Slavery Revision

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

Moderators: Stormbringer, Ehlanna

Slavery Revision

Postby Stormbringer on Sun Aug 29, 2010 12:21 pm

I can see the logic of wishing to complete any ammendments to slavery before concubines are introduced so that players can make a better informed choice for existing and future relationships. So this topic is opened for that discussion.

This topic is ONLY for suggestions relating to the playing of slaves, not for telling me that the concubine idea sucks. You can do that elsewhere.

As I have stated often enough, this isn't a gorean channel. Nor is it one that follows the predefined expectations of IRC BDSM channels. How a master and slave behave towards each other in their personal interactions is completely between those players. We are not going to say if you play a slave owner you have to behave towards her in a specific way. We are not going to say that if you play a slave, you have to behave towards your owner in a specific way. There's plenty of advice for the inexperienced about how such a relationship could be played but they are not going to be enforced in this game and by so doing straitjacket every relationship into a cookie cutter version of M/s.

Please be VERY clear about that statement because it is not negotiable.

Now with that settled (a forlorn hope given the bloody mindedness of some players but I'm an optimist), every society lays down both conventions and actual rules about how the members of that society behave towards each other in public. The purpose of this discussion is to better define Belariathian society's expectations of how owners and slaves are allowed to behave in public and the penalties to both of them if one or the other breaks the rules.

The basic assumptions are:

1. Owners have a lot of freedom in how they treat their slaves in public but there are limits

2. Slaves are extremely limited in how they can behave in public when interacting with others

3. An owner is equally responsible with his slave when that slave breaks the rules

4. An established set of responses is defined by society towards slaves who break the rules and the owner who fails to train them properly

Those are the basic parameters I see for this discussion but aside from the framework I'm going to sit back as much as possible and let you argue it out amongst yourselves.
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 Kaytoo on Sun Aug 29, 2010 2:31 pm

Well, first off let be be clear in what I'm NOT about to post....and that being about how slaves should act, or their masters, or how they should be treated by others. The following simply basics about society, slavery real life as it is so refined and established there truly are NO others ways it is done, slaves in TLI, and finally Stormbringers guideline discussion points.

Direct Master/Slave Interaction:
None of the following aspects in this section apply to SB's discussion. Yet should be remembered before pertinent aspects are discussed......."How an owner interacts with their slave is 100% up to them, period.".....Past that however there are IC and OOC aspects relating to that that does not mean it is ignorred.

An owner may grovel at the slave's feet all day, may beat the slave to within an inch of its life, may lend it out to all "cummers", may never let it have any sex, etc.....ALL interaction between a slave and their owner IC is their business 100%..........The only aspect of that the two must remember however is that "IC another character may have very strong opinions to it"....yet that is just play, and such disagreements are what makes the game better. OOC other players may have their opinions on the subject....yet they are nothing more then that, opinions, take them or leave em for what you will...yet is nothing more.

However, think of master & slave interactions in r/l terms.....If someone is cruel to their dog, beats their dog, lets their dog hump everyones leg, lets their dog run wild, lets their dog crap on everyones lawn.....Well, the dog may be viewed as a bad dog....Yet in the end it is really a bad owner and everyone will see it as such and demand the owner get their dog under control. So a Masters control of their slave will determine the IC opinions of bothe the slave and owner....and OOC will inspire others to voice their opinions about acceptable IC behavior.

In Kind...If your dog r/l tries to hump my leg, I'm going to push it off. If it craps in my yard I'm going to chase it off. If it attacks me, I'm going to beat it till it stops. If it barks at me I'm going to tell it to be quiet, etc. etc........More so, I'm then going to confront you to get control of your dog....and if you don't do it, then simply to control my little bit of time and space then I will be it by my own hand, or via the authorities. Lastly, if I harm your dog, I risk that owners wrath. Might be via the police, might be them beatting the hell out of me.

In the end however........An owner is responsible for their dog/slave. They may do anything with their dog/slave they wish between them, yet each other person will have an opinion on it, and in some cases intervene or broach the subject with the owner even though it is just between them (like you see someone harming a dog).....Lastly, how your dog/slave interacts with the outside world will result in others either directly or through the authorities interacting and will tailor my responses to either the dog/slave or owner how "I" choose...so in kind risk their response to me.

Be it children, your pets, how you drive your car, keep up your yard, do your job, act as a neighbor......All of the above is simply how life works in a society......and there is no reasonable way to do it otherwise so to do different IC would simply be ridiculous..........Yet what you do with your slave for the most part is up to you, right to the point it affects me, or my sensibilities at which point IC my character will deal with it as they see fit, knowing their may be ramifications to come.

Basic Slavery Concepts:
(all of the following are r/l, and pertain to real forced slavery (fs), or true BDSM master/slave relationships (m/s) none are based off of some RPG, book, ideal, etc.).

Though everyone may have their opinion as to how a master/slave relationship "should be", fact of the matter is it really boils down to some basic aspects that are so common they are the norm world wide, anything out of that vast sphere a very small minority either way.

People who own (fs) slaves do so in that they can 1. afford it, and 2. view other people as less then themselves. In fact, view most others as actually expendable, those forced into slavery even more so. The expense to purchase and maintain them MUCH LESS then buying a car, and therefor viewed as an "thing" of much less valuable and all that much more expendable. Be absolutly sure of this......Everyone who owns a (fs) slave real life is ultimately willing to kill that slave, and most make no bones about impressing that upon them constantly.......To that end, there is nothing they are not willing to inflict upon said slaves, as whether voiced or not they are considered less then "people".

People who own lifestyle choice slaves (m/s), do so because they can maintain that relationship be it through cost (housing them), time and the ability to explore it, whatever. The slave is also clearly there by their choice, and may be very willing to help bear that burdon seeking that life to extreme degrees (as I know (m/s) slaves that support their masters in very lavish lifestyles, and do so almost as part of that lifestyle "choice")........Choice is paramount there, each having chosen how they wish to live or interact. However, it may be with a single other, or it may be to all other people........To that end ALL aspects of the relationship are decided by both. Granted one may press for this aspect or that, yet in all cases it is a merging of the two's wants and needs. Finally, it is therefor obvious that a slave in such circumstances is NOT expendable (except by the most twisted), it is a relationship, a partnership.

In TLI we have both types, though clearly the lions share due to OOC consent, probably a good 99% are the later option (m/s) slaves...........However, that is NOT what slavery is in a world that allows it/has it. It is not a negotiation or up for discussion......The moment it is up for discussion it is now a matter of "choice", and the second it is a matter of choice no matter the reason be it to survive or to play then it is dictated to by the slave......Do NOT get me wrong, there are those r/l with (fs) that give people the choice of slavery or not with the clear understanding that once a slave all choice even to live is lost, and then make circumstances so absolutly unbearable and impossible it boils down to death or slavery. Yet if it is not (fs) with all that comes with it then it is (m/s) and a game of options.

(m/s) slavery by choice is NOT slavery......It is a game played by consenting adults no matter how thoroughly they live it.

(fs) is very real, and no matter how much this owner may love their slaves, treat them well, even pamper and baby them under it all is the aspect of expendability in that they are property. ALWAYS without exceptions......The slave will ALWAYS be less then all others, especially those free, and ALWAYS one of the more expendable things an owner has.

Slaves and Concubines:
Slaves r/l are either (fs) or (m/s) above....No exceptions. Naturally here on the most basic levels they are all (m/s) due to ooc consent, yet when played they should be played as either (fs) or (m/s).

(fs) are slaves, the end, and subject to no choices ever with their owner, and being less then those free as even viewed deep down by their owner are and should be viewed as property, less then by all others free in a society that believes in such......They are equal to a cup, a horse, a knife, a shirt, perhaps even less then the value of the slave in "cost and expense" determining it's ranking with all other things that person owns.

(m/s) are concubines.....all aspects of the relationship determined and prearranged by the master and slave/concubine. They are people though owned. Protected and taken care of as one would any lover or family member yet within the "chosen" restrictions of the relationship.

There is no blending of the two.......

Stormbringers Guidelines:

Stormbringer wrote:1. Owners have a lot of freedom in how they treat their slaves in public but there are limits.

An owner imltho can treat their slave how they want without restriction....It's their choice recognizing that they may be IC chastized for how they are doing so to match the IC characters concepts of slavery and the degree they would care.

Stormbringer wrote:2. Slaves are extremely limited in how they can behave in public when interacting with others

They may act however they want.......Realizing that an IC character may respond to whatever degree their character would without limitation. The IC character might yell, order them about, hit, even kill them....Knowing there may be IC ramifications from the IC master or authorities (ISA). More so, the slaves actions will directly reflect upon the owner, and how the IC character deals with them for having an out of control slave is up to that IC characters personality realizing their again may be ramifications, yet NOT from the ISA, only the laws of the land regarding interaction between two free peoples.

The trick there being....a slave needs to act to the standards accepted by all except the most extreme variances. So if the slave acts out of accepted norms (be it addressing those free, serving others, submitting to others whatever) then the slave and owner risk the vast possible ramifications above.

Past that I'll only say slaves need to remember that......consider the worst they may encounter, act to suit it, and let others soften the demands on a case by case basis.

Stormbringer wrote:3. An owner is equally responsible with his slave when that slave breaks the rules

The owner is MORE responsible, in fact the only one responsible (though ramifications may happen to the slave).....The slave will do what it does within the linitations set down by the owner. So it is a direct statement from the owner to all others as to his actions toward them.......The slave simply the tool, not the hand that wields it.

Stormbringer wrote:4. An established set of responses is defined by society towards slaves who break the rules and the owner who fails to train them properly.

An IC character should respond to slaves and their masters as they normally would......What that character should however have as a building block to that response would be that slavery is normal, slaves are a common part of the world, slaves are a mandatory way of life, and slaves are others property that the other may have more then a cold callus opinion of even caring for them like one might a pet and even more so in that they can interact unlike any dog or cat can.

So with that said, as individuals IC characters should respond to slaves to an equal degree they would free people, and very probably worse (where they would yell at a free person, might slap a slave or might not).

The government or powers at be should view slaves much like r/l it does dogs....People can have them and do with them what they will, it also expected that others will deal with them like a person might with anothers dog, yet in the end the government will have limits, and if a slave exceeds those limits will deal with the OWNER and perhaps also the slave.

However.......How an IC character deals with a slave or even anothers slave should be roughly how you would treat anothers property. At the very best how you would treat anothers pet. However, not anothers child, spouse, friend, etc.. The government/ISA should treat slave issues as though dealing with a matter of property, not a person, and that may mean ignorring it if minor (why should they care if a slave backtalks a free person, that for that person to take up with their owner), and in the most extreme cases severely punish the owner (fines, jail, revocation of rights to own a slave), even up to demanding that the ownership terminate (normally that would mean killing the slave, yet here in TLI i'd think revoking the ownership and possibly insisting the slave character and future characters no longer allowed to be slaves).

Summation:
Well, that's a LOT of talk to say "do what you want". More so no doubt seeming hypocritical considering how I speak of slavery IC and play it out there..........Fact of the matter it is not, bear with me a tad longer.

First off, my characters culture is one where a slave is not only viewed as much less then one of the clan, even less then others who are free and not of the clan. A dog to the Hamr will be considered as more important and more respected, even a sword. As a slave proves its worth both in service, and in simply being able to endure (as the cruelty has a point), the slave will be regarded as even higher in station, even though a second class citizen, one of the community. Slaves can eventually even live as "almost free"....and at the very far end of the spectrum are the ONLY others that can become true clan members, in fact viewed as BETTER then those naturally born when they have proven they embrace Hamr ways.

All the harsh treatment is due and just in that the person has willfully given up their freedom, or is not fighting the enslavement. It is also done to make them tougher, stronger. Another IMPORTANT aspect is the Hamr believe a slave should NOT be pidgeon holed into serving a particular way, yet should find their place of greatest worth, on their own, and may even find in VERY rare cases a particular master to serve, yet for the most part are there to serve ALL people of the clan. Even if with a particular master, it is simply assumed they still serve all, and that master would infact see any reasonable actions taken against the slave (beatings, rape and so on) as helping them....as they are only a specific master to that slave because the slave cose to be with them.

To that end.....If Kaytoo will slap a free person for backtalking her...Why would she not someone who is less then in her view? In fact, why would she not do worse as in the end it helps that slave to be a better slave, and for right or wrong believes it helps them to become stonger...Hopefully strong enough that they will eventually be able to demand and take their freedom ONLY THEN becoming a person once more.

That is how my character deals with slaves, there is extensive written background on it......and naturally believes her way, the Hamr way, is the right way the civilized savages simply doing harm to slaves.

IMLTHO......Though it seems as though i'm simply saying "play how you want"....In reality I'm saying that but ALSO expect others to as well and if they conflict there will naturally be clashes.

So I believe slaves should act in a way that protects themselves, and their masters....If they do not the master should be harsh as it will come back on them 10x. I also believe masters here need to remember the mindset of the TLI world. Slaves are not lovers, pets, girlfriends, long paid servents there by choice. They are a thing, a commodity, an expendable that can be just as esily replaced by one that serves better and causes no problems for them......It still blows my mind OOC to see IC a master trying to convince a slave to be nice to them, as we have loads of "topping from the bottom".

That's actually natural. People "play" most often what they desire to be. Those submissive want to be dominant, and visa versa. The trouble is they're not playing the character, yet instead playing their own natural selves out in a character contrary to who they are..........PLAY the character! Not how you would be in that situation if it is contradictory.........If you want to play a slave, play a slave how you would want a slave to act toward you not you trapped as a slave.

If a slave backtalks a free person, just like if someones dog pees on anothers leg....Then the master should be appologizing, not backing it up. The master should prove out once and for all they are sorry their slave offended the masters "peer", prove they will take action to correct that activity, and do all they can to prove they are a responsible citizen and will do all they can to insure it won't happen again..............NOT be running around letting in fact encouraging your slave to do the wrong thing.

When a slave does the wrong thing the owner should be correcting it and insuring it won't happen again. More so, they should consider others free as peers, not less then their "thing/slave" property. It's a rediculous scenario we have had here for a long time, as people treat their slaves better then those of their community.

If a slave is being abused by an owner, the ISA should be contacted to determine if it is abuse. If a free person attacks and harms your slave, the ISA with the might of the IG and empire should be able to go after that free person just like would happen if say I burned anothers home down.

If you own a dog that bites you don't let him loose on the community to attack your neighbors. So why would a dangerous slave at risk of harming your neighbors through word or deed be loosed in the TLI community? If they run off, leash them. Backtalk, muzzle them......Get them trained and want them really protected? Then walk them through the community and introduce them to your neighbors as YOUR slave, and then point out to the slave which neighbors to avoid.

IC a slave and master can play absolutly any way they want...........Just know on a person by person basis just like r/l there will be consequences based on the OTHER free characters value set........So you should consider that and if wanting all to run smooth, then adjust those characters to suit what they will run into as if you plan for the worst, all the rest will praise your handling of your fine slave.

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 Sun Aug 29, 2010 5:15 pm

1) slaves should be respectful in word and deed to all Free persons.
2) slaves should follow those commands that are not in conflict with their Master's orders... BUT if this rule goes into place, something should be in place to protect a slave from being given contradictory orders from two different Free so they end up being punished by *someone*. Nor can they be commanded to do anything that would harm themselves or others.
3) slaves should voice their opinions respectfully for the consideration of the Free. however, inside the workplace, a slave would take a level of authority granted by the employer or shop owner. i.e. they could enforce paying a certain price for items, could give directions such as "put the patient in exam room 1" within reason of course.

just off the top of a girl's head for suggestions.
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 StormWind on Sun Aug 29, 2010 5:23 pm

SB has made it clear time and time again through various rulings... that a slave's Master... is at the top of the heap where orders commands are concerned. I wish to see that preserved above all else. Thus making certain that some fool can not come along and endanger a girl by giving her orders that will put her, or her owner in harms way.
Skills pertaining to Jobs

Owner and Manager of The Works:

Metalsmith X5
MiithrilsmithX5
Leathersmithx5
Wood working x5
Valicitesmith x5
Carpentry x5
Jewler x5
Appraisal
Administration

Stewart of the port of Virelith
Scribe x5
Cartography x5
Mephos Riding x5
Soldiering x5
Navigation x5
Boating
Ediquett
Heraldry x3

Master Body Artist

Body Arts x5
Artist x5
Jewler x5
StWi
User avatar
StormWind
Predominate
Predominate
 
Posts: 329
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 2:49 pm
Location: Lost on the Burning Sea...Piracy forever!

Re: Slavery Revision

Postby Joshua_Jericho on Mon Aug 30, 2010 2:54 am

Just to put my nose into this and offer a few small-denomination coins of my opinion..

It seems right to me that slaves, as property, should be treated under law as akin to dogs. Therefore I think that a slave acting under his or her (her from now on for convenience) owner's orders should face no repercussions from the IG or Empire for her actions. After all, a slave has no free will, right? Therefore, any commands they follow simply make them an extension of their Owner. Like another arm.

On the other hand, a slave that -disobeys- their Owner can and should face consequences on their own behalf. I think in most circumstances the ISA and IG and other bodies should be able to trust that the Owner can administer discipline themselves, however, in "problem cases" where the Owner is either unable or unwilling to keep their pet under control, there should be a range of actions available to the ISA, ranging from fining the Owner, to taking possession of the collar (Obviously limited via OOC consent rules), possibly -dissolving- the collar, or in extreme, slave-on-a-rampage cases, simply killing the unfortunate slave.

In terms for the restrictions for slaves and free persons, I don't think a slave should be bound to follow the orders of any free person. Considering this from an Owner's perspective, if anyone can command your property, what's the point of having it -your- property? If I park my car somewhere, generally, I expect it to still be there when I return, and not to have been driven by anyone else in my absence. Same thing should hold true with slaves, should it not? Obviously, in cases where the Master not only allows, but encourages, use of his slave by others, this is null and void. So in general, I disagree with the concept of slaves being compelled to follow the orders of all free folk.

On the other hand, I recognise the desire of slaves to actually be treated like slaves. To this end, I suggest that the ISA probably has an interest in keeping all slaves subservient. To do otherwise, would be to invite a slave rebellion, which is just bad news. Although it probably wouldn't happen ICly, the possibility of it is enough to allow for restrictions enforced by the ISA.

I suggest, in this arena, giving the ISA the ability to impose fines on the owners of slaves based on the behaviour of slaves, and hand out punishments to owners whose slaves are behaving in a non-satisfactory manner. I was also toying with the idea of suggesting that the ISA vary the recurring "slave fees" based on behaviour. I.E, if Owners want to tell their slaves not to obey free people, and act as if they themselves are free - fine, but they'll pay twice, or three times as much as, say, StormWind pays for Gwyneth every month. I also believe in the concept of "weapon licenses". In most ancient societies which contained slavery (Most ancient societies), slaves were not allowed to carry weapons except in times of great need. Obviously, in TLI, everyone has weaponry, so maybe an outright ban isn't appropriate. Instead, a fee to enable your slave to carry weapons, paid by the owner.

This, in my eyes, simultaneously allows for a variety in slave RP, and still gently guides folk towards the presumably-more-desired "real slave" type of play, as outlined by Gwyneth's suggestions above. Not looking in the eyes of free persons, obeying free persons, etc etc.

Basically, I agree with K2 in a lot of areas. I think the problem of slave restrictions should be enforced primarily by the Owner, with the ISA enforcing the restrictions ON the Owner, using a financial system of fines and fees. Basically, the more "Rights" you want your slave to have, the more it's going to cost you. I also believe in the ISA's right to step in and interfere with an Owner/Slave relationship if they feel the slave is not actually a Slave.

So, just my coins of small denomination.

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

Re: Slavery Revision

Postby Tawny on Mon Aug 30, 2010 3:46 am

I was also toying with the idea of suggesting that the ISA vary the recurring "slave fees" based on behaviour. I.E, if Owners want to tell their slaves not to obey free people, and act as if they themselves are free - fine, but they'll pay twice, or three times as much as, say, StormWind pays for Gwyneth every month. I also believe in the concept of "weapon licenses". In most ancient societies which contained slavery (Most ancient societies), slaves were not allowed to carry weapons except in times of great need. Obviously, in TLI, everyone has weaponry, so maybe an outright ban isn't appropriate. Instead, a fee to enable your slave to carry weapons, paid by the owner.


Ok this I have to say I dont agree with at all. That is simply paying to have your slave NOT act like a slave. I strongly back the Idea of a slave obeying the word of their owner above any other free persons desires. They after all own the slave and pay for the slave so there fore its their word the slave should be obeying.

I strongly feel a slave should have use of non lethal spells only and the owner should teach the slave how to run if it come down to someone trying to force the slave to do things they know their owner dont want them doing. Non lethal spells like Sleep, Stun bolt, Diminsion door, and such are the best wasy for a slave to defend themself and still not be breaking the rules of a slave never harming a free person. I have alot of trouble with the idea of slaves carrying weapons.

As for the owner being responsible for the slaves actions, this is something Tawny has always told those registering a slave. The owner is responsible for the slaves action even if they are not there when the slaves misbehaves. But I dont think a owner should take all the punishment either. A misbehaving slave shows badly on the owner yes, but it is also the actions of the slave at the time. So both should face the punishement for the slaves actions. Fines to the owner and Perhaps a some time on the slave poles or such depending on what the slave did wrong.

This is just the begining of what I think and I shall post more later.
Image
User avatar
Tawny
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 696
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 2:16 am

Re: Slavery Revision

Postby gwyneth{StWi} on Mon Aug 30, 2010 4:40 am

Tawny wrote:I strongly feel a slave should have use of non lethal spells only and the owner should teach the slave how to run if it come down to someone trying to force the slave to do things they know their owner dont want them doing. Non lethal spells like Sleep, Stun bolt, Diminsion door, and such are the best wasy for a slave to defend themself and still not be breaking the rules of a slave never harming a free person. I have alot of trouble with the idea of slaves carrying weapons.


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.

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.

As for carrying weapons in public... druids and healers need daggers for cutting herbs, thread in the case of stitches, cutting bandaging, we don't have scissors. Also her mithril dagger is enchanted both with clean and fly, and she uses the clean at times for patients, and she uses it when cutting thread and bandages because it can't contaminate. she uses fly when she can't use her iop for one reason or another. and, as the dagger was given to her by Mistress Ehlanna to use in service to the Emporer... well gwyn supposes the point is, slaves can carry weapons and use them responsibly, and there's many reasons to carry one, even cutting meat during a meal. perhaps there should just be a more severe penalty for using a weapon inappropriately in public, rather than a flat ban.

this is an early culture; knives, daggers, anything that can be seen as a weapon is also an important tool in day to day life. if you ban a slave from using those, you inhibit them from fulfilling their function. Daggers were used to eat, to carve, to cut vine, bandaging, cloth, butcher animals, they, and we do not have differently named tools for each of these tasks, and even if we did, anything that could perform these standard daily non-combat functions could still be *used* as a weapon. You can kill just as well with a steak knife as a dagger. Or a scissors, or a whittler's blade.
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 Stormbringer on Mon Aug 30, 2010 9:46 am

1. Owners have a lot of freedom in how they treat their slaves in public but there are limits

2. Slaves are extremely limited in how they can behave in public when interacting with others

3. An owner is equally responsible with his slave when that slave breaks the rules

4. An established set of responses is defined by society towards slaves who break the rules and the owner who fails to train them properly


Just in case there is any misunderstanding, the purpose of those guides was not based upon an attempt to limit rolelay. Anyone can roleplay anything except taboo topics. What they were intended as is areas in which the empire, for its own purposes, sets boundaries and consequences on both slave and owner.

So yes a slave owner can play anything in how they treat their slave in public but imperial law will demand consequences for certain socially unacceptable actions. These may conveniently mirror topics which are banned, so giving an IC aspect to enforcing OOC rules. They may cover other topics which are simply not wanted to be seen in open play by others.

To put it in its bluntest terms, if you and your slave want to go to a PM and play out having her nipples cut off or having you piss in her mouth, good luck to you. But try doing that in the Inn and it's another story.

Equally a slave can play anyhow she wants in public. But she will do so knowing the consequences to both herself and her owner.

And yes, other characters can and will act towards both slave and owner in a variety of ways, some of which would also be governed and limited by imperial law.

So no implied limitations on roleplay beyond the existing channel rules, yet better defined IC rules and consequences of them for master/slave public interactions. And whilst not arguing over the current day basis of slavery, either forced or consented, it is worth remembering that even in real life, in other societies, slaves have had legal rights limiting their owner's actions. So it doesn't compromise the very concept of slavery to take that into account; it has always been one of the less used aspects of the ISA in any case.
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 Kaytoo on Mon Aug 30, 2010 12:43 pm

Well, as rediculous as it may seem, and this in NO way an attempt to mimic horrible historical precidents if you do a google search for "slave law" you might be surprised and disgusted....as an example from "Slave Codes of the State of Georgia, 1848"

3. Punishment for manslaughter. -- And in case a verdict of manslaughter shall be found by the jury, the punishment shall be by whipping, at the discretion of the court, and branded on the cheek with the letter M.
4. Punishment of slaves for striking white persons. -- If any slave shall presume to strike any white person, such slave upon trial and conviction before the justice or justices, according to the direction of this act, shall for the first offence suffer such punishment as the said justice or justices shall in his or their discretion think fit, not extending to life or limb; and for the second offence, suffer death: but in case any such slave shall grievously wound, maim , or bruise any white person, though it shall be only the first offence, such slave shall suffer death.
5. When the striking a white person justifiable. -- Provided always, that such striking, wounding, maiming, or bruising, be not done by the command, and in defense of the person or property of the owner or other person have the care and government of such slave, in which case the slave shall be wholly excused, and the owner or other person having the care and government of such slave, shall be answerable, as if the act has been committed by himself.



Though in NO way should Belariath's codes/laws be so well defined and detailed, and in fact should be made unique to our RPG....you all may get some ideas from the following links and others. Be sure though, slavery once "illegal" as it is today becomes much more brutal as there are no limitations (and know I pray daily for people to no longer turn a blind eye so it may end)......and best of all the following may turn some of your stomachs enough playing slavery will become very unappealing.

http://www.bowdoin.edu/~prael/projects/ ... page3.html

http://www.history.org/history/teaching/slavelaw.cfm

http://academic.udayton.edu/race/02rights/slavelaw.htm

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 Stormbringer on Mon Aug 30, 2010 3:45 pm

I hope no one would condone the existence of modern forced slavery with its inevitable consequences and I don't consider it a particularly good model for play in TLI either. And quite frankly, nineteenth century legal slavery was little better.

The usual concept of 'civilized' slavery takes us back to the Roman empire:

The general attitude to slaves was one of stick-and-carrot:

The Stick: In order to prevent them from running away slaves had a chain around their neck called "bulla" into which the name and address of their master was recorded as well as the reward for delivering them back. They could be punished in a variety of ways although with time this was increasingly regulated by law and a slave could report and have his master punished for mistreatment.

The Carrot: slaves could perform all sorts of jobs and in many cases could be extremely well educated people. One could therefore find slaves working as high society cooks, in the shops, banks and teaching in schools just as easily as they might be found tilling the land of some rich Patrician. Given that slaves could generally be trusted not to have great personal interests in court meddling, they were especially numerous as bureaucrats and at court during the Empire.

Slaves could also be enterprising, put money aside and purchase property in view of their future freedom which would normally happen at around the age of 30 even though by-and-large the majority would remain tied to their owners as clients and even carry their name.

Slaves could also aspire to becoming free "liberti" although freedom didn't actually mean the same level of rights and privileges which other Roman citizens, especially the Patricians, might enjoy. However, during the empire at least, the sons of liberti (called "libertini") could aspire to reaching the class of Equites (knights) whilst the sons of libertini could actually aspire to becoming Senators. An example of this was Augustus' own slave-medic.


Not that I'm suggesting this either. There are historical precedents for a wide range of options in the rights and perception of slaves so there are an equally wide range of possibilities in the decisions made for roleplay purposes here.
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 Infernis on Mon Aug 30, 2010 4:49 pm

I've avoided responding to this thread as long as I have because I needed to get my thoughts straight.

First off, I would suggest that while we're redefining slave expectations while in public, we also consider looking at defining just what is expected of an owner as well. With that in mind, here we go.

1) Slaves should show deference to free people. By 'deference', I mean show common courtesy, respect in word and tone and action, and general compliance in something that doesn't compromise established expectations placed upon that slave by her owner. An example would be that a slave be expected to surrender her spot at a table if a free person should need somewhere to sit. And not just surrender it, but do so with grace and a good nature. Slaves keep their gaze lowered, only meeting the gaze of a free person if directed by that free person.


2) Slaves are not allowed to use weaponry or hostile magic, including those that would effect the mind or emotions, on Imperial citizens. They are allowed to use armor and defensive magics suitable to race and class. Slaves are allowed to defend themselves to the point of being able to flee a fight, using incapacitating abilities and spells in order to do so.

And that's it really. That, to me, encompasses what slaves should aspire to achieve while in public. In short, show grace and respect and deference to both known and unknown free people, and to able to defend themselves, but not actively seek out a battle.

Now, let's address the flip side.

We've done a lot of talking about what is expected of a slave in regards to public behavior, but what should a slave expect 'from' the public?

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.

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.

To this end, I would suggest that while we're redefining what is expected of slaves in public, by the public, that we also define these things. That the public, as a whole, looks upon collared slaves as valuable property, to be held as such, and to see one being beaten and abused, without good reason, as being the same as we would view animal cruelty or blatant vandalism of valuable property. That the slave can expect that the same public which demands her deference and grace in being property, to be treated as valuable property and generally looked out for by that public.

As to punishments...

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.

I would 'suggest' the following scale of punishments. Financial, physical, repossession of the slave temporarily, repossession of the slave permanently.

Firstly, hit them in the wallet where it really hurts. Fines and penalties, repossession of properties to cover those fines and penalties.

Then, if they still don't shape up, the owner gets public punishments. Lashes in the town square or in the Inn, wherever. The slave gets to sit and watch and know that she caused it.

If they still don't get it after a few beatings, the ISA steps in and claims the slave for the short term, to evaluate just what the problem is. The owner can, at this point, step up and prove that he's now capable of handing his property and get her back.

Lastly, if it reaches this point, the slave is reclaimed entirely and collared to the ISA for extensive training while the owner is placed on a prohibition forbidding any new slaves for a year's time.

I feel deeply that slave punishments will be a minor issue, at worst, and that the greater issue revolves around defining what is expected of a slave and what that same slave can expect from the same public.

If we are to demand courtesy and grace and deference to the general public, then that same general public has a responsibility to give that slave the opportunity and freedom to be graceful and courteous deferring, without being beaten and abused without solid reason by any asshole with a chip on his shoulder, looking for easy prey.


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

Re: Slavery Revision

Postby gwyneth{StWi} on Mon Aug 30, 2010 5:22 pm

gwyn thinks she could easily agree with Master Infernis' version of rules for public behavior. they are reasonable and do not take away from Owner's ability to control their slaves. they also allow the slave to rp their character, and their class without having to change completely who they are when they are collared. And the weapons restrictions still allow for daily use of such tools as daggers, and bows for hunting, cutting meat, and other such tasks without the slave having to worry about sneaking around to do what must be done. Even practice or tournaments can be accommodated, ultimately, if sparring is not seen as using against, as it's a voluntary engagement between two people, and not an attack of one on the other.
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 Vhidanon on Mon Aug 30, 2010 6:54 pm

as a slave, and one that does not treat others with deference just because she has a collar and they don't, what happens when i DON'T give my spot up to an asshole, er i mean free person...you have seen the ones i am referring to... the ones who think "you collared slave, me free person, you sucky sucky long time...NAO..." - what happens when i don't give them what they want? besides rape for example? what legal public ramifications come into play for myself and my master when i am on stage dancing and someone demands i come over to where THEY are and obey them? what happens when a free person expects ME to fetch them food and drink, because i have a collar? what happens when i don't avert my eyes from looking directly in a free person's face? what happens when i don't bow and scrape if the person is a new character no one knows, an obvious warrior in training rather than a warlord? vhid knows someone like Krom gets manners. she doesn't give mannerly service to someone who just got their char approved, she has no reason to and as a Moriel slave it serves no purpose to her. so what will the repercussions be?

this is very important to me. vhid will not be a concubine if that new designation equates to "wife i love enough to treat well and give things to but not enough to marry". she also isn't going to bow and scrape to the average personage. i know she's supposed to right now but no one does anything about her not doing it, except scowl. if these revisions come through, it sounds like there will be dire consequences. and while i appreciate that, i hope you guys are thinking about punishment as much as the law one will be punished for. because this is kind of life or death for one of my favourite characters. i do not see her bowing to someone she sees no personal value or gain in. i don't see her being rude to them either. i see her ignoring them or rolling her eyes and continuing with what she's doing.

i am hearing that owners of slaves will be responsible for misbehaviour. so when vhid continues being vhid, is the worst that will happen be that someone contacts elth and says "for shame" ? what will he be expected to do? vhid doesn't spit in someone's eye. she doesn't call them names. she doesn't steal or hit or rape or attack. let's be clear, i am talking about initial meeting. she might do those things later when they've been earned, heh. but right now, vhid does not step aside because a free person wants her spot. she doesn't suck anyone's cock purely because she's a slave and that means she's meat for everyone's taking. and elthorion respects that. his character values vhid as a piece of meat that HE gets to fuck and do things to, above anyone else. i think for some owners, knowing your slave was just commonplace meat anyone could lick would just make them...icky...

so what's going to happen to vhid? i see the laws and the way they are heading and i appreciate they need to be solidified, still. but what happens when she breaks them? is my character doomed? it kind of feels like it. that's why i am asking. not to put pressure or speed the convo up, but because i am personally invested in what you guys come up with as the end result - and those punishments matter. if you are telling me that NewlyApprovedChar001 can drag vhid by her hair to the ISA cuz she met their gaze instead of looking down, i would like to know sooner rather than later. sure, it sounds dramatic. but i'm getting an odd prickly feeling in my neck - eep! [-o<
Image
Our doubts are traitors and make us lose the good we often might win, by fearing to attempt.
User avatar
Vhidanon
Novice
Novice
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Sun May 09, 2010 6:54 pm

Re: Slavery Revision

Postby Kaytoo on Mon Aug 30, 2010 7:53 pm

Vhidanon wrote:as a slave, and one that does not treat others with deference just because she has a collar and they don't, what happens when i DON'T give my spot up to an asshole, er i mean free person...you have seen the ones i am referring to... the ones who think "you collared slave, me free person, you sucky sucky long time...NAO..." - what happens when i don't give them what they want? besides rape for example? what legal public ramifications come into play for myself and my master when i am on stage dancing and someone demands i come over to where THEY are and obey them? what happens when a free person expects ME to fetch them food and drink, because i have a collar? what happens when i don't avert my eyes from looking directly in a free person's face? what happens when i don't bow and scrape if the person is a new character no one knows, an obvious warrior in training rather than a warlord? vhid knows someone like Krom gets manners. she doesn't give mannerly service to someone who just got their char approved, she has no reason to and as a Moriel slave it serves no purpose to her. so what will the repercussions be?


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.

You use Krom as an example....and in kind some new character. Well, have to say in Vhid's case they both outrank her....As they are free.

IMLTHO how you would treat the worst scenario (say Krom) you should also treat the best (new guy)...That goes right back to what I was saying about how what I said seems wide open yet is not. Now giving up your seat, I'd say absolutly if there alone. Avert your eyes, well if you must do that with any and want no chance of a problem then do it with all. Fetch and serve, well though starting to get more gray consider that doing so would put your master elthorion in a better light. Suck cock? Well, that requires ooc consent, period.

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).

However all of the aspects you're asking about is what they're trying to determine here....That being, "what is the norm of expected behavior for a slave", realizing there will be those to slip to either side of that line, and what is the limit and repercussions to slipping to far to acting free.

Honestly, what you suggest in how Vhid acts sounds more like a free person wisely not messing with more powerful characters....nothing slavish about it at all.

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 Kaytoo on Mon Aug 30, 2010 8:14 pm

Stormbringer wrote:I hope no one would condone the existence of modern forced slavery with its inevitable consequences and I don't consider it a particularly good model for play in TLI either. And quite frankly, nineteenth century legal slavery was little better..


Absolutely....The point being to support your point about laws existing at one time regarding slaves (having little knowledge of rome considering more recent history instead).....However that said, Rome as far as a culture would indeed be much more akin to the type of situation we have in TLI. In fact to a great degree would almost be spot on with all the varied races.

My point however being, it would be great if we could set down a basic model of dos/don'ts for slave behavior (basic stuff and just as an example....clear the path for those free, never attack a free person, may defend once past X point, etc.). Along with what results if not followed, and all of it kept minimal to help differentiate from the "good slaves" to the "bad slaves" though both might be following the guidelines. (ex. slave-a averted his eyes when speaking to me, slave-b bowed showing their hands empty to be non-threatening......the rule being to not glare/stare at a free person, and it ideal to avert your eyes......Whatever it may turn out).

Lastly, counters to when the line is crossed and they're about to meet a free persons wrath........
Ex. Mary backtalks Kaytoo, and as Kaytoo moved to backhand her, Mary dropped to the "safe position" of on her knees, head bowed, arms out....The slave equivalent of "I yield and appologize", it considered "slave cruelty" to physically attack a slave in such a position risking fines or more.

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

Next

Return to Characters

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests