by Stormbringer on Wed Aug 25, 2010 11:12 am
I'll try to answer some of the significant points raised here without covering every variation of what has been said in different ways by different people. Threads like this always get confused because people tend to base reactions off opinions stated in replies rather than the actual words of the original post. So I would advise everyone to actually remember what I said and what I am saying here, not what someone else says they thought I said. Yes, for the record this is what I said. I had laerel float a part of it two days ago in OOC to see responses without them being clouded by any distortion in case people didn't want to go against a sometime perceived status I hold. Laerel helped with editing and wording but the ideas are all mine.
Let's start with the main objection, raised and repeated by Tawny in more than one post. Concubines are not lovers, they are not mates, they are not free people. They are owned. I don't care how you interpret what slavery is based on behavior, in its simplest form a slave is one person who is owned by another. They don't have the freedom to walk away from their owner. They can't decide that they are not slaves any longer without breaking the law of a community which holds slave ownership as being legitimate. They can't walk away without the enforcement branch of that community taking action to find them and return them to their owner. You don't define a slave by what they wear or how they act when walking down the street or how they spread their legs when they kneel down. You define a slave as property. Full stop.
A concubine is owned. A concubine is property.
So all this twaddle about concubines being lovers and identical to free people is just that. Any twaddle about the ISA not having any purpose getting involved is just that. The ISA records the ownership of humanoid property. The ISA deals with problems concerning the ownership of humanoid property. It may be called the Imperial SLAVE Authority but it could just as validly be called the Imperial Record Keeping, Registration and Problem Solving Relating To Humanoids Owned As Property Authority if you think it needs a change of title to justify its involvement.
Can we get that very clear, as it should have been so in my original post but obvioulsy wasn't.
Now to some specifics:
Several people have pointed out that many slaves in TLI are not played very slavishly. A couple of people have pointed out that many slaves are actually played as submissives. One or two have seen the introduction of concubine as an opportunity to have slave defined more tightly in ways that were not possible before due to the wide range of players needs that had to be met by a system which only recognised free, bonded and slave. Bravo! They saw the intent and they anticipated phase two - a review of what a full slave should be and could be once players have an option to place characters into a less restrictive, gentler form of slavery known as concubinage.
Those who do play, or wish to play slavery in a stricter interpretation of how it should be played deserve to have the opportunity to do so without being surrounded by 'half slaves'. They deserve to have their dedication to a rather difficult role recognised. Just as those who wish to play variable degrees of submissive deserve to have an option to do that without being forced into a straitjacket of BDSM precepts and attitudes.
The idea that I can't put this forwards because it conflicts with what I wrote myself on the web site is a rather exotic argument at best. I don't think I'll say any more on that subject.
I deliberately avoided suggesting the [ ] tag for concubines for several reasons. As has been pointed out it is used in gorean channels already. And where I grew up on IRC, it was also used in strict BDSM channels to indicate a slave who lived that lifestyle for real in their daily lives as opposed to online slaves who wore the { } tag. In both instances the brackets are a visual representation of a collar and a concubine wouldn't normally wear a full collar. But as has also been said, having the nick identifier on a concubine would match the fact concubines would normally be marked in some way. It would be convenient as an IC ability to 'see' that marking in the same way as the brackets are a convenient way to 'see' the collar round the neck of a slave. I wasn't real set on the {SBc} tag for those reasons so if asterisks work on nicks, they could be a useful way to identify a concubine as has been suggested.
Concubinage is voluntary on entry, it is not voluntary on exit. I've said that before but I'll repeat it. No one can force a character IC to become a concubine but once they accept, it is a one way street. They can't decide to walk out IC. So far no one appears to have picked up on the roleplay opportunity this provides. A pretty girl catches the eye of a rich landowner who wants to marry her but she rejects him. He could capture her as a slave but since he is more devious, he twirls his moustache and mutters to himself 'you'll regret those words, my proud beauty', drawing his cape around himself and exiting stage left in best silent-movie tradition. He then sets out to ruin her poor but honest father who has to support his wife and 26 children by picking mushrooms and chopping firewood. The noble girl sees what is happening and finally goes to the landowner to tell him she will give in and marry him. But since he is evil (of course) he responds that the deal has changed and he will only save her father from ruin if she agrees to be his concubine. Taadaa! No hero shows up to rescue her, or if they do, then being Belariath they quite rightly get thrown into the duck pond, and the girl is added to the villain's harem.
It's an extra variation on the grab and collar which has always existed in the game and one that in many ways is open to more inventive application. I'm sure it isn't beyond the wit of many of our players here to find appropriate variations where they trick or force a girl into becoming a concubine ICly. (Yes OOC consent applies of course)
There's no reason why the owner of a concubine should not send the girl for advanced training either to a slaver or a seductress or anyone else for that matter. There's a well established freelance tutoring system already in place for such.
As was stated in my original post, the IG does not *automatically* turn up and rescue a concubine who has got herself into trouble by her own actions and then simply hand her back to her owner. They may refuse the job altogether if the girl hasn't been simply stolen. They may turn up and put the concubine in jail if she has earned it. It isn't likely to be possible to abuse that clause because the IG have discretion on what to do, if anything.
Something else not stated but should be implied. A concubine cannot earn TT status and a TT slave cannot retain the bracelets if they switch to concubine. A TT would remain an exemplary slave and so gain even higher status under a revised definition of slavery.
Obviously a lot of people here 'get it' recognising that concubine reflects the way a large percentage of players want to play owner and submissive but cannot currently, and how frustrating that is for people who want to play owner and slave in more traditional terms. Equally obviously a lot of other people don't 'get it' and seem to assume concubine = lover or wife. Hopefully this post will be read carefully, along with my original one, and the rest of this discussion can be based upon what a concubine actually would be, rather than what you think it would be.
--------------
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