Slavery Revision

[Kaytoo]

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.

Just a quick toss out there as to this and I'm going to focus on the charter....However, wherein I can see a slave legally harming a free person (as even in U.S. 1800's slave law they recognized a slave may need to defend themselves)...I think that in "word" is the only situation where they should have no recourse.

Now don't get me wrong, if a slave says "good morning" and Bob wants to be a jerk so gets all put off....Well, tough titty for the free person, and simple opping will deal with that. However, mouthing off to a free person no matter what should be out of the question.......As an example if Bob replies, "what did you say to me you ^#$$#&%&%%$^#&#$" Then the slave should either walk away, appologize though in right or whatever ALWAYS keeping their cool and yielding.

If Bob then takes further action (physically), then he should be breaking the law. However railing on a slave because you're having a bad day and the slave having to just deal with it is the nature of the beast.

It's NOT right...It is very wrong and cruel. That however is the point.....Just like all negative aspects of life be they word or action, it's those aspects that make the good want to overcome such, and just like rape, bigotry, masogyny, theft, violence, etc.....adds the spice to the game as we all know it IS bad and wrong.

K2

[Tawny]

That is where the non lethal spells and defensive spells and actions come into play. Of course again this would be nothing but the expected results, what a slave does IC is up to the char at the time. Then it would become rp including the possible report to the ISA and such.

[Stormbringer]

I'm generally liking the way the topic is focused on practical examples and I find myself agreeing with much of what has been said.

I do think in general terms there needs to be a separation between what society takes as a norm during interaction between slave and others, and what the empire considers useful in making and enforcing rules about. Things such as a slave's ability to use spells / weapons and harm another would tend to fall under empire ruling and result in action by the ISA. Other things such as a slave's demeanor towards a free person are covered better by social convention.

To take the obvious example, why should the empire care if a slave gives up her seat to a free person? IMO real life society was the better when it was a social convention that a young person offer their seat to an old one in a crowded bus. Not when overly PC councils labelled specific seats as being for that purpose and expected the bus driver to enforce it.

Translate that to Belariath. A slave sits around while a free person is forced to stand? Does the empire send in the IG to move her? F**k no! Don't be silly. Report such a thing to SB and he'll have the free person who made the complaint thrown into a duck pond to teach him not to be such a wimp. The correct response is for the free person to say 'shift your ass so I can sit down, slave' and to knock her out of the seat if she doesn't do just that. Then she can either walk away muttering under her breath and go whine to her owner, who *should* whip her for getting that bruise on her face, or she can attack the free person. At that point it DOES become the empire's business and the slave plus owner will be penalised.

On the general topic of penalties, when it comes to decide them, I have stated before that I prefer to see penalties which provide further roleplay rather than just fines and imprisonments. As an example, I'd much rather see a slave owner forced to wear an ISA collar for a week and taught how a slave can be trained by experiencing it for himself, than to see him fined 100Mhl and have his slave taken away.

[Kaytoo]

Just to give you an idea of what I am trying to build (as just began), here is roughly how a formal Charter or Code is being developed.........If you wish to contribute to an area, add something, please do....However at this time I will not remove or alter any aspect (think of it as brainstorming, add it all in then narrow it down after).

K2

[Thria]

Well i'll be happy to play devil's advocate to the charter when it's done, K2. Really restraining myself from doing it now lol.

I do have to add one extra caveat to SB's statement...

what the empire considers useful in making and enforcing rules about.

...and add in '....and is practicable in enforcing...'. There are lots of rules i'm sure the Empire -wishes- it could make, but could never feasibly enforce.

I know we discarded the concept of personal honor, but I think that is sort of the defining line between imperial law and social convention. As SB's example points out, the Empire would just laugh at the person who filed a complaint with the ISA. Now. Could said person go to the slave's owner and complain? Sure. The owner could just as easily laugh and throw them in a pond too, (after smacking the slave for getting the bruise.) I really wish there were more free persons in the game who DID do the correct response.

If you cant stand up for yourself, you're either a slave, or a potential one.

[Tawny]

After reading K2s post I have to say this. I can see you are putting alot into the research and posting but maybe your going abit too deep. This is a Game after all. I believe IMO that you need to bring the terms back to what everyone already identifys with. The simply terms of Slave, Owner,..IE Master or Mistress, Concubine and Free Person covers everything that people use in the game. Awhile back I private messaged Stormbringer with a write up on purposed punishments for different crimes by slaves for the slave and the owner. Right now I cant find it so maybe Stormbringer might still have it. Would love to work with you on the write up. If Stormbringer doesnt still have it, maybe I can still find it and if I can I will repost it. But I maybe wrong in thinking this way but is seems if you get to complicated with terms and such people will either lose interest or simply ignore the write up and claim they couldnt understand it and that could well be the truth. I like the idea of the write up just suggesting you simplify the terms back to what everyone alreadys knows and plays by.

I do think in general terms there needs to be a separation between what society takes as a norm during interaction between slave and others, and what the empire considers useful in making and enforcing rules about. Things such as a slave's ability to use spells / weapons and harm another would tend to fall under empire ruling and result in action by the ISA. Other things such as a slave's demeanor towards a free person are covered better by social convention.

I agree completely with this statement. The ISA is not going to get into every little complaint. If its a breaking of laws that the empire has sit in stone then yes you can expect the ISA to become involved, but the ISA has better things to do than smack the hand of every slave that refused to give up a seat for a free person. There should be rules and then there is the expected social actions of a slave. The social actions and reactions of a slave should fall to the owner to correct and handle if they are broken. However this doesnt give a free person open reins to beat a slave to the point of needing a healer simply because said seat was not givin up. I think it should be simple to understand. If a free person harms a slave to the point of needing a healer then the ISA will get involved if the owner files a complaint. If the free person simply smacks a slave for a preceived insult be it words or actions then the ISA would simply tell the ower to teach their slave proper manners and stop wasting the ISA's time if they come to file a complaint.

[Stormbringer]

Well i'll be happy to play devil's advocate to the charter when it's done, K2. Really restraining myself from doing it now lol.

I do have to add one extra caveat to SB's statement...

what the empire considers useful in making and enforcing rules about.

...and add in '....and is practicable in enforcing...'. There are lots of rules i'm sure the Empire -wishes- it could make, but could never feasibly enforce.

I know we discarded the concept of personal honor, but I think that is sort of the defining line between imperial law and social convention. As SB's example points out, the Empire would just laugh at the person who filed a complaint with the ISA. Now. Could said person go to the slave's owner and complain? Sure. The owner could just as easily laugh and throw them in a pond too, (after smacking the slave for getting the bruise.) I really wish there were more free persons in the game who DID do the correct response.

If you cant stand up for yourself, you're either a slave, or a potential one.

Haven't discarded personal honor, it's assumed as a social convention rather than enforced IC or OOC.

[Thria]

Haven't discarded personal honor, it's assumed as a social convention rather than enforced IC or OOC.

Well okay, 'discarded as an enforced concept' then

I think the point still stands though... that the line is between "This needs the Empire's enforcement" and "Take care of it yourself, wimp."

[Stormbringer]

Yeah its like with cars. If you can't afford to run a Ferrari, you don't expect the government to supply you with gas, you get a Nissan. And if you can't smack a slave around when she gets you into trouble, or you have to hide behind her in a fight, go get a concubine or buy a bottle of lube and look for a tree with a suitable knothole. Because the empire isn't going to deal with your trivial problems, only with ones it *needs* to enforce (or is able to put the resources into enforcing, to paraphrase Thria).

Haven't mentioned Tawny but yes, the second part of her last post sums it up rather well.

[Stormbringer]

Haven't discarded personal honor, it's assumed as a social convention rather than enforced IC or OOC.

Well okay, 'discarded as an enforced concept' then

I think the point still stands though... that the line is between "This needs the Empire's enforcement" and "Take care of it yourself, wimp."

There's probably a good case for bringing together various social conventions of Belariath society - those things which aren't rules but are taken to be the way in which inhabitants view the world.

And certainly in slave defs there needs to be a differentiation between convention and law.

[Thria]

"The Rules" and "The Unwritten Rules"?

[Kaytoo]

Still working on the list to be hacked at...had hoped for a bit more input yet guess most are waiting.....

K2

[gwyneth{StWi}]

1. A slave should never touch a free person without permission. In cases where aid is to be rendered to a free person, the free person should take that into consideration.
2. A slave should make way for a free person when walking toward one another.
3. A slave should yield their seat to a free person if told regardless of the availability of others.
4. A slave should never verbally contradict a free person without asking if they may offer what they know and then do so in a non-insulting manner.

In this girl's opinion, these are more "social" rules rather than things the ISA would enforce. Important, but something the Free in question and the Master would handle on a case by case basis (can think of important exceptions to 1 and 4... there are times a slave knows something a Free does not and *really* needs to impart that information for example).

5. A slave upon recognizing they have offended a free person should apologize verbally.
6. A slave when feeling threatened either verbally or physically should not respond in kind. Instead taking the position of pleading.

Rule 5 *may* be isa enforceable if it becomes a habit or a pattern of behavior rather than an accidental incident.
Rule 6, well... if gwyneth is physically threatened, she won't respond in kind if she's not cornered, but she's not taking 'a pleading position' either unless it's someone she knows fairly well, and is fairly certain won't kill her. Just a random barbarian threatening her, for example, she's more likely to *run* then fall face down on the floor and wait to be injured or killed. Nor does gwyn think she should have to just lay there and wait to be attacked, that's just unnatural and not doing her best to protect her Master's very valuable property (herself).

Establishment of Imperial Judicial Arm Regarding Suloy:

gwyn doesn't think we need an entire judicial arm... the ISA is quite capable of handling things brought to them, though gwyn thinks sometimes it would be better if people took things to the Master or Mistress *first* before bothering the ISA with it. gwyn also doesn't feel the need for a whole new set of words for slaves. that's just unnecessarily confusing and in her opinion very very few will ever use them. gwyn can see endless discussions with new players trying to explain it, and then them using "slaves" thereafter, just because it's easier.

All un-owned slaves are considered a natural resource and therefor the property of the Emperor until claimed/captured.

With no slave class any longer, we don't really have "unowned slaves' unless one considers any Free person a potential slave. There may be submissive characters or characters who were slaves who could easily be slaves in the future, but technically, they are Free, and, unless they *tell* gwyneth icly they are intending to be, or looking for an Owner, she treats them as Free, period. gwyn currently has a couple of characters that fall into this catagory, they are unowned, but could easily be collared, and depending on who was doing the collaring, may not even object....but, right now, they are as Free as Kaytoo is. Really the only way to tell them apart from Free is through use of ooc knowledge unless they've told the slave that they consider themselves slaves icly. So gwyn doesn't see as this really needs to be in place with the current situation. The only exception would be unowned Tu`Turadil slaves, as they *do* have an ic marking, and would be 'a slave looking for an owner' by definition.

As to the rest, gwyn will comment once the actual laws section is filled in

[Tawny]

I dont think we need this part at all.

Establishment of Imperial Judicial Arm Regarding Suloy:

I completely agree with Gwyneth

gwyn doesn't think we need an entire judicial arm... the ISA is quite capable of handling things brought to them, though gwyn thinks sometimes it would be better if people took things to the Master or Mistress *first* before bothering the ISA with it. gwyn also doesn't feel the need for a whole new set of words for slaves. that's just unnecessarily confusing and in her opinion very very few will ever use them. gwyn can see endless discussions with new players trying to explain it, and then them using "slaves" thereafter, just because it's easier.

There is not that many complaints that come in and The ISA is very capable of handling any that do. I also said earlier that I dont feel we need abunch of new words for slaves.

2. All un-owned slaves are considered a natural resource and therefor the property of the Emperor until claimed/captured.

Again I have to agree with Gwyneth since we dont have a slave class that would be saying any free person would consider a unowned slave.
I do like the rest of the rules tho.

[Kaytoo]

Well I think from what you all have said some aspects are misunderstood...(my own fault though).

I'm not writing this up as an OOC list......Yet instead what might of been written IC. In kind a couple of points that seem to stick with you all let me address right off. Those rules you stated are not enforcable or should not be are not intended to be. They're a list of "suggested" guidelines as to behavior which would help avoid conflict. Past that follow them or not, it up to the individual (or IC the owner).

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

The worst thing that could possibly happen with all of this is have it turn into OOC issues vs. IC play.....The point to keep play going, and have it resolved in IC channels hopefully even increasing play more.

In fact, if done well....The rules, judges and so on should make it so "play" expands to more people, and gives more opportunity for interaction between characters that would of never taken place.

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

K2