Grievances About Slavery Thread

[Amateur Hour]

I ended up posting this in the other thread, but I think it's more relevant here.

I wonder if the simplest solution (so sayeth someone who's never looked at NWN coding, so take with a grain of salt) to people abusing slavery for purely mechanical benefit would be to put a literally-punishingly-high ECL increase (say, ECL +4) on slaves to dramatically slow leveling. Combine this with the revised writ system, it would completely destroy the idea of using slavery as a quick way to level and make it something you'd only deal with if you had a story you wanted to tell.

This said, I think every player who wants their character to persist as a slave needs to have prepared reasons why they will resist offers of help that almost any sane person would accept. Are they afraid they'll be hunted by their former owners? Are they suspicious that anyone trying to help will just try to enslave them themselves or is in league with their owner, trying to trap them? These fears will guide other roleplay decisions, so best not to try to make them up on the fly.

[Morgy]

I've enjoyed RPing slaves. I've had some exceptional players who have owned my PCs for a while. I think the concept works in the right hands, the same with any concepts. I've equally seen terribly RP'd classes/races many times, but this is usually just shrugged aside unless it breaks a specific rule.

The slavery system itself is very clunky and quite old. I would be in favour of a tool that can be purchased by Andunorians/Owners that can temporarily disable a slave, much like Blade Orb (Perhaps on a cd to prevent abuse). This ensures their is a strong mechanical advantage for slavers to control slaves, when they need to, hopefully addressing the issue of powerful epic slaves submitting for very little reason to their owners.

The Owner/Slave dynamic is fairly unique and can either result in some fantastic RP opportunities, or just being stood around in the Hub, ignored by almost everyone who isn't your owner (and sometimes even your owner).

Personally, I never had any issues finding a reason to be an obedient slave/controlled, because my PCs always had some leverage held over them to keep them obedient. There is currently a very interesting story arc going on I know of, that heavily involves slavery and various tools being put in place to prevent escape/disobedience. Now this -could- happen without the mechanical slavery tools, but having some mechanical power of slave PCs -is- useful, because often 'freedom' characters will try to rush a slave to freedom or to stay on the surface, until they are reminded about slave-callers being able to pull a slave back below.

As with all things on Arelith, it's really down to how players are RPing this situation, rather than there being a significant system problem.

[Edens_Fall]

I wonder if it's the word "slavery" and stigma that causes more issues than there really is. For example, if we replaced the word "slavery" with "Prisoner" or "Indentured Servant" and open it up to Guldorand and Sibayad.

Would that change the general public view on it and allow more appropraint RP and expectations?

[Wings of Peace]

Personally I think the slavery system is fine and its presence lends a certain amount of credibility to the UD as the evil town (because realistically Sib isn't a slaver town the way pvp rules are enforced there). Most of the complaints I see against it boil down to people who hate the concept at face value, and weren't going to engage with it anyway, cherry picking bad examples of slave rp while ignoring that these same arguments could be used against things like paladins with supremicist motifs which are wildly common. In the same vein, people will criticize it as being distasteful while being completely silent on the topic of Arelith sticking to the 3.x drow model that was pivoted away from specifically for being distasteful. Maybe not every slave is a Hollywood Blockbuster of character development but I just don't think most of the non-mechanical criticisms are actually meaningful beyond being a way for people to project their preferences on others.

[Griefmaker]

I too am one who really dislikes the slavery system as it is. There are some scenarios where it is done really well, but as many have pointed out, in general it is really only used as a direct mechanical advantage or the RP and actions are pretty atrocious.

Of course, I have my thoughts as well on some things that could be done to change slavery.

Slavery is permanent. There is no way to remove a collar once it has been OOC accepted by a player.
One of the things I LOATHE regarding slavery is what has been mentioned several times already: Slaves ICly can be helped and are in a position to be helped with others ready to do so...but the slaves OOCly do not want to be freed.

This has happened so many times that I now purposefully only create characters (even good aligned ones) who realize slavery is a "thing", but avoid it by ICly saying that it is something they cannot focus on or have no interest in and that there are plenty others in the lands whose goal is slavery/anti-slavery and to talk to them.

There is a lot of cool RP stuff that "can" be done ICly in regards to freeing slaves, but more often than not, it is not desired OOCly and so everyone is suddenly in an awkward IC AND OOC position. This happens so often and is a glaring sign that the system is not a good one.

Make it a double confirmation with OOC text IG when someone is about to get a collar (or roll up a character who starts off as a slave) so they have to agree OOCly TWICE and be informed each time in big bold red letters that if you agree to a collar, there is absolutely ZERO ways to get it removed. To no longer be a slave, the character must be deleted.

There can be plenty of slaves and anti-slavery RP and the like still, but there is always the knowledge OOCly on all parties that there will never be the outcome of the collar being removed (unless a character is deleted). It can be explained ICly too in terms of "special magic" or whatever too. This will prevent the awkward "hey, I can help you since you keep pleading to be free...oh, wait, you do not want it? Um...why?" which is a complete disconnect and adverse to RP.

Slaves' max level is 20
This one is a personal opinion of mine, but slaves are generally "dis-advantaged" people and should not be gods mechanically like non-slaves are. If a slave is to kill a master or someone who should be a god as compared to their lowly selves, it should be extremely difficult or require a lot of cooperation from other slaves our outside forces.

Slaves are not epic characters...they are typically the lowest sorts and more often than not dependent on others for things such as basic survival!

There are plenty of other ways a character can serve another without needing to be downgraded socially and mechanically as a slave. Indentured servitude, agreements, pacts, loyalty, magic, whatever. Those characters can be the epic infiltrators/assassins/bodyguards/cooks/smiths/whatever.

Removal of settlement services
Settlements get a new feature to be able enable or restrict the ability of slaves who are alone to enter the settlement, or use merchants/vendors, or travel (caravan/portal). A slave grouped with another non-slave character who is on the same map or even better, within a certain radius, can bypass these restrictions.

Laurick or other non-settlement services can also be set to restrict or enable their services depending on what the devs/DMs feel would be appropriate for the NPC or service.

This would allow settlements and their leaders to promote Anti-slavery or Pro-slavery standpoints through RP and mechanical means and would give additional RP avenues regarding slavery and its politics (since there would be no way to remove collars).

One issue with this is it would be work for the Devs to add this to the current system.


Admittedly, these three suggestions do go against the QoL aspect for players whose characters are slaves and make it a bit of a "trap" in some ways, but there would be more than adequate OOC notice beforehand about the drawbacks and in reality, it would make for a completely different way to play a character, much like the commoner class.

And if it were to make official PC slaves a less common feature in Arelith, so much the better in my opinion. There are plenty of other non-mechanically enforced ways one can continue with servitude ICly.

[Duchess Says]

I wonder if it's the word "slavery" and stigma that causes more issues than there really is. For example, if we replaced the word "slavery" with "Prisoner" or "Indentured Servant" and open it up to Guldorand and Sibayad.

Would that change the general public view on it and allow more appropraint RP and expectations?

I've said this too. Just make it "prisoner" or "vassal" or the extremely generic "binding". I am not going to say PCs shouldn't RP slavery if they want but the server itself should be agnostic about it. That would have the side effect of making it more useful to everyone if it could be used to make someone a squire, servant, apprentice +or+ slave.

Slavery is a horrific thing and the word is really loaded (perhaps moreso for Americans, perhaps it's more in the conversation now than 15 years ago when the system was introduced). It's just really tone deaf for Arelith to say here's a fun way to pretend you're a slave, but not really. That's not even getting into the sexual element (there are so many coquettish 18 year old "Cordor Farm Girls" enslaved I swear that has to be a code word for something I don't want to know about).

[AstralUniverse]

moving this here from the other thread.

A good writer can probably do a well-written slave--I've certainly seen people write characters who are subservient to another character out of sheer terror without invoking the slavery system--but other players won't necessarily be good-enough writers or generous-enough roleplayers to respect that roleplay choice. Mechanical enforcement of status is necessary.

Ugh.. read that again.. but slowly...

I mean, should bad roleplayers be rewarded with mechanical cookies for being bad? The slavery system doesnt really enforce anything. It's an easy start, and quite easy to get freed out of, and even if you dont, it's still a constant source of RP (and income subsequently) and freedom of movement both in the underdark and the surface. If the system is there to prevent bad RP , it does the very opposite. So as I said, good writers dont need this system to make good slaves and bad writers dont deserve this system to have easier time.

[Wings of Peace]

moving this here from the other thread.

A good writer can probably do a well-written slave--I've certainly seen people write characters who are subservient to another character out of sheer terror without invoking the slavery system--but other players won't necessarily be good-enough writers or generous-enough roleplayers to respect that roleplay choice. Mechanical enforcement of status is necessary.

Ugh.. read that again.. but slowly...

I mean, should bad roleplayers be rewarded with mechanical cookies for being bad? The slavery system doesnt really enforce anything. It's an easy start, and quite easy to get freed out of, and even if you dont, it's still a constant source of RP (and income subsequently) and freedom of movement both in the underdark and the surface. If the system is there to prevent bad RP , it does the very opposite. So as I said, good writers dont need this system to make good slaves and bad writers dont deserve this system to have easier time.

Just going to point out that the 'Good Writers' argument reeks of No True Scottsman and is incredibly elitist considering you could apply it to basically anything facilitated by a mechanic.

[Mike_mohawk]

I've not had the spoons to read every single argument in this thread. But I want to reply to the general jist of it.

I think the slave system is fine and I like how it works. I would want it to be more clear in-game that you can't force people into slavery OOC. But I'm not sure how that could be done.

If I had one big issue with the system mechanically it would be that the Chainbreaker quest, is quite easy to access for a slave that wants to run off, but it is very hard for a slavers to catch or do anything about it. Which means you're quite powerless to reign in a slave that is willfully rebellious or freedom-seeking, other than the chain-yoink and being very mean to it. I don't want total control over the slave in question, because the story is theirs, and the slaver is there to support that. But it lacks a bit of "cat and mouse".
I think it was Morgy who suggested a tool of some kind to help with this, akin to the slaveyoink. That can enforce a slower tit for tat escalation.

I would not want to support any movement to make slave characters second-class characters by limiting their level or the like, it would in the very gamey and pvp heavy envoirment of Arelith end up making slaves "Slightly better commoners" and just enforce their role as crafting bots.

If people feel uncomfortable with the themes of slavery, I understand such grievances. But I do not think making the system more punishing solves anything. I think we need to focus on better roleplaying and storytelling design in that case. How do we make the theme more appropriate and less problematic. Mechanical changes should be part of a design choice.
This is if the server at large wants slavery to be a theme, I myself think it's fine and that most of the slave rp is quite fitting for the setting.

--
On another note . I do agree with whoever said that slavery has kind of become a thing for andunor alone. Which kinda ends up pushing all slavery into a drow or underdark centric issue. I do think that if slavery is a theme that is approached on arelith, that it would be better to see different cultures being capable of the truly heinous act of slavery, so it doesn't just end up being "Underdark bad" but also be surface cities where good and evil live alongside eachother, and politically fight over this moral issue.

[Amateur Hour]

moving this here from the other thread.

A good writer can probably do a well-written slave--I've certainly seen people write characters who are subservient to another character out of sheer terror without invoking the slavery system--but other players won't necessarily be good-enough writers or generous-enough roleplayers to respect that roleplay choice. Mechanical enforcement of status is necessary.

Ugh.. read that again.. but slowly...

I mean, should bad roleplayers be rewarded with mechanical cookies for being bad? The slavery system doesnt really enforce anything. It's an easy start, and quite easy to get freed out of, and even if you dont, it's still a constant source of RP (and income subsequently) and freedom of movement both in the underdark and the surface. If the system is there to prevent bad RP , it does the very opposite. So as I said, good writers dont need this system to make good slaves and bad writers dont deserve this system to have easier time.

I am not referring to the slaves themselves in terms of roleplay. I am referring to everyone else who interacts with them. Roleplay is a two-way street. Without mechanical enforcement, other people can be jerks about someone choosing to roleplay as if they are owned by another character. "No you're not" can't really be argued against.

[RedGiant]

I like Griefmaker's points. Rather than do away with it, because it is just frankly a part of the setting, make the grinding atrocity it actually is reflect mechanically. It should never be considered an advantage, which, as others have noted, it currently is. I do like the possibility of a redemption arc, but this happens both too easily and in numbers way too large. Though there is currently a policy against spending an award on current characters, I almost want to say make it so that removing the status requires DM approval and the spending of a "major award." I think we will instantly see a drop in dabblers and underdark tourism. Moreover, maybe team evil will have to come up with scenarios other than "slap them in irons." Both are wins in my book.

[Wings of Peace]

I like Griefmaker's points. Rather than do away with it, because it is just frankly a part of the setting, make the grinding atrocity it actually is reflect mechanically. It should never be considered an advantage, which, as others have noted, it currently is. I do like the possibility of a redemption arc, but this happens both too easily and in numbers way too large. Though there is currently a policy against spending an award on current characters, I almost want to say make it so that removing the status requires DM approval and the spending of a "major award." I think we will instantly see a drop in dabblers and underdark tourism. Moreover, maybe team evil will have to come up with scenarios other than "slap them in irons." Both are wins in my book.

I don't know if I'd go that far but this was was part of why in the thread that I made I suggested making the books degrade with time. So that it would be more of a personal commitment to escape rather than a matter of sending a speedy to the relevant factions and asking for help from their stockpiles. Since imo the ease of getting help is a big reason it's not that big of a deal to plan on getting broken out.

[Sincra]

Controversial take here, we shouldn't make bad game design just because you believe it's "too easy" for some to depart RP they aren't enjoying or want to discontinue.

If they're using the mechanical system to advantage themselves, fine, report it, but you literally cannot own someone else on this server. It is a consensual agreement.

Let's not try and act as if we should design around making anyone risk having to permanently delete, not even behind 20 warnings, just because they aren't enjoying themselves.

We are discussing this internally however to decide the course we wish to take.

[Skibbles]

I've had one of my most favorite character arcs be in becoming enslaved, dealing with the horrors of the UD, clawing their way to freedom, and then ruling the Devil's Table afterward as one of the most unforgettable experiences for myself and even some others that still reminisce about this story years later.

The slavery system explicitly made that happen, and it was the engaging catalyst to get into the UD and its many horrors when I was a brand new player. If it was not an available mechanic I am very sure I'd never have even thought of it.

Simply toggling the system off just makes me wonder if I wouldn't have had one of the best Arelith experiences I ever had, and in that vein I wonder if it's just denying that possibility to others.

Yeah, slaves are roleplayed pretty questionably sometimes, or just plain break the rules, but that's - well. That's the case with just about anything. Maybe we just need to reawaken the ban policy. Sexy Elven fun time slave/owner? Banned. I doubt they'll be missed.

I'm more in favor of culling players than I am in culling narrative devices.

Lastly I just find it weird how triggering 'slavery' is despite that large swaths of FR lore, including on Arelith, strongly features multi-generational genocide, where PCs regularly engage in casual ultraviolet murder, occassional dismemberment, and alignments are so opposed that it's perfectly acceptable to RP as though people and/or creatures aren't even sentient beings and simply monsters to be erradicated.

Murder=Okay as long as you say something first.
Genocide=Huge part of the setting, but make sure you say something first.
Slavery=Too far.

If we want to be consistent we'd be better off just removing the Underdark, or the entire enchantment school of magic - with most of its spells based on robbing someone of their consenting faculties in some form or another.

TL;DR: Remove players, not narrative tools.

[noj]

I'm not a fan of the slavery system because I have, frankly, seen it be a bridge for creeps way too often. I haven't even been on the server that long, but I've seen a few complaints having to be logged because of the behaviour of certain people, and it's disappointing...

...OR...

...Am I just not a fan of creeps who are using the system to make unwanted advances on people and not taking a hint because they seem to think they're owed something? Oh wait, it's actually that exactly! The system is a narrative tool abused by creeps, remove the creeps from the equation and I have no problem with it.

Punish individual players on individual cases and I imagine a lot of the problems stop.

[AstralUniverse]

moving this here from the other thread.

A good writer can probably do a well-written slave--I've certainly seen people write characters who are subservient to another character out of sheer terror without invoking the slavery system--but other players won't necessarily be good-enough writers or generous-enough roleplayers to respect that roleplay choice. Mechanical enforcement of status is necessary.

Ugh.. read that again.. but slowly...

I mean, should bad roleplayers be rewarded with mechanical cookies for being bad? The slavery system doesnt really enforce anything. It's an easy start, and quite easy to get freed out of, and even if you dont, it's still a constant source of RP (and income subsequently) and freedom of movement both in the underdark and the surface. If the system is there to prevent bad RP , it does the very opposite. So as I said, good writers dont need this system to make good slaves and bad writers dont deserve this system to have easier time.

Just going to point out that the 'Good Writers' argument reeks of No True Scottsman and is incredibly elitist considering you could apply it to basically anything facilitated by a mechanic.

You can call me an elitist all you want. That's fine and I accept it. But... Yes.. There is good RP and there is bad RP, and some mechanics contribute in a positive manner and some mechanics just fail in practice. This is an example to the latter, as history has been showing for years.

I am not referring to the slaves themselves in terms of roleplay. I am referring to everyone else who interacts with them. Roleplay is a two-way street. Without mechanical enforcement, other people can be jerks about someone choosing to roleplay as if they are owned by another character. "No you're not" can't really be argued against.

If the slave in question RPs that they are wearing a slave collar and are scared of their master then I dont see how it's different IC than actually wearing a mechanical collar. That's my entire point in this thread actually. The mechanical collar doesnt really serve any point besides allowing you to level in the underdark as a none-evil human and have portals both up and down, as well as constant influx of gear/gold/acquaintances, regardless of your RP. That's the issue I'm observing. The system does not reward RP at all.

[Richrd]

Lastly I just find it weird how triggering 'slavery' is despite that large swaths of FR lore, including on Arelith, strongly features multi-generational genocide, where PCs regularly engage in casual ultraviolet murder, occassional dismemberment, and alignments are so opposed that it's perfectly acceptable to RP as though people and/or creatures aren't even sentient beings and simply monsters to be erradicated.

Murder=Okay as long as you say something first.
Genocide=Huge part of the setting, but make sure you say something first.
Slavery=Too far.

If we want to be consistent we'd be better off just removing the Underdark, or the entire enchantment school of magic - with most of its spells based on robbing someone of their consenting faculties in some form or another.

Abso-god damn-lutely.

[chris a gogo]

Hate the system it's just used to get a UD start for easy leveling on evil "surface" characters.
Tried to role play with various slaves over the years never found a single one that wanted to "escape" until they hit epics.

So now I have zero interest in slave role play from either side so yes I'm one of those players that now ignores anyone with the slave tag over there head.

[Marsi]

Lastly I just find it weird how triggering 'slavery' is despite that large swaths of FR lore, including on Arelith, strongly features multi-generational genocide, where PCs regularly engage in casual ultraviolet murder, occassional dismemberment, and alignments are so opposed that it's perfectly acceptable to RP as though people and/or creatures aren't even sentient beings and simply monsters to be erradicated.

Murder=Okay as long as you say something first.
Genocide=Huge part of the setting, but make sure you say something first.
Slavery=Too far.

If we want to be consistent we'd be better off just removing the Underdark, or the entire enchantment school of magic - with most of its spells based on robbing someone of their consenting faculties in some form or another.

TL;DR: Remove players, not narrative tools.

Because a static piece of fiction is very different from letting players - varied as they are in levels of taste, tact, maturity and motivations - take something and run with it in real-time, and subject other players to it. It isn't hypocritical to have Sable but forbid brothel RP.

It's just weird. I'd be equally uncomfortable if we had a genocide mechanic, even if the average PC kills 1000 orcs in their lifetime. It's just not a real comparison.

[Skibbles]

Lastly I just find it weird how triggering 'slavery' is despite that large swaths of FR lore, including on Arelith, strongly features multi-generational genocide, where PCs regularly engage in casual ultraviolet murder, occassional dismemberment, and alignments are so opposed that it's perfectly acceptable to RP as though people and/or creatures aren't even sentient beings and simply monsters to be erradicated.

Murder=Okay as long as you say something first.
Genocide=Huge part of the setting, but make sure you say something first.
Slavery=Too far.

If we want to be consistent we'd be better off just removing the Underdark, or the entire enchantment school of magic - with most of its spells based on robbing someone of their consenting faculties in some form or another.

TL;DR: Remove players, not narrative tools.

Because a static piece of fiction is very different from letting players - varied as they are in levels of taste, tact, maturity and motivations - take something and run with it in real-time, and subject other players to it. It isn't hypocritical to have Sable but forbid brothel RP.

It's just weird. I'd be equally uncomfortable if we had a genocide mechanic, even if the average PC kills 1000 orcs in their lifetime. It's just not a real comparison.

I disagree completely. To me this is practically a direct 1 to 1 comparison with the exception that murder doesn't require consent but slavery does. (Oops I forgot that logging in is giving consent to being murdered.)

PvP between Elves and Drow is almost entirely predicated on an ancient war that has become so loathsome and vile there can be no victory until the other is completely eradicated from existence: genocide.

This is roleplayed every day by players of all skill and sometimes characters murder and dismember one another while acting out the clearly genocidal aspects of the setting. Every step of the way is there and supported because it is a narrative tool in a well established setting.

One can roll up an outcast, who had become the victim of a terrible scandal, then go to the surface and be literally murdered and beheaded by someone based on nothing but hearsay from the local peasants. That's the monster policy and outcast tag rolled into one.

The community very much supports things like 'there should be nowhere completely safe' and 'pvp should never require consent,' with both sentiments strongly supported by the mechanics, rules, and player base - but then we have slavery which does require consent and now everyone feels weird.

[Zavandar]

the majority of times I have interacted with the slavery system have been poor

I most often saw:
Obvious sexy elven fun times bait
People using it to level
Obvious spies
Craft bots

And lastly, and most frustratingly, weaponized slaves. I lost count how many times as coronal I had a drow throw in my face "haha we have enslaved this elf (one that I'd rarely ever heard of and was likely rolled up to be enslaved to begin with) and you are bad if you don't free them. Same time next week?" Unsurprisingly, if I didn't respond, I usually never heard of the elf in question again.

I think people providing positive anecdotes of the slavery system are the exceptions that prove the rule.

[Watchful Glare]

I think people that have positive experience with slavery rarely interact with OOC such as the forums or Discord because they just play the game, considering such opinions can be counted with the fingers of either hands currently. The people that have posted Kudos for positive slave related RP are not currently posting in this thread, for instance, because they don't really use the forums that much.

[Seven Sons of Sin]

Would love to know how many reports/bans/questionable offenses have derived from the slavery system.

My hypothesis is that it's ranked 3rd in Arelith systems that cause grief, going,

1. pvp
2. theft/quarters
3. slavery

I have no idea how we can keep PG-13 with slavery as something PCs participate in. I have no idea why we cater an entire server around a nebulous, sketchy mechanical system.

I've never, ever had a good interaction with the slavery system under the current mechanical regime.

[VibeKings]

[...]Lastly I just find it weird how triggering 'slavery' is despite that large swaths of FR lore, including on Arelith, strongly features multi-generational genocide, where PCs regularly engage in casual ultraviolet murder, occassional dismemberment, and alignments are so opposed that it's perfectly acceptable to RP as though people and/or creatures aren't even sentient beings and simply monsters to be erradicated.

Murder=Okay as long as you say something first.
Genocide=Huge part of the setting, but make sure you say something first.
Slavery=Too far.

If we want to be consistent we'd be better off just removing the Underdark, or the entire enchantment school of magic - with most of its spells based on robbing someone of their consenting faculties in some form or another.[...]

I don't think many people have a problem with slavery existing in the setting, rather the way the system itself exists currently or that it allows you to enslave PCs, as far as a "bad taste in the mouth." I really don't think anybody is calling for a sanitisation of the setting so as to fall in line with modern post-industrial sensibilities. Like you said, nobody is calling for fighting monsters to be removed because violence is bad (even though IRL it's not controversial to say that it is). I'm really not convinced people want slavery removed because slavery is bad (even though IRL, it is). They have reasons they don't like it that are server, narrative, mechanic specific.

It is, however, quite fair I think to criticise the way the system works, or the manner in which slavery is portrayed on the module. By the latter I mean certain proscriptions on player behavior, an easy example of which is the "no romance/relationship/sex between master+slave" rule.

[MissEvelyn]

I like Griefmaker's points. Rather than do away with it, because it is just frankly a part of the setting, make the grinding atrocity it actually is reflect mechanically. It should never be considered an advantage, which, as others have noted, it currently is. I do like the possibility of a redemption arc, but this happens both too easily and in numbers way too large. Though there is currently a policy against spending an award on current characters, I almost want to say make it so that removing the status requires DM approval and the spending of a "major award." I think we will instantly see a drop in dabblers and underdark tourism. Moreover, maybe team evil will have to come up with scenarios other than "slap them in irons." Both are wins in my book.

I also like the idea of making Slavery a mechanically unpopular choice. Why are we so afraid of and so against 'mechanical traps' (your words not mine) when it is to the benefit of the setting and the roleplay? A slave should never ever be mechanically more powerful than the masters and mistresses it serves.

And if said "mechanical trap" is warned against twice and the player completely understands and consents to that kind of playstyle, who are we to take that cookie away from them?

So I'm in favor of Griefmaker's proposed changes. Slavery becoming a permanent choice that you OOC as the player consent to is a fine idea