Slavery Revision

Questions and suggestions relating to the playing of individual characters rather than the game world

Moderators: Stormbringer, Ehlanna

Re: Slavery Revision

Postby Thria on Mon Sep 06, 2010 3:19 am

Obvious questions:
What's the difference between Citizen and Free Person? Why is a Prisoner equal to a citizen? Is there such a thing as an unsecured slave? Is there such a thing as an unowned pet? Slaves are property, but ranked higher than property.

Suloy/Sulay/Sulat : Unnecessary redundancy that few if any will actually use. Who cares if a slave was born into slavery or not? All slaves in Belariath are of sexual maturity age.

Unbound Slave: as mentioned elsewhere, this simply doesnt exist.

Free People #1 should add " as they see fit.". Not all free persons will 'protect' their property to equal degrees.
#2: See above. Slaves not actively owned by an individual would be property of the ISA, and owned by them.

Slave Owners #1: The trailing clause doesnt make gramatical sense with your primary case of the neither nor.

Imperial Judicial Arm: Simple. Slave wrong, Free person right. Dont like it? tough. Slaves dont have rights. If the slave's owner believes their property is being incorrectly persecuted by a free person, said owner can take it up with the offender.
Thria
Adept
Adept
 
Posts: 65
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 8:49 pm

Re: Slavery Revision

Postby Kaytoo on Mon Sep 06, 2010 4:02 am

Thria wrote:Obvious questions:
What's the difference between Citizen and Free Person? Why is a Prisoner equal to a citizen? Is there such a thing as an unsecured slave? Is there such a thing as an unowned pet? Slaves are property, but ranked higher than property..


Word "citizen" was applied to the group above....Prisoner < Free Person < Agents of the Realm < Nobility...all citizens.
A Prisoner is "An individual held in the custody of another having lost all rights of freedom of choice yet is not considered a slave or property".....Still a part of the free citizenry, yet made clear they are not slaves (to further exclude slaves).
Unsecured slave in the text should read "unbound"....(An unbound slave is one not currently owned by any Free individual)....making them less valuable, and hence more at risk.
Slaves being ranked higher then property (though in my mind should be equal or less) was written as such to try and intercept the hard line left (cuddle slaves) before they spoke up and grant a little ahead of time.

Thria wrote:Suloy/Sulay/Sulat : Unnecessary redundancy that few if any will actually use. Who cares if a slave was born into slavery or not? All slaves in Belariath are of sexual maturity age.


Not there to be used past in this piece, again this is an IC document not OOC...Background stories to consider.....sexual aspects not even discussed...

Thria wrote:Unbound Slave: as mentioned elsewhere, this simply doesnt exist.


Except in character backgrounds where the character is a slave and always will be yet are currently unowned....It is also reasonable to assume there is a slave class IC (Noble-free person-slave)...however here contrary to r/l race or culture all fitting the bill simply state it as a station.

Anywho........again and one last time......Please contribute additions as I'm not going to alter it as I build this otherwise this could go on forever.

K2
"Call me savage, and you're only telling me how much you have forgotten of the natural world, and the nature of minds."
Image
User avatar
Kaytoo
Adept
Adept
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2005 7:37 pm
Location: Dachvst among da Ut'Kref Savages

Re: Slavery Revision

Postby Tawny on Mon Sep 06, 2010 4:20 am

Can I get something cleared up here please. Kaytoo your talking like you were assigned to do all this or something. If you were I would like to know that. I have not heard where anyone one person was assigned to write up anything. But rather this thread was made for people to talk and come up with idea and hash over others ideas. Please, Not trying to be disrespectful ,but would like clarification.

That said You dont want to chop anything but the fact is that is what I understood this thread to be. A place to hash out things reguarding the ISA and slaves and what is expected of them and so on.

The second aspects as to "Judges", is IC listing out possible groups or individuals, yet OOC really saying all nobles (OPs), designated ISA employees, and any other character the high council deems. What that does is make it so if there are enough of them on at various times, then issues and problems won't become like court cases and trials yet more instantaneous keeping play flowing.


Sound like to me your suggesting alot of people that isnt needed, get involved. This has to potential to head right back to slave enforcer IMO. That isnt wanted or needed. There is not many complaints come into the ISA and what does come in as been being handled right away. Dont see that changing either. Nobles handling Slaves dont make sense to me unless it their slave. Owners would not be happy I am sure.

Once more however.....Having hoped folks would contribute "additions" it all to be picked over and thinned after, i'm not ignorring you yet won't chop at it until finished. Unowned slaves a good example, as we have loads of "slave" background characters, and more so being an IC document would assume numerous slaves out there (NPC's).


Frist off IC no ones anothers char background Unless told by the char.. And I dont think it right to say once a slave always a slave. Once freed the ..once a slave.. is now a free person. And alot of them go on to becomes owners themselfs. (NPC's) That went right over my head but then again I got a mean headache, But why would the ISA be involved with NPC slaves expect in a quest or event?

Again this is all IMO.
Image
User avatar
Tawny
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 696
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 2:16 am

Re: Slavery Revision

Postby Kaytoo on Mon Sep 06, 2010 5:32 am

Tawny wrote:Can I get something cleared up here please. Kaytoo your talking like you were assigned to do all this or something. If you were I would like to know that. I have not heard where anyone one person was assigned to write up anything. But rather this thread was made for people to talk and come up with idea and hash over others ideas. Please, Not trying to be disrespectful ,but would like clarification.

That said You dont want to chop anything but the fact is that is what I understood this thread to be. A place to hash out things reguarding the ISA and slaves and what is expected of them and so on.


Nope, not assigned yet took it upon myself to try and write up something that could be once done, picked at, chopped apart, added to and to have something to work from no matter how far from its initial finished state it is.......The reason I have no intention of chopping anything out is that we have a vast spectrum of "wants & should be's" here from slaves topping the owners to slaves are doormats. Add it all in, then tear it apart.....Basic brainstorming, no bad ideas everything considered then you narrow it down to where all want it and can live with it.............To try and make it otherwise going back and forth "take this out, change this, add this back" could make the process last months.

Unfortunately....No one wants to add to it, yet simply tear at what is there (and that just a fraction of it as each day I've added more)......However, I agree......The thread is here for anyone to say anything (though has been simply about what I've written since posting that).

So perhaps it best to delete it, ignore all that, and get back to making radom posts that don't accumulate up to a final write up to work with. Lets see where that gets us instead ;) and is much easier on me.

Really it won't matter to me......I'll play as I always have either way treating all free people as bottoms, all slaves harshly to make them want to rise up, and all my slave characters as absolute slaves.

K2
"Call me savage, and you're only telling me how much you have forgotten of the natural world, and the nature of minds."
Image
User avatar
Kaytoo
Adept
Adept
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2005 7:37 pm
Location: Dachvst among da Ut'Kref Savages

Re: Slavery Revision

Postby Kumina on Mon Sep 06, 2010 10:36 am

Hi, I have been here reading these revision "rules" and I had a brainstorm..

All this talk about "slave class" and why we dont have one... blah blah..
I think there should be "Bit" makerer in the character creation/edit that could show characters current social class. Slave is not really an occupation, but social stigmata/class/blessing/insert your preferense here. I play slave character that has some magics, and one of them is purely offensive. If they were totally banned, would she jsut forgot the spell or would it be ripped of her mind by some unearthly ritual... of course, to use that spell, is clear and present violation agaist her social status.

If we would have "Social Class" bit on the character, that would give many RP opportunities I´m quite sure. They could be vague as: Slave -> Branded Criminal -> Freeman -> Guilded -> Brought nobility -> Born noble -> Evil Sith Lord Emperor, or they could be even more vague : slave-free-noble.. but that would hinder its meaning ingame.

With that, you could create "unowned" slaves, like runnaways, slaves to "npc" owner, etc. There could even be "Offlander" as social status, indicating your not from around here..

Social class bit, could allso be indicator os "monthly expenses" freeman will use N mhls monthly to living, when Noble uses N times say.. 20?

just my 0.02€ of the matter, I hope I would not cause more discord that I tried :)
Kumina
Novice
Novice
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2010 10:15 pm

Re: Slavery Revision

Postby Thria on Mon Sep 06, 2010 11:16 am

Devil's Advocate time. *puts on her pin that reads "Devil's Favored Child"*

Kumina wrote:All this talk about "slave class" and why we dont have one... blah blah..
I think there should be "Bit" makerer in the character creation/edit that could show characters current social class. Slave is not really an occupation, but social stigmata/class/blessing/insert your preferense here. I play slave character that has some magics, and one of them is purely offensive. If they were totally banned, would she jsut forgot the spell or would it be ripped of her mind by some unearthly ritual... of course, to use that spell, is clear and present violation agaist her social status.

We do have one. It's the {Ownername} bit on the end of the slave's name. Clear and present marking of the slave's rank. IC? They're either wearing a collar or other -clearly visible- marking of slavery (As permitted by the ISA).
If we would have "Social Class" bit on the character, that would give many RP opportunities I´m quite sure. They could be vague as: Slave -> Branded Criminal -> Freeman -> Guilded -> Brought nobility -> Born noble -> Evil Sith Lord Emperor, or they could be even more vague : slave-free-noble.. but that would hinder its meaning ingame.

The only thing not covered by this is the nobility... and they already get listed on the website under the Nobles page. Perhaps we should extend the criminal collar to <placename>-C, though....
With that, you could create "unowned" slaves, like runnaways, slaves to "npc" owner, etc. There could even be "Offlander" as social status, indicating your not from around here..

(Tawny will have to back me up here but...)
Runaway slaves are still owned by their owner. Running away doesn't free you, only the ISA can do that.
NPC owners is not a good idea because it allows the slave to misbehave without taking responsibility (since the NPC would 'magically' be able to forgive any transgression)
And... very few people ARE from the area around Ilfrinor (Being that pregnancy/offspring isn't allowed, and we all start off as level 1, the overwhelming majority of people's backgrounds are that they travelled here)

Social class bit, could allso be indicator os "monthly expenses" freeman will use N mhls monthly to living, when Noble uses N times say.. 20?

Just because they're noble doesnt mean they're living opulent lifestyles. Just a thought.
Thria
Adept
Adept
 
Posts: 65
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 8:49 pm

Re: Slavery Revision

Postby Tawny on Mon Sep 06, 2010 9:54 pm

When I first started RPing here they had a Slave Class that you could select when making your char. It was taken out because in this game Chars tend to change and grow the longer the char is played and the Slave Class is rather restricting to a char which lead to alot of char resets. At first I was against the removing of the slave class but the longer I rped here the better I come to understand the removing of it was a good idea.

(Tawny will have to back me up here but...)
Runaway slaves are still owned by their owner. Running away doesn't free you, only the ISA can do that.
NPC owners is not a good idea because it allows the slave to misbehave without taking responsibility (since the NPC would 'magically' be able to forgive any transgression)


That is correct a runaway slave is still owned by the person whom collared them unless the collar is requested to be removed. If it is removed then that person is no longer a runaway slave because they are no longer a slave. They are now a free person once more. NPC owners not a good idea at all. Just like NPC slaves are not a good idea unless in a quest or event. Someone has to responsible for a slave and the slave must wear a tag or mark to show who they belong too. Besides who would Stormbringer charge for the slave? We all know the emperor has to get his taxes. :lol:
Image
User avatar
Tawny
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 696
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 2:16 am

Re: Slavery Revision

Postby Stormbringer on Fri Sep 10, 2010 1:47 pm

Doesn't look like anyone has anything to say here, though no doubt there will be enough bitching to keep the OOC channel fueled for months after any changes actually get made. But we're used to that, aren't we.

Anyway I guess I'll catch up more next week when I hopefully feel better.
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: Slavery Revision

Postby gwyneth{StWi} on Fri Sep 10, 2010 5:48 pm

gwyn doesn't think it's so much that no one has anything to say, Master StormBringer, as most ideas seem to relate more to social rules and not things the ISA would be enforcing, hence, not laws. gwyn thinks the question becomes where that line is drawn, between social custom and enforceable law, either that or W/we're all just really confused what You're looking for ;).
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

Re: Slavery Revision

Postby Kaytoo on Fri Sep 10, 2010 7:11 pm

Seemed rather clear to me;

1. Define the Belaraith mindset on slavery (how does the IC world view it)
2. Define through examples suggested interactions between slaves and their owners and free peoples.
3. Establish acceptable forms of enforcement that kept as much as possible IC.
4. Establish enforcable laws for slaves, free peoples and owners when interactions exceeded acceptable IC societal limits (ex. slave beating a free person half to death for no reason).

K2
"Call me savage, and you're only telling me how much you have forgotten of the natural world, and the nature of minds."
Image
User avatar
Kaytoo
Adept
Adept
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2005 7:37 pm
Location: Dachvst among da Ut'Kref Savages

Re: Slavery Revision

Postby gwyneth{StWi} on Fri Sep 10, 2010 8:24 pm

Kaytoo wrote:Seemed rather clear to me;

1. Define the Belaraith mindset on slavery (how does the IC world view it)
2. Define through examples suggested interactions between slaves and their owners and free peoples.
3. Establish acceptable forms of enforcement that kept as much as possible IC.
4. Establish enforcable laws for slaves, free peoples and owners when interactions exceeded acceptable IC societal limits (ex. slave beating a free person half to death for no reason).

K2

1. mindset of those few who have spoken up seems remarkably similar for the most part already as far as ic goes.. some a bit more strict or a bit more lenient, but in generalities, the same.
2.wouldn't presume to define others interactions between their chars, nor does it feel right to even try. as for gwyn, gwyneth is what she's always been. other chars, gwyn tries to keep them different so they're not all cookie cutters, but generally, respectful of the Free around them within the constraints of their backgrounds and personalities, and when they are not, well, that's sometimes when the best rp happens. (thinks of melanthe's hang ups about humans and Master Infernis for example)
3. gwyneth sees nothing wrong with the current acceptable forms of enforcement.
4. this is the problem we're having the only real *law* that anyone feels necessary for ISA/Imperial enforcement is the one that's already there, or variations thereof. All the rest are more social rules with soical enforcement, general gist being respect shown. The players who are most vocal against any new rules haven't bothered to contribute in the majority towards the discussion at all. so... a girl doesn't know what else to say that hasn't been said.
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

Re: Slavery Revision

Postby Kaytoo on Sat Sep 11, 2010 4:07 am

gwyneth{StWi} wrote:
Kaytoo wrote:Seemed rather clear to me;

1. Define the Belaraith mindset on slavery (how does the IC world view it)
2. Define through examples suggested interactions between slaves and their owners and free peoples.
3. Establish acceptable forms of enforcement that kept as much as possible IC.
4. Establish enforcable laws for slaves, free peoples and owners when interactions exceeded acceptable IC societal limits (ex. slave beating a free person half to death for no reason).

K2

1. mindset of those few who have spoken up seems remarkably similar for the most part already as far as ic goes.. some a bit more strict or a bit more lenient, but in generalities, the same.
2.wouldn't presume to define others interactions between their chars, nor does it feel right to even try. as for gwyn, gwyneth is what she's always been. other chars, gwyn tries to keep them different so they're not all cookie cutters, but generally, respectful of the Free around them within the constraints of their backgrounds and personalities, and when they are not, well, that's sometimes when the best rp happens. (thinks of melanthe's hang ups about humans and Master Infernis for example)
3. gwyneth sees nothing wrong with the current acceptable forms of enforcement.
4. this is the problem we're having the only real *law* that anyone feels necessary for ISA/Imperial enforcement is the one that's already there, or variations thereof. All the rest are more social rules with soical enforcement, general gist being respect shown. The players who are most vocal against any new rules haven't bothered to contribute in the majority towards the discussion at all. so... a girl doesn't know what else to say that hasn't been said.




So in other words.....you feel there is nothing to do and it should remain as it always has?

K2
"Call me savage, and you're only telling me how much you have forgotten of the natural world, and the nature of minds."
Image
User avatar
Kaytoo
Adept
Adept
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2005 7:37 pm
Location: Dachvst among da Ut'Kref Savages

Re: Slavery Revision

Postby Thria on Sat Sep 11, 2010 11:41 am

From an -Imperial Law- perspective... I dont see that it could be any different.
The rules of the game already define slaves as property, rather than people. Most ignore it. Not much you can do about that.

The game is in the depths of the 'white hat' phase of it's cycle.
Thria
Adept
Adept
 
Posts: 65
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 8:49 pm

Re: Slavery Revision

Postby Stormbringer on Sat Sep 11, 2010 1:37 pm

My own thought is that the ISA shouldn't have to deal with the basic stuff, a society such as this would tend to be self-policing and there isn't a lot of support groups for those too weak to stand up for themselves.

So the two aspects are 1) define social conventions towards slavery as a roleplaying guideline with fairly blanket OOC consent to consequences rather than ISA intervention. And 2) define areas where slave behavior warrants ISA involvement, along with appropriate IC punishments

Social conventions, it would appear to me, is a wider topic that needs addressing since too few actually play as though their characters exist in this society. It's something that has been highlighted in different places but not as a coherent and all encompassing playbook.

ISA shouldn't have to make too many value judgements. That was a big part of my objective here - getting it all put into a simple list along the lines of slave does X, ISA does Y.

Aside from that I wanted to give those most involved in serious M/s play an opportunity to improve their playing environment in a situation where the game had to make less compromises towards those who had softer views of slave relations.
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: Slavery Revision

Postby gwyneth{StWi} on Sat Sep 11, 2010 3:41 pm

Miss Kaytoo,
Does gwyneth icly see a lot of slaves who are 'punishments waiting to happen' in her opinion... not a lot perhaps, but several, and she advises and intervenes where she can to help the slave become more of what they can be, and adjust to their proper place. (just as, icly she would have taken the dagger from laerel before she stabbed K2 if she could have managed it, not to protect K2 but to protect laerel.) She also sees situations where the Free set them up to be punishments waiting to happen, such as Masters or Mistresses who tell their slaves that they can only ever be submissive to them and no one else under any circumstances. These would hopefully in the future be changing to concubines, because that isn't a slave.

To gwyn being respectful means, in part, using Miss and Sir at least with any Free, though even gwyneth has a few exceptions to that. One that comes to mind is a character she hasn't seen around in years, he at one time icly tried to talk gwyneth (and several other slaves) into running away from their Owners to escape being a slave. Anyone who engages in that type of behavior, well, gwyneth considers them personally to be dangerous criminals, and they lose that base of respect, they also get reported to the ISA and anyone else gwyneth can think of who has an interest in preventing a slave revolt. That was years ago, but, it's an example. gwyneth never attacked him, but he also lost the honorific and for the most part respect towards him, unless there was a group involved and she was only giving 'face' respect and not actual. To another slave, being respectful may mean something entirely different.

The problem is, the same can be said of Free. What one person sees as being respectful, another may see as being unnecessary or not enough. Icly gwyneth tries to conform her behavior to the expectations of the Free she's serving at that time, within the rules set by her Master. When in doubt she applies the highest standards she's encountered, because she'd rather give offense by being too formal than not formal enough. But as to setting standards for the behavior of all slaves, she agrees with the social conventions that have already been discussed, by T/those of U/us who have actually participated in the discussion.

What's bothering her is those who have the most problem with this whole idea, of social conventions, and the ones who least adhere or expect their slaves to adhere to them, aren't contributing at all. So it's like... arguing the superiority of Star Trek over Cops while at a Star Trek Convention. We're arguing semantics, but basically we already agree on what is socially acceptable for slaves. But if we go over to the convention in the *other* hall, they would all disagree with us, only none of them are showing up for the debate. gwyneth just doesn't see the point in continuing to argue semantics with people who agree with her. That doesn't mean she is against changes in the current ic situation, but the ones that have been discussed here is what she sees should be in place.

Likely that's going to turn into a "Kosh" situation for them... "the avalanche has already started, it is too late for the pebbles to vote".
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

PreviousNext

Return to Characters

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests