snot out of someone and make him proud. I have a slave with L` that almost acts like a personal body guard. Amusing the heck out of her because the others know enough to stand back so as not to be caught in the flames.

We as players, have submissive and dominant needs. You might see someone oocly throwing pseudo fun rp about as in "I'm gonna take a hammer to you!" and in IC, actually throwing the hammer. But you also see them crying, getting raped, thrown about. Being the victim as well as the aggressor. What does that mean for this topic? It means, those same players have Slaves. And their slave characters are likely of the same mind. We can't want to push the envelope on one hand and just lick the stamp on the other. Its fun to be a little of both. It would be fun to watch a match in the arena pitting slave to slave... but then.. we have that above. So.. Lets look at something..

What if we have an OOC contract that states simplistically that if the Slave gets out of hand 'outside' an arena battle, the Master/Mistress are held accountable. The slaves collar is removed and cannot be collared again except to an establishment. The Master / Mistress is fined a sum that goes with their income for a month or more. And then the slave character must face the consequences of his/her actions against an aggressive free person of the Arenas choosing.

Of course, while that sounds good on paper, will it really work? Who knows. I never do. Trial and error after all. On the other hand, HC might pat me on the head and give me my special helmet and my own spot in the corner. ;) These are just thoughts after all.
Image
Don't breath, don't think.. for I am the shadow that will forever over take you..
User avatar
L`aquera
High Council
High Council
 
Posts: 4739
Joined: Sat May 07, 2005 9:46 pm

Re: Slaves and combat

Postby gwyneth{StWi} on Tue Mar 08, 2011 4:55 pm

As a slave who does own and use a weapon.... ok, gwyn doesn't use it against free persons or slaves, unless it's in a healing capacity. She does use it for defense (or would if the situation arose), in sparrs, and against enemies of the empire (read quests/wars/events). gwyneth didn't have a weapon for a long time, but eventually she was given a dagger, and then Mistress Ehlanna gave her her mithril dagger. Does this make her less trustworthy? Is there danger of her leading a rebellion? not in the slightest. She has been known to do everything in her power to prevent rebellions in the past. Granted, i can see the point of the objections, but really it depends on the slave, and should, in a girl's opinion, be up to the owner's discretion whether or not to arm a slave, as it is now. i have a tribesgirl slave character who hunts with a sharpened pointed stick because she doesn't have a weapon.

gwyneth would love to be able to take part in tournaments since those are closer to sparrs then actual combat, a game not an attack, but, again, can understand why we're not allowed.

As for the incident with the crop, yes, gwyn agrees that Zeph should have been given the chance to handle that. Also, a crop isn't a weapon. it's a discipline tool, a toy, but not technically a weapon, so her having one isn't that big a deal. Nor was it hidden, she had it as a prop for the auction. No, she shouldn't have hit a free person with it, and there's consequences for that. But it wasn't an attack with a weapon.
Image
User avatar
gwyneth{StWi}
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 178
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 4:08 pm
Location: tied up in Mistress Ehlanna's pm box, in Mistress India's lap

Next

Return to Rules and Gameplay

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest