Slaves and Shops

[Waldo52]

The wiki says that slaves are not allowed to own "property" on the surface. Does this include shops?

I ask because to my surprise I was recently able to bid on a Sencliff shop as a pirate and a slave. There was no "slaves cannot do X/Y/Z" notification.

I'm wondering if the pirate thing overules the slave thing in Sencliff, or if the restriction is supposed to be self enforced as opposed to game enforced, or if shops do not meet the strict definition of "property".

I'm wondering if I did something wrong, if the game isn't working properly, if this is fine because I'm a pirate, or if this is fine in general. I'm trying to figure out if this is a bug, a rules break or the game working totally fine.

[TheDoctor]

My concern is actually how a slave manages to get the ink in the first place.

[Cthuletta]

"Those with Slave Collars cannot own quarters, except a few designated places for slaves as indicated IG or a room inside their master's guildhouse. They are allowed to own shops in the underdark, or own a vault in place of a quarter. Slaves can not own property on the Surface."
From the Slavery page on the Arelith Wiki.
https://wiki.nwnarelith.com/Slavery#:~: ... %20Surface.

So I would go with 'no', as Sencliff is on the surface, even if you have ink. It'd be best to have a shop in the UD where slaves are allowed to own shops, but this is personal interpretation, so DM clarification would be best!

[Waldo52]

Agreed that a DM ruling would be best.

I feel like owning a Sencliff shop would be very authentic and true to my oddball character, and the game never stopped me from doing it. But I also get the feeling that I should be extra sure that this is even allowed.

I have a problem with the clarity of "slaves are not allowed to own property on the surface": where a house or estate is clearly property, player shops are more like hot dog stands. Is a hot dog stand "property"? One could argue that it is in fact property. One could argue that it is a small thing placed ON a piece of property.

Also, the language regarding owning shops in the underdark is a bit suggestive. Saying that a slave can own a shop in the underdark seems to imply that they cannot do so on the surface. However, there is no language expressly forbidding owning shops on the surface. Only owning "property".

I am not trying to engage in rules lawyering or trying to advocate for a friendly ruling. I'm bringing this to the attention of the community and the DM team to make sure I'm not participating in a rule break and for the purpose of clarifying similar situations should they arise for anyone in the future.

[The GrumpyCat]

Given that now slaves are Underdark Only (there's no sib or Sencliff option) I think that Slaves can only own shops IN THE UNDERDARK. That said, I don't think (and my colleuges can of course overrule me on this) that we'd object to the use of Temporary shops wherever.

[Waldo52]

Given that now slaves are Underdark Only (there's no sib or Sencliff option) I think that Slaves can only own shops IN THE UNDERDARK. That said, I don't think (and my colleuges can of course overrule me on this) that we'd object to the use of Temporary shops wherever.

So according to this ruling I should retract my bid on the shop or abandon it if the bid ends before I can do so?

[Kuma]

Given that now slaves are Underdark Only (there's no sib or Sencliff option) I think that Slaves can only own shops IN THE UNDERDARK. That said, I don't think (and my colleuges can of course overrule me on this) that we'd object to the use of Temporary shops wherever.

Untrue: you can still become a slave in Sibayad.

You're right that it was removed from Sencliff to try and open up its alignment range.

[The GrumpyCat]

Given that now slaves are Underdark Only (there's no sib or Sencliff option) I think that Slaves can only own shops IN THE UNDERDARK. That said, I don't think (and my colleuges can of course overrule me on this) that we'd object to the use of Temporary shops wherever.

Untrue: you can still become a slave in Sibayad.

You're right that it was removed from Sencliff to try and open up its alignment range.

You're correct! My apologise! Still the shop the player wishes to purchase is in Sencliff, not Sibiyad.

I've checked with the team however, and the ruling stands - Slaves cannot own surface property period.

[Waldo52]

Given that now slaves are Underdark Only (there's no sib or Sencliff option) I think that Slaves can only own shops IN THE UNDERDARK. That said, I don't think (and my colleuges can of course overrule me on this) that we'd object to the use of Temporary shops wherever.

Untrue: you can still become a slave in Sibayad.

You're right that it was removed from Sencliff to try and open up its alignment range.

You're correct! My apologise! Still the shop the player wishes to purchase is in Sencliff, not Sibiyad.

I've checked with the team however, and the ruling stands - Slaves cannot own surface property period.

I canceled my bid on the shop last night.

I humbly suggest that this restriction against slaves owning property eventually be mechanically enforced. A notification to the tune of "as a slave, you can not place a bid on this property" would be very helpful. I'm certain that something like this will happen to another player soon, and it just feels a bit off that the game did nothing to keep me from participating in a potential rules violation.

[Amateur Hour]

If I may say so, this is PARTICULARLY important for the Freeport shops, where the Charter makes it clear there will be "no evictions", which might make it seem like outcasts and slaves can own them.

[Rei_Jin]

Given that now slaves are Underdark Only (there's no sib or Sencliff option) I think that Slaves can only own shops IN THE UNDERDARK. That said, I don't think (and my colleuges can of course overrule me on this) that we'd object to the use of Temporary shops wherever.

Untrue: you can still become a slave in Sibayad.

You're right that it was removed from Sencliff to try and open up its alignment range.

You're correct! My apologise! Still the shop the player wishes to purchase is in Sencliff, not Sibiyad.

I've checked with the team however, and the ruling stands - Slaves cannot own surface property period.

Okay then, loophole question time here.

At the moment, slaves can rent quarters in Treadstone.

Mechanically, nothing stops them from doing so.

Intended, or unintended?

[Eyeliner]

Might be interesting if they could own shops... But any profit from sales automatically went to their master, not the slave.

[The GrumpyCat]

Untrue: you can still become a slave in Sibayad.

You're right that it was removed from Sencliff to try and open up its alignment range.

You're correct! My apologise! Still the shop the player wishes to purchase is in Sencliff, not Sibiyad.

I've checked with the team however, and the ruling stands - Slaves cannot own surface property period.

Okay then, loophole question time here.

At the moment, slaves can rent quarters in Treadstone.

Mechanically, nothing stops them from doing so.

Intended, or unintended?

Well, this was about Shops. We don't stop slaves buying shops in the Underdark, that's (currerntly!) fine.

However, Slaves can only own Slave quarters in general(*), and currently all those quarters are (last I checked) in the underdark. So no, a slave cannot own any quarters in treadstone at present.

(* Exceptions made for UD vaults, and quarters in a guildhouse owned by their Master.)

[Rei_Jin]

You're correct! My apologise! Still the shop the player wishes to purchase is in Sencliff, not Sibiyad.

I've checked with the team however, and the ruling stands - Slaves cannot own surface property period.

Okay then, loophole question time here.

At the moment, slaves can rent quarters in Treadstone.

Mechanically, nothing stops them from doing so.

Intended, or unintended?

Well, this was about Shops. We don't stop slaves buying shops in the Underdark, that's (currerntly!) fine.

However, Slaves can only own Slave quarters in general(*), and currently all those quarters are (last I checked) in the underdark. So no, a slave cannot own any quarters in treadstone at present.

(* Exceptions made for UD vaults, and quarters in a guildhouse owned by their Master.)

Okay, but mechanically they can buy quarters in Treadstone at the moment

[The GrumpyCat]

Okay then, loophole question time here.

At the moment, slaves can rent quarters in Treadstone.

Mechanically, nothing stops them from doing so.

Intended, or unintended?

Well, this was about Shops. We don't stop slaves buying shops in the Underdark, that's (currerntly!) fine.

However, Slaves can only own Slave quarters in general(*), and currently all those quarters are (last I checked) in the underdark. So no, a slave cannot own any quarters in treadstone at present.

(* Exceptions made for UD vaults, and quarters in a guildhouse owned by their Master.)

Okay, but mechanically they can buy quarters in Treadstone at the moment

Yes, there arn't any /mechanics/ to stop slaves buying quarters or keeping quarters anywhere, it's something currently Dms have to watch out for. If you know of a slave pc breaking the rules, do let us know. Perhaps at some point we can put in a mechanical limiter.

[Rei_Jin]

Okay, thank you for letting me know. I thought it was mechanically enforced, but... it's definitely something that has happened, and I will keep an eye out for it.

Filthy slaves, owning property...