Relationships

[Stormbringer]

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.

[Dughal]

My original response to this was a very angry “NO” when I first read the proposal, but that was hardly a rational reply to what looks to be a decent idea. I am not going to comment as to the idea itself; it will help some people get more RP and that is what this game is all about... I might not choose to use it, but my personal choices are not what this game is about. So I am not going to sit here and pretend to be objective in any way, I am going to talk about this change from my point of view.

If this game is about playing a role in a fantasy setting; then making this change “retroactive” is an insult to my character and those characters who have Rped with me. Some of the defining moments in my characters' development in game have involved the conflict between slavery and affection, where he had to make hard choices between two things. By making this change supposedly “retro-active” I have no way of working that into my back story... given that I was told on multiple occasions that I needed to, “get my slave in line”. The ultimate result of all of this was him admitting he did not view his slave as “chattel” and letting her go.

These events are what made Du`ghal into the character he is today. He was forced to make choices in the context of the world-scape, and those choices still affect his character to this day. If there was this “other option” he would have taken it. What am I, and players like me who have been forced to make these choices, supposed to do with our in game written back stories now? This isn't like the level 5 stories where it is just my ideas floating around in my mind... these setting choices have had a terrific impact on game play for a lot of persons that unfolded in real time and involved other peoples characters that should not be re-written, and it is very much disheartening to me read that these changes will be considered retro-active in the game world. I put a great deal of stock into character development and plot line, so from that point of view, I would ask that you make this change a “new policy” in game, rather than one that is retroactive.

You are free to do what you want with your world of course, and I am not looking to stop you, but you asked for opinions, and I am sharing mine. I thought a lot about what to say, how to phrase it, and how to construct my arguments to make the most rational sense...and then I put all that crap aside and decided to be honest; this change would utterly gut the back story to my character, and as such it pisses me off and makes me feel rather insulted as a player who has put so much time and effort into this game any my character that dwells within it. While not entirely rational, I hope you can understand what I am trying to say, rather than just reading the annoyance I feel towards the change in its current format. If I feel I can add anything more constructive I will, but for the most part I feel I have said my piece and will leave the rest to attend itself.

[Kaytoo]

Du`Ghal, let me pose this to you;

It does not change your back story as though retroactive, it changes a law of the realm that has affected your character for good or bad dramatically in the past....and thus determines how justified or not he was in his actions then, and clearly eliminates the same problem for him in the future.

Just like when the U.N. will ultimately make me empress of earth one day (or perhaps not, so scratch that)...............

Just like when problems with the system are recognized real life, laws are often passed that have been desperately needed for some time. That doesn't mean peoples past injustices will be corrected, yet those injustices will not happen to others in the future.........and sometimes the easy way to swallow it is to say "told ya so..."

K2

[Stormbringer]

These events are what made Du`ghal into the character he is today. He was forced to make choices in the context of the world-scape, and those choices still affect his character to this day. If there was this “other option” he would have taken it. What am I, and players like me who have been forced to make these choices, supposed to do with our in game written back stories now?

OK good point and I can certainly live with changing things around so as not to mess up character history like that.

[Dughal]

Du`Ghal, let me pose this to you;

It does not change your back story as though retroactive, it changes a law of the realm that has affected your character for good or bad dramatically in the past....and thus determines how justified or not he was in his actions then, and clearly eliminates the same problem for him in the future.

Just like when the U.N. will ultimately make me empress of earth one day (or perhaps not, so scratch that)...............

Just like when problems with the system are recognized real life, laws are often passed that have been desperately needed for some time. That doesn't mean peoples past injustices will be corrected, yet those injustices will not happen to others in the future.........and sometimes the easy way to swallow it is to say "told ya so..."

K2

That is not what is going on in this instance, K2...or at least that is not my understanding of the term "retroactive".

What I understand the proposal to mean, in its current incarnation, is that that this is magically an option IN THE PAST. All the times people were forced to choose between slave and free person, they had this third option that they just... didn't take, or know about.

Take, for example, the end of prohibition... if you went to jail for bootlegging, you did not get that "time back" you were still in prison, it still impacted your life and altered yourself as a person. Sure, the charges on your "record" might have been dropped, but you still went to prison, no way about that. This change, as I understand it, would say that the person "never went to prison in the first place". I might be wrong in my understanding, but that is the crux of my complaint... no matter what changes are happening, the old events still remain in some way, no matter changes in the law.

[Stormbringer]

Maybe you should read my reply?

[Dughal]

Heh, I was just trying to explain it to K2 what I meant, that was all SB, I did not mean to ignore your reply, apologies if it seemed so.

I think you and I agree for the most part on things when it comes to "how" to apply such a change, or at least it seems as if you are going to give my thoughts some consideration, which is all I can really ask for in the end.

The game changes as time goes on, I get this... but I do appreciate it when those changes are given time to be considered and discussed by the player base. Thank you for not only giving us the forum to discuss these alterations but also being very much on top of what is being said and being willing to patiently reply to everyone, as sometimes we can be a bit silly, as I demonstrated.

[Tawny]

Alright, I see where this is going now. It is clear what I have always seen a Concubine as being is not what you are going for here. They are not lovers but rather a slave in the way that they can not just up and move out once they move in. So yes that makes them a slave in that way. So that leaves a few things open to question as far as the rules towards them goes. I have seen several people speaking of them attacking free people and this being allowed. I guess what I need to know more than anything is what kind of rules would be applied to the Concubines as far as the ISA is concerned...if any. I can understand the lesser registeration fee if the ISA wont really be that involved with the Concubines as it is with the regular slaves. I have also had people coming to me asking me if this means they can no longer rp their owner/ slave relationship as they are now. They love their master/slave but dont wish to make the slave into a Concubine. Is that going to become a problem for them since they have rped their owner/slave this way for a long time. I strongly believe there should be tighter rules on slaves as I have spoken to you about in the past. I believe there should stronger punishments upon slave and owners again as I have spoken with you in the past about. I still have the write I did over a year ago on such should you wish to see it again.
As i posted already the ISA can handle such paper work and change as can Tawny and since you define a Concubine differently than what i read it does make alot more sense. Another question I have is this...If a owner and slave decide they wish to change from regular owner slave to owner Concubine how will such be done? Will they have to uncollar and recollar as a Concubine? Or would they simply come to the ISA and request such a change? How will uncollaring of a Concubine work. Will it be the same as uncollaring of a regular slave? All waiting periods will remain the same for both types of slaves on collaring?

[Kaytoo]

Tawny brings up a point worth considering....As to restrictions...and just my less then humble opinion I'd almost think to insure the clearest deffinition between concubine and slave...It would not phase me if they were able to attack and defend...However...Not only they but then also their owner would be responsible.

Though perhaps not as intended and proposed, I personally would like to see all the worst bits of current slaves, back talk, violence, resistance, freedom of movement, employment and so on rolled into concubines. The reason I say that is no matter what people will press the limits of the class/station if you will. In that way slaves can be slaves, and all the limit pressing expected in concubine.

IMLTHO

K2

[Dalahlaleeah]

Perhaps I am looking at this too much like what history has depicted of concubines/harem living - but I do not think concubines should be allowed to work. That was not what they were for. I also have to say if concubines are being considered in the sense of a harem.. those women had no freedom of movement outside of the harem itself unless guarded (usually by eunuchs). I understand fantasy adds a twist that real life would not have - but the kept women (and men in this setting) should at least adhere to the general idea of them being kept.. ie no working. It is an interesting dilemma to try to work out and fit in without demolishing the bonded mate or the slave.

[Stormbringer]

Alright, I see where this is going now. It is clear what I have always seen a Concubine as being is not what you are going for here. They are not lovers but rather a slave in the way that they can not just up and move out once they move in. So yes that makes them a slave in that way. So that leaves a few things open to question as far as the rules towards them goes. I have seen several people speaking of them attacking free people and this being allowed. I guess what I need to know more than anything is what kind of rules would be applied to the Concubines as far as the ISA is concerned...if any. I can understand the lesser registeration fee if the ISA wont really be that involved with the Concubines as it is with the regular slaves.

The ISA would have less responsibility because a concubine's public behavior is not an issue for them, hence the lesser fee.
The proposal was that things like fighting would be down to their owner who might not like it or might not care.

I have also had people coming to me asking me if this means they can no longer rp their owner/ slave relationship as they are now. They love their master/slave but dont wish to make the slave into a Concubine. Is that going to become a problem for them since they have rped their owner/slave this way for a long time.

How an owner and slave behave in private has always been and will always be between the players. Restrictions based on slavery would apply to their public demeanor.

I strongly believe there should be tighter rules on slaves as I have spoken to you about in the past. I believe there should stronger punishments upon slave and owners again as I have spoken with you in the past about. I still have the write I did over a year ago on such should you wish to see it again.

I'd like to get this settled first then have slave behavior, monitoring and punishments as an open discussion between players. Save it for then to avoid confusion please.

As i posted already the ISA can handle such paper work and change as can Tawny and since you define a Concubine differently than what i read it does make alot more sense. Another question I have is this...If a owner and slave decide they wish to change from regular owner slave to owner Concubine how will such be done? Will they have to uncollar and recollar as a Concubine? Or would they simply come to the ISA and request such a change? How will uncollaring of a Concubine work. Will it be the same as uncollaring of a regular slave? All waiting periods will remain the same for both types of slaves on collaring?

Please read my original post again and let me know if anything is still unclear on that aspect.

[Tawny]

Ok all in a notepad on my desk top. Now I think I kinda have to agree with Dalahlaleeah here on the idea of a concubine working. If we are going to go with the history of a concubine then as she stated they would not be outside the home working. They are a kept person and all their needs and wants were met by the one whom owned them. In a sense they worked for the owner and their upkeep is their pay. A good concubine never had need or want of anything since the owner was pleased with them and wanted to keep them happy. As far as behavior outside of the home, since they are not governed by the rules of slavey it then falls to the desires and wants of the owner. How does the owner wish for their house to be represented by the concubine while in public? They will be marked so all would know who the concubine belonged too and in such their behavior would reflect upon the owner and the owners house and name much like a slaves behavior does I would think.
Just my thoughs so far.

[Dughal]

Has an "indentured servant" position ever been considered?

It would make sense, given the world, that a person might wish to sell themselves into slavery for a set period of time. This would serve much the same purpose, and while it would be temporary, once you entered into the contract, you would be bound for the entire term. I would place these terms between one month and one year, if I had to make up a number on the spot, the ISA still serving to perform the paperwork and oversee the enforcement of the rules. The ISA would hold whatever cash was agreed upon for the "services rendered" (if any cash is a part of the contract) for payment upon completion of the contract.

An indentured servant would wear a slightly modified tag () , but in every other way be considered the societal equivalent of a slave. This would eliminate the "gray area" people are talking about, in terms of confusion about the differing roles and rules and etc.

A person might enter into this contract for more reasons than money; they might desire an education provided by their owner, they might simply be after food and shelter until they can provide for themselves, and as such want a "temporary" style of collar. This would all be worked out prior to the ISA being involved, and the ISA would simply hold onto the contract and whatever monies are involved. This would also prevent there from being to different sets of rules for the various social castes that this proposed change could create.

I am not sure if that is at all a worth while idea, but it seems as if that would provide the same sorts of opportunities for RP that you seem to be after, without creating some of the issues that have been put forth by the players.

[Stormbringer]

Debt/Money Slaves

If you work yourself into a debt, or are in need of money you can pawn or sell yourself as a debt slave until you are back on your feet again. This is organised by the Pawn Shop at the General Store.

This has been on the web site for at least five years.

It doesn't work.

And frankly I am not seeing any major issues against the proposal in this thread. Just some discussion on the details.

[Augustus]

seems after clarification the idea is good, the details need to be ironed out.


I vote yes.


:p