Slavery Revision

[gwyneth{StWi}]

However the point being is.....You're suggesting you as a slave should be able to pick and choose who/what/when/where as to acting like one on even the most minor of things. Slavery is about no choice, concubines on the otherhand still owned so more a "soft slave" I guess having more of those freedoms (though if I ever had one they better damn well be respectful of all).

Actually, gwyn disagrees with You here, Miss Kaytoo, in tli, in the roleplay world, the slavery that we choose to partake in, a slave has the choices and rights their Owner gives them. gwyn does not have to heal everyone, she doesn't have to serve everyone and she doesn't have to defer to everyone. she does to most, and serves most because that is the way gwyneth was trained, and that is the way her personality is, but there are a few whom she will not. her Master gives her the right to those choices, and no one else's opinions of what her slavery should be has the right to take that away. gwyneth gives every Free a base level of respect, and the Free goes up or down in level from there depending on Their Own actions. now if public rules go into effect that she must defer to everyone, she will follow that, or at least appear to, but don't expect her to do one bit more than what law requires her to do for those people who have gone downward in her personal estimation. gwyn would not want her rp world to mimic r/l human trafficking so far as restrictions and treatment. r/l human trafficking is abusive, illegal and immoral, ALWAYS. and she doesn't think she's in the minority there.

gwyn would not wish her r/l relationship to mimic it either, nor does she see herself as soft for being in a consensual loving r/l Master/slave relationship. she has been active in several campaigns to make people aware of human trafficking, and she knows well the difference, though thankfully she (narrowly) avoided being such herself in the past. Those who compare the two, or who refer to r/l human trafficking in terms in comparison with such relationships are only doing the rest of us a HUGE disservice, for the general public doesn't realize those differences. This is why bdsm couples have trouble with children services and other aspects of the law. Because of that ignorance and that perpetuation of it. every time gwyn sees someone arrested and the headline reads about a 'sex slave' gwyn cringes. every time, it does more damage to legitimate relationships.

<gwyn puts her soap box away>

At any rate, a slave has what rights and choices their Owner, and ultimately, through the laws, the Emperor decides to give them. they are property, but they are not property as a chair, or a shovel. if gwyn would have to compare them to anything outside of a category of their own, it would be a highly trained warhorse or hunting/herding dog. one capable of acting autonomously when needed, of making decisions for the benefit of their Owner. But really even that comparison isn't quite there. A slave is, at its best, a person who is owned, whose actions and talents become an extension of and benefit of their Owner. Therefore, rules governing slaves should be pliable enough to allow the slave to perform that task, while still protecting them and ensuring the general contentment of the Free populous. at least in this girl's opinion .

[StormWind]

I have to agree with Vhid's player here, and thank her for putting it in a much better way than i could have done...as a master of many, I have to say that she is right. Knowing that just anyone could come along and expect Storm's slaves to do whatever they are asked would only make Storm's skin crawl. --gets out wire brush for scrubbing-- Also, as the owner of a pair of very Valued, and valuable TT slaves, I have to point out that what I am hearing so far seems to be guiding -every- slave toward behaving as a TT. Now I understand that they are, and should be the zenith of aspiration for a slave, but what of those slaves who see no point in being more than they are at this minute, and those characters who do not -wish- their character to be that? Also, if we go this route, are we not then forcing slave characters toward the cookiecutter mold we have been trying for so long to avoid?

Next, Weapons.

First, nowhere in the current rules is it stated that a slave may neither carry nor use weapons, nor do I feel it should. In a world where might makes right, a master who sends his property out without both the tools, and the permission to defend herself is one step -below- a fool, and deserves to be treated as such. If we take away their weapons, and their right to defense, we leave the wise master with no choice but to never let his girl out of his sight, which then limits her ability to play.

[Tawny]

OK after reading some more i have to say I agree with some and fully disagree with others. First let me say to Gwyneth... I should never post here when tired . That being siad let me continue.

gwyn sees a few issues with slaves only having non-lethal spells, that means you're *forcing* a class change should a pyromancer be collared for example. Now only using non-lethal slaves in public, except perhaps for in the circumstance of an attack on the Inn, or the town, or during a quest.. that would be more reasonable. we're talking about public rules for slaves after all, not a complete revision so far as gwyn knows.

I did infact meant for used in defense against an attacking Free person. Didnt mean to sound like they couldnt have it period. So yep Gwyneth is right as I see it in this.

Also, as of right now, unless You are proposing one there *is* no rule that says a slave can never harm a free person, and gwyn would argue that such a rule would be way too vague. Everyone's definition of what harms them is different. And this would lead only to more confusion and false accusations. the rule is that a slave can't attack a free person, which gwyn does agree with.

If a slave only used non lethal spells and runs if attacked then I dont see how a slave would ever harm a free person. However as bad as it might seem I dont think a slave should ever be allowed to use anything that would draw blood or do damage to a free person. If they use the non lethal spells or defensive spells and are still harmed by a free person then they have an ower and the ISA to come to and seek help in making the free person pay for harming them. Fact is a slave just shouldnt have the right to do anything but attempt to
get away from an attacking free person in a non lethal manner.

1) To be treated with the same grace and respect that is expected of them. Much in the same way that people are kind and respectful to their cleaners and waiters and waitresses and parking lot attendants. I know that we have 'no' RL equivalent to the slavery that we have in TLI, but the closest I can find is the relationship that many richer, higher 'class' people will treat their hired help. They most certainly don't see them as equals in 'any' way, but they also treat them with respect and courtesy and grace. Until the hired help gets busted doing something wrong, that is.

This i have to disagree with. Slave dont have the right to expect anything. They are property not public servants they are private property and far below a free person. If a free person decided to be nice then that is just frosting on the cake for a slave, but never should a slave expect to be treated this way.

2) To be able to go out into public knowing that their collar does indeed 'protect' them from the hostile world around them. There is little point to wearing a collar if any dumbass with a hard-on can rape/beat any slave who catches his eye, with no fear of repercussions from owner or authorities

I think that is something that has always been the norm in the game. If a slave is abused then the owner can either seek revenge on their own or the ISA will step in and help the owner get it. Normally if a healer is paid the ISA will seek to get the money returned to the owner from the one who did the harm and if they cant get it they will seek the IG out for help and the IG will get it. All IC of course.

I'm of the opinion that slaves, being property, are not the ones to be punished should a slave violate some law and get caught doing so. The failing, if any, belongs to the slave's owner, and as such, they alone should be the ones to take the brunt of whatever punishments are accrued.

Again I have to disagree to an extent. Yes the owner is responsible, but so is the slave. To say the slave shouldnt be punished is giving them free rein to do as they wish and laugh as their owners take the punishment. No I say punish both and both can learn together.

However the point being is.....You're suggesting you as a slave should be able to pick and choose who/what/when/where as to acting like one on even the most minor of things. Slavery is about no choice, concubines on the otherhand still owned so more a "soft slave" I guess having more of those freedoms (though if I ever had one they better damn well be respectful of all).

To K2 I have to say I agree whole heartedly .

[StormWind]

The problem tawny is... that by taking away the slave's ability to choose who they will serve... you are also interfering in most cases with the -owner's- right to choose who their slave serves and what is done to them... if gwyn tells a free person no, I can assure you that it is because Storm, her master has -told- her to say no. that is, and should -ever- be the owners right. As should be the right (in all but the most extreme cases) to choose when and how his slave is punished

[Kaytoo]

Actually, gwyn disagrees with You here, Miss Kaytoo, in tli, in the roleplay world, the slavery that we choose to partake in, a slave has the choices and rights their Owner gives them. gwyn does not have to heal everyone, she doesn't have to serve everyone and she doesn't have to defer to everyone..

Well it's there I disagree and actually believe is the problem with slavery in TLI. Concubines should fix this, what you just described is more how I see that version of slavery being. However read onto the next point....

she has been active in several campaigns to make people aware of human trafficking, and she knows well the difference, though thankfully she (narrowly) avoided being such herself in the past. Those who compare the two, or who refer to r/l human trafficking in terms in comparison with such relationships are only doing the rest of us a HUGE disservice, for the general public doesn't realize those differences. This is why bdsm couples have trouble with children services and other aspects of the law. Because of that ignorance and that perpetuation of it. every time gwyn sees someone arrested and the headline reads about a 'sex slave' gwyn cringes. every time, it does more damage to legitimate relationships..

Okay...without detail, from roughly <12 till my early 20's I lived it.....and from roughly 32 till now am the proud owner of a BDSM lifestyle slave who you may often hear me mention being Kathy. No disservice done in that this is the world designed called Belariath and in fact it is through playing here I've been able to come to grips with some of my own issues.

That said, though r/l forced slavery and M/s is discussed to give us a real world perspective, be sure.....For the most part most slaves here are forced. BDSM master slave relationships no matter how much of a lifestyle they are is purely a game of choice between consenting adults that can come and go as they please. Now OOC wise, we can do that....It nothing more then a game. However in the IC world it is not. It is forced, the slave broken whether it be with whips or lollipops, trained to serve, loss of freedom....and then it goes all gray.

That's the problem this will hopefully resolve (concubines vs. slaves). Though many for the most part will still be forced, those wishing to play fur-cuffs, light spankings, tickles and cuddles with all the freedom of a free person and often over their master can go with concubine........Slaves on the other hand in this brutal world of TLI will be hopefully as slavery is without all the true to life brutality and fear. Yet never the less captured, forced and broken, considered a mule to whatever ends by their master and less then a free person.

It may be ugly, unkind, not sweet....Yet that is what slavery is, and here it will still thankfully be MUCH much softer then real life. That does not mean loss of OOC consent, bowing and scraping and so on......Yet when a slave lives, talks, acts like all others free, in fact often being more aggressive simply due to having their shield of a master and "you can't do that I'm Bob's though I just did it to you"......Well, then it's not slavery.

K2

[Infernis]

Kay, you're a great person and a great player, but you've always sought more realism in this fantasy escapist game than most. Most people, not all but most, would not enjoy the ugly and unkind vision of 'mule slaves' that you would see implemented in TLI.

I would hope that whenever the new slave behavior requirements go into effect that they fit what the majority of players can accept and work with, but if those standards are not strict enough for you, I'm sure there will be no rule saying that you can't enforce a stronger code of public behavior for your own slaves.

And I think you're missing the point. There's not going to be any major 'changing' of how slavery is conducted in TLI. What's changing is that a new standard of public behavior is going to be enacted and enforced. Nothing more, nothing less. So, while capturing and forced and broken slavery is not going anywhere, neither are the other kinds of slavery. Such as coerced and voluntary enslavement.

Which, to my way of thinking, is not a bad thing. Variety is the spice of life.

[Kaytoo]

Which, to my way of thinking, is not a bad thing. Variety is the spice of life.

Well I agree with that aspect though think you misunderstood my post.

We all play how we wish to our "own" imagined fantasy of TLI. That's great, right up to the point you have level 1's in combat fighting as though the ultimate warrior, peaceful nymphs running about like berzerkers, Barbarians played like pacifist tree huggers, and people having lightning bolts bounce off their chest in that they don't believe in magic.......We all have options and choices, yet taking a character, class, race, whatever and twisting it to another one totally contrary has never flown, as the second it does, it all becomes pointless.

Hence the problems with "slavery" here.....Sure you can play a lifestyle slave, or a forced slave....Yet it has unfortunately turned into in many cases nothing more then a shield people even sometimes saying "I need a master so my character will survive" (not realizing there is never a reason not to), and then in short order are playing as though free, with actually more rights then free, and a buffer on top of it.......At that point it is not slavery in any sense of the word. Not all, not even the majority as there is quite a spectrum, yet enough it's not difficult to encounter it.

Now I wouldn't support slaves being grovelling crawling whipped cowards....In fact read my lead post in the thread again as I stress over and again it's the players choice. However....No difference from free makes it simply pointless.

Okay so now there will be concubines...Great! That I'm sure will suck up quite a few soft slaves once folks figure out that slavery is being split basically into two groups. What that will hopefully leave are those wanting to play a slave be it forced, by their own choice (ehh no one would choose it with options), or perhaps born into it, whatever....You cannot have it be the free ranging "I slave for my master and spit in the face of all others", as that is so beyond reason it makes the concept of IC slavery pointless and ridiculous on countless levels.

The trick is, the fun here......to take that station, work it well, and become that slave who earns the respect of those who believe themselves better....You'll never get that if slaves can demand it.

I'm not looking for crushing oppression........Yet looking for something a little more true to form for a group forced to serve.

K2

[Infernis]

Forced to serve, but not forced to serve all.

[Kaytoo]

Forced to serve, but not forced to serve all.

Why they need more beatings.................hehe, teasing

K2

[Stormbringer]

There's a point at which the wheel of imagination meets the tarmac of real life generating forward momentum known as rolelay.

Does that mean anything except I am getting poetically senile? Actually yes. A roleplay world is always a compromise between being believable and being fun to play in. We don't force people to play a lot of the boring or unappealing aspects of an implied life within a world such as Belariath. We skate around them, perhaps assume that is what the character is doing during their down-time or we provide magical fixes to avoid them altogether. But that can only go so far before it becomes impossible to generate any basic belief in the environment, the more so when we use labels to identify things - recognisable labels from real life or from general ropleplaying conventions.

When we describe a race as being 'cat people' we include a base description with enough wriggle-room to create a variety of character appearances that are still recognisable as following the automatic assumptions of that race's defining features. We don't expect to see a cat person described as a 26 foot tall purple spotted egg with no tail and ears that resemble trombones. When we describe a class as being 'bard' we have some basic assumption that the character will show an affinity for making music or telling stories. We don't expect that they will be tone-deaf illiterates who struggle to put three words together into a sentence and who spend all their time catching fish with their teeth.

If we wanted that egg or that fisherman, we would either find a more appropriate label for them, or we would make up a new name that didn't carry the weight of preconception that accompanies something with which we are all familiar.

So too with slaves. No we don't expect slavery to be played strictly according to any historical precedent. No we don't expect slavery to be played in a way that makes it so unappealing or restrictive that, whilst taking the concept to its logical conclusions, it also removes all the enjoyment from playing such a character. To do so is to defeat the purpose of the game, which is, after all, to have fun. But at the same time, we don't expect to use a term like 'slave' within the game and then have characters who play completely at odds with the preconceptions of that label without consequence. To do so means that we need to apply a different label to what is happening because when the preconceptions of a label are completely ignored, then that label no longer applies.

The purpose of this topic is to define the point at which the expression of your imagination meets the preconceptions of a familiar label in such a way that both have some validity, whilst doing the maximum possible to result in the reason this game was created - an opportunity to enjoy roleplaying.

That purpose will only be achieved when slave owners understand that whilst they have the power to allow or instruct their slaves to act in public in ways that are contrary to the expectations of others and of the empire, they themselves will face some consequences.

That purpose will only be achieved when slaves understand that whilst they can act in public in ways that are contrary to the expectations of others and of the empire, both they and their owners will face some consequences.

That purpose will only be achieved when those expectations are reasonably well defined.

That purpose will only be achieved when those consequences are such that, whilst appropriate and enforced, are also compromised to the point where they do not overly inhibit the possibility of them being played out.

That purpose has never been to make slave unplayable by insisting they sexually serve every other free character. Whilst we have OOC consent rules, having to rely on them to avoid such play is not within the scope of this discussion. An owner may instruct their slave to do so but society will not.

That purpose has never been to force a player to have their slave character act like a complete doormat to every free character or render that slave unplayable. It defeats the channel purpose of varied roleplay.

The purpose is to enable players to create owner and slave characters who are supposed to behave like owner and slave in public according to the beliefs and expectations of the society within which they play, and to define consequences for playing outside those expectations. Such consequences to carry a predefined penalty which is ideally an opportunity to greater roleplay and which is never such that it becomes impossible to play owner and slave with any sense of imagination and enjoyment.

The short and intelligible version? To set rules and guidelines to how owner and slave are expected to act in public in Belariath. To set consequences for both when their characters go against those expectations. To make those consequences such that they encourage further roleplay rather than the equivalent of a speeding ticket. To not make owner and slave virtually unplayable by those who want to play them.

[Kaytoo]

All the above from everyone said and noted.....I'm going to put my efforts into writing up a slave "charter" if you will as I think it might be easier for everyone to look over a list of bullet points and say "yes, no, yes, yes, no, maybe, no, yes...etc.". Essentially some basic deffinitions, suggestions (dos aspect of dos and don'ts), laws/rules for slaves and consequences, for owners and concequences, for those free interacting with others slaves and owners.

Think of it as the realm can no longer work under the old way of "you enforcers just do what you think is right in the name of the emperor"....To laying down established laws.......almost. I say almost in that though hopefully it will get chopped and formed into something usable, in the end it should be used as nothing more then a guideline or manual, what folks do with it up to them.

Unfortunately, life just tossed me a curve so I can't sit down and focus on this in one day....So may be a couple days.

K2

[Thria]

(Yeah yeah, he tried to hide it, but i found it.)

I'm sure there will be no rule saying that you can't enforce a stronger code of public behavior for your own slaves.

I think this is perhaps the most important statement of the discussion i've read thus far. Take Infernis' own example of a slave not meeting the gaze of a Free person unless stated they may. This situation occurs about... 3 times a day in the inn with thria (in fact, it's #1 on my 'Common Maladies of the Slave' post in my blog down there.)... solution to the situation: "Master does not allow that, Sir." Still deferent/respectful, but not breaking that implied imbalance in the conversation. Dont need an Imperial law to establish that. Do some still find that adverse to playing with her? Sure. I've had plenty of people who wont play with her because she actually acts like a slave. Their choice, their loss. I move on.

Offensive:
Classes already restrict your spell choice. Slavery doesn't magically cripple your abilities (though i suppose you could say that a collar/tattoo could automatically do that, I dont think it'd go over very well).
You want a slave? Make sure they arn't going to flambe the first person that looks at them funny. Consider it part of the cost of owning a slave. And if you're in doubt and dont want to deal with it, hire the ISA to train them not to. Give the trainers more work/RP.

The basic difference here is Fight vs Flight. Lethality may be up for debate (It's possible for Desy to seriously screw over someone on a single dice roll, after all), but as I have understood the implied rules (as most are), you resist however you can long enough to get away, or give in. If you dont get away once able, you're offensive and subject to punishment.

Now a point i have to raise from... i think it was Infernis' post... maybe Kay's (topic review doesnt go back that far)... was setting the boundry at 'hostile...that effect..mind or emotion' (paraphrasing). What defines hostile? Sex Thought?

[quote=Tawny]This i have to disagree with. Slave dont have the right to expect anything. They are property not public servants they are private property and far below a free person. If a free person decided to be nice then that is just frosting on the cake for a slave, but never should a slave expect to be treated this way.[/quote]
Slaves have the 'right' to expect to be treated like slaves. (You'd think that this would go without saying, but in the world i've seen the last few months, that... isnt so). (PS: If they're not people, they don't get rights)
'They are property not public servants they are private property and far below a free person.' I disagree with the globalization of this statement. Some slaves MAY be public servants. (And Inn slaves are... expressly that.)

2) To be able to go out into public knowing that their collar does indeed 'protect' them from the hostile world around them. There is little point to wearing a collar if any dumbass with a hard-on can rape/beat any slave who catches his eye, with no fear of repercussions from owner or authorities

.... this, I feel, is less a statement about slaves, and more about the owners. Certain slaves with powerful owners do get this... 'bubble'... but it's not a good thing. Noone will come near them, unless their owner is standing there going 'yeah you can do that'. If you were here to have a 1-on-1 RP for your entire career, you might as well have stayed in PM, hence defeating the purpose.

The collar doesnt 'protect' anything. It lets others know that there may be reprecussions from an owner IF you step beyond the limits of what they allow (See Paragraph 1).

Again I have to disagree to an extent. Yes the owner is responsible, but so is the slave. To say the slave shouldnt be punished is giving them free rein to do as they wish and laugh as their owners take the punishment. No I say punish both and both can learn together.

Both should be punished, but ultimately the owner takes the brunt of it -from an Imperial viewpoint-. What said owner does to said slave on their own is another matter entirely. Force the slave into training. Punish the master appropriately. Then let them alone together and let the owner take care of business for causing them grief.

Slavery in general, and public use:
I have to say here that while this again falls under Paragraph 1; Imperial Viewpoint and OOC Rulemaking both dictate that there should be no rule for (or against) slaves being required to obey others' commands.
There should also be a way for a slave to openly declare what they are/arnt allowed to do (in a general sense.)
Yeah sure, scream your OOC/IC objections here. I still think it's an acceptable line on the basis that it only makes people's experiences more enjoyable.

A combination of Kaytoo's proposed 'list' and web storage/desdaemona regurgitation (possibly. Depends on how long the list is.) of said list at request. Yes, it's similar to the 'rape tags' that were abandoned/banned a long while ago... but as stated above, if such a thing doesn't exist, slaves who ARE open to public use are ignored, lumped automatically in the 'owned, no touch' category, which i think we can agree is not good for the RP community.

Welp, you bring up a couple of very different aspects yet what I underlined is a common theme throughout.....and exactly what personally I find wrong with most slaves as the right/ability to pick and choose who you are respectful to is the act of a free person, not a slave.

See Paragraph 1. "Master, XYZ acted like a bitch to me." "You will not bow to them."

I'm sure there will be more, but thats all my brain can handle at the moment.

[Dalahlaleeah]

After much deliberation on this topic in my downtime, I have to say that it is a sticky one and I have waited till I had all my ducks in a row before commenting. With that said.....

This i have to disagree with. Slave don't have the right to expect anything. They are property not public servants they are private property and far below a free person. If a free person decided to be nice then that is just frosting on the cake for a slave, but never should a slave expect to be treated this way.

I agree with Tawny. Slaves should not get the privilege of expecting anything from a free person that is not their Owner. To me, by saying that slaves can expect it - that is saying all free people have to treat them as they would another free person. Wrong. They are not free - they are chattel and I do not think it should be implemented that free people should have to give them respect.

I am of the mind that harsher expectations for public behavior be put in place.

* A slave should be respectful to all free people whether they want to or not. If they make the decision to be disrespectful in tone or action, then they should be prepared to accept the punishment that will come from this. Be disrespectful to the wrong person and expect the beating that will come from it.

* A slave should never raise their eyes to a free person without permission.

* A slave should not backtalk a free person and if they do, expect the punishment. The slave might not like what is said to them, but they shouldn't run their mouth as if they are free. They lost that right when the collar was slapped on their neck.

* A slave should defer, in the instances of the matter of seating/who goes through a door first/who gets served first/etc, to a free person.

* A slave should not ever draw weapon or move to assist in a fight taking place between a lover/owner/"mate" and another free person. I am actually of the mind that should a slave jump into a fight to assist one against the other, death be the punishment. Slaves know better and to do so should bring the harshest punishment around. A death or two should cure a slave of jumping into fights. (I have seen instances twice off the top of my head of a slave jumping into/assisting one free person in a fight against another free person.)

* A slave should not ever be allowed to harm a free person.

* A slave should not have to obey every free person around, this provides conflict of interests between the slave's owner and other free people.

Now then, on to the owners of slaves.

* An Owner of a slave should recognize and accept that if she or he gives permission for their property to obey the commands of another free person that they, themselves, as well as the slave are culpable if the slave obeys a command that breaks a law. (I actually am very much on the fence about this because I feel it allows slaves to get around things with the owner waving a dismissive hand and claiming they gave the order to obey Joe Blow at some point and time with no actual proof, thus skirting the whole IC repercussions.)

* An Owner should not ever have their slave attack in their place. (already a rule so should be a non-issue)

There is likely more but I am operating on limited sleep right now and cannot think of them. With that said, my opinions as of this moment.

[Tawny]

Ok it has been brought to my attention that there needs to be a clarification to the words ""harm a free person"" IMO Harm a free person should mean phyiscally harm as in use of spell, weapon, hands feet or any part of their body. IMO if a free person can say a slave harmed them with the use of words then the free person needs to grow a thicker skin. Slaves are under you as a free person so words from their lips shouldnt mean anything to you. A slave isnt harming someone if they dont actively seek to get a person out of a situation they are in. The slave is to protect the owners property..IE the slave. To expect a slave to put themselfs in harms way for anyone but the one who owns them is expecting them to harm what belongs to their owner and therefore breaking the laws they live by.

[gwyneth{StWi}]

1.

* A slave should be respectful to all free people whether they want to or not.

gwyn agrees fully to this, though there is a few she doesn't use a title with, she'd still be respectful, to their face anyway. she just would respectfully refuse to have anything to do with them.

2.

A slave should never raise their eyes to a free person without permission.

gwyn wouldn't say never, but it should always be done in a respectful manner, and used sparingly. there are times it's needed to make a point, or get the full meaning behind words or emotions. and, if it is going to be common, fewer people need to "look coldly at the slave" for example because well, if slaves aren't looking up, you can't expect them to realize you're making a point with your eyes

3.

A slave should not backtalk a free person and if they do, expect the punishment.

Redundant: see number 1

4.

A slave should defer, in the instances of the matter of seating/who goes through a door first/who gets served first/etc, to a free person.

This would be polite, in most instances, gwyn doesn't see it as something that should be enforced by the ISA however. And there would be some instances, an important errand for an owner, fetching something for a healer who needs the glass of water to mix herbs so a patient doesn't bleed to death, etc where it wouldn't be practical. Also there are times when a slave needs a shop, but the player only has a half an hour online... they go in, and a Free goes "oh the shop is open" and enters right behind them, only the player of the free has all day... So yes, while gwyn would agree with this on principle as a generally good idea for a slave to do, should it be a *rule*? gwyn disagrees.

5.

A slave should not ever draw weapon or move to assist in a fight taking place between a lover/owner/"mate" and another free person.

gwyn believes this should read as the current law "A slave should never attack a free." not necessarily 'draw a weapon', that's a bit too broad as sometimes daggers have enchantments for things that aren't attacks, like clean, or fly, or even a defense enchant. If a Free Person is attacking, and a slave draws a dagger to use the fly enchant to get away, or to add that +5 to defense until their Master arrives and never *uses* it to attack, that shouldn't be a breech of law.

There's a difference between an attack and assistance in some cases... gwyn wouldn't be above tripping someone, for example (oops, sorry about that, how'd that foot get there?), if they were attacking her Master, or move so light shines off something metal into an opponent's eyes.. or for example <in chirot> "Master, look out behind You!". But the weapon or 'attack' spell, gwyn would agree with, and thinks this falls under current rules anyway. Death as a punishment however, for a first offense would be too harsh, unless the Free died perhaps. gwyneth also believes this should have the caveat of 'intentional' hunting accidents happen, and death for such is a bit extreme. Also sparring and tournaments should, in gwyn's opinion be excluded as they are voluntarily entered into with the slave by the Free person, and therefore should not count as an attack

6.

A slave should not ever be allowed to harm a free person.

Redundant, would fall under attack with weapons. so long as we go by Miss Tawny's definition of it.

Without that definition gwyn would be vehemently against it as WAY too broad and open for interpretation. and also way too restrictive, and for some races perhaps even impossible to live with (duessa come to mind). Nor is it the job of a slave to rescue any Free person from a situation they got them self into, or found them self in, especially not if it risks their Master's property to do so. Without further context as to what you consider harm if you're going to consider it separate from attack and the other rules you've stated, gwyn has to assume this would come into play, all things taken into account.

7.

A slave should not have to obey every free person around, this provides conflict of interests between the slave's owner and other free people.

gwyn can easily live without this rule. she does her best icly with gwyneth to do so, but she has other chars who do not. it is a delicate balance sometimes, which requires an elaborate hierarchy gwyneth keeps in her own mind for such occasions, which includes who's more likely to hurt her over it.



Overall, gwyn thinks we need rules about respecting the Free, and not so much as specific instances like yielding to serving order in shops and such, given that there are r/l concerns and some things are just annoyances and not really worth ISA enforcement. Seriously, are you going to drag every slave that meets your eyes for an instant to the ISA? is it worth it? Or every slave that's in a hurry one day, or has already been waiting in the shop for three hours for the last person to finish so they can place their order (don't laugh, it's happened) and so doesn't really want to let you, who just walked in, to go ahead of them? keep in mind there are players behind the slave, and we don't always want to stand around in a shop for hours on end when we could be *RPING*. that's frustrating, rude, and unfair to the player. and if you were waiting to rp with someone who was playing a slave and waiting that long, you'd agree.


So in effect, there's two rules here that gwyn agrees with, all else either fall under other rules, or are just being too nit-picky while falling under other rules. The last is a non-rule, so yeah.

Rule 1: Slaves should show respect for the free.
rules 2,3, and 4 generally fall under rule 1, and shouldn't be hard and fast rules anyway, there are obvious exceptions to some of these.

Rule 2: is a current rule, and to gwyn's knowledge has always been (at least for the past 6 years) A slave should not attack/hurt a free person with weapon or spell. Self-defense however is not under this rule.
Rule 6 falls under this rule. anything more specific is stifling to rp and impossible to enforce.