Upkeep and Slaves

[silverpheonix]

When Ott and Janhorn got in trouble in Andunor, Ott got the prisoner collar and was told to farm 200 marble. It turned into an opportunity for her to hang out in Andunor, have fun, and talk smack about Janhorn while doing the odd marble run here and there. I liked how it was more imaginative than "lol we'll torture you in the Hub for fun".

No comment on the rest but I do have to say 'grind x resource' is not imaginative. In fact, torture can be more imaginative.

I haven't really seen torture be any more imaginative than "stand over there and be a combat dummy".

Ott could have done it as quickly or slowly as they wanted, involved other people, bought the district's own marble and gave it back, ran and removed the prisoner collar by other means. The agency was entirely in their hands.

[LurkingShadow]

When Ott and Janhorn got in trouble in Andunor, Ott got the prisoner collar and was told to farm 200 marble. It turned into an opportunity for her to hang out in Andunor, have fun, and talk smack about Janhorn while doing the odd marble run here and there. I liked how it was more imaginative than "lol we'll torture you in the Hub for fun".

No comment on the rest but I do have to say 'grind x resource' is not imaginative. In fact, torture can be more imaginative.

I haven't really seen torture be any more imaginative than "stand over there and be a combat dummy".

Ott could have done it as quickly or slowly as they wanted, involved other people, bought the district's own marble and gave it back, ran and removed the prisoner collar by other means. The agency was entirely in their hands.

I agree, if we are picky, a lot of things will be "not imaginative", from settlement rulership to running dungeons while holding 3 writs. It is always what we as players makes out of it. Some players love siting around the campfire for hours while they talk about things while others want to run out to dungeons and grind. Anything can really be imaginative and interesting based on the player and how they commit to handling it. And the resource gathering is of course just one of many alternatives!

[Ruzuke]

In the last two days seeing a slave dancing in skimpy clothes behind the bar and a second avarial in bikini chainail. I vote (if this was a vote) for slave upkeep. Or perhaps slaves while not working for their owners in the slave quarters area.

As it is right now it is free portals and leave to walk around for sexy time RP (not everyone just enough).

A system of up keep aside from clicking opt in would help a mechanical benefit of giving a downside to being a slave. As all slaves are owned by their settlement perhaps doing actions for the city such as gathering resources could be included. Is it boring? Perhaps to some, however being a slave should not be portrayed as a fun life decision. It is a bad thing. Paperwork and upkeep come along with it.

[Kuma]

I haven't really seen torture be any more imaginative than "stand over there and be a combat dummy".

Please understand that I do not mean this as an insult to you or any other when I say; "skill issue".

Roleplay is a skill and skilled roleplayers can absolutely perform scenes of torture beyond 'reduces u to 1hp several times with power metal lyrics rephrased in emotes'.

I suppose if the alternative is 'go get 200 wood' then I suppose that is better, I guess.

[The GrumpyCat]

I haven't really seen torture be any more imaginative than "stand over there and be a combat dummy".

Please understand that I do not mean this as an insult to you or any other when I say; "skill issue".

Roleplay is a skill and skilled roleplayers can absolutely perform scenes of torture beyond 'reduces u to 1hp several times with power metal lyrics rephrased in emotes'.

I suppose if the alternative is 'go get 200 wood' then I suppose that is better, I guess.

Firstly - some players also arn't comfortable with torture scenes? So even in 'evil*' settlments, if this were instituted, it could be quite a useful tool.

But more to the point - the thing is most surface settlments at least put on a front of being 'Good.' As such their options for punishments tend to be a little limited.

There is pariah, sure. That's OK I guess.

Exile is fine - but reasonably costly and limited, and also a bit of a 'We don't want to roleplay with you' situation, sometimes. It's good for severe situations sure, but can't (and shouldn't!) be used on a wide scale.

Other options for 'good' settlments?

*Imprisonment - any sort of imprisonment longer than a few hours to a day isn't really feasable.

*Death - Kill/bash - Which honestly? I find less interesting than resource gathering.

For settlments that arn't the underdark, this could be a useful tool? I would hope there'd be some strictures on it (including maybe being opt in? I don't know.) but yeah, it has potential?

*I know good/evil is overly simplistic esp for settlments ect ect ect, and honestly one can argue the morality of even enforced labout like this! But that's not what this thread is for.

[silverpheonix]

I haven't really seen torture be any more imaginative than "stand over there and be a combat dummy".

Please understand that I do not mean this as an insult to you or any other when I say; "skill issue".

Roleplay is a skill and skilled roleplayers can absolutely perform scenes of torture beyond 'reduces u to 1hp several times with power metal lyrics rephrased in emotes'.

I agree entirely.

[Marsi]

It takes like, a day to get that little coal.

Being sent to gather resources as punishment or to earn faction bona fides is so lame. It belongs in 2009, with hood checks and alignment murder doors.

When Ott and Janhorn got in trouble in Andunor, Ott got the prisoner collar and was told to farm 200 marble. It turned into an opportunity for her to hang out in Andunor, have fun, and talk smack about Janhorn while doing the odd marble run here and there. I liked how it was more imaginative than "lol we'll torture you in the Hub for fun".

It's lame because the task-giver doesn't have to contribute anything to the scenario. They are literally just assigning you, the player, a chore. And in this hypothetical, they now have a mechanical tool to punish/constrain your character until you do it.

Players who take risks and create conflict should be rewarded with ongoing role-play, not punished with isolating yard work. I don't think this is a very controversial line of argument.

[silverpheonix]

Being sent to gather resources as punishment or to earn faction bona fides is so lame. It belongs in 2009, with hood checks and alignment murder doors.

When Ott and Janhorn got in trouble in Andunor, Ott got the prisoner collar and was told to farm 200 marble. It turned into an opportunity for her to hang out in Andunor, have fun, and talk smack about Janhorn while doing the odd marble run here and there. I liked how it was more imaginative than "lol we'll torture you in the Hub for fun".

It's lame because the task-giver doesn't have to contribute anything to the scenario. They are literally just assigning you, the player, a chore. And in this hypothetical, they now have a mechanical tool to punish/constrain your character until you do it.

Players who take risks and create conflict should be rewarded with ongoing role-play, not punished with isolating yard work. I don't think this is a very controversial line of argument.

What's your alternative?

[Marsi]

When Ott and Janhorn got in trouble in Andunor, Ott got the prisoner collar and was told to farm 200 marble. It turned into an opportunity for her to hang out in Andunor, have fun, and talk smack about Janhorn while doing the odd marble run here and there. I liked how it was more imaginative than "lol we'll torture you in the Hub for fun".

It's lame because the task-giver doesn't have to contribute anything to the scenario. They are literally just assigning you, the player, a chore. And in this hypothetical, they now have a mechanical tool to punish/constrain your character until you do it.

Players who take risks and create conflict should be rewarded with ongoing role-play, not punished with isolating yard work. I don't think this is a very controversial line of argument.

What's your alternative?

Completely depends on the context of my character and the philosophy of law and order local to where the crime and punishment is taking place. I see the IC legal system as an opportunity for storytelling, not a means to boss other players around. For example, I've written laws that prescribe public spanking, trial by combat, ritualistic exile (not using the exile system, but in which the offending character is led by torch into the depths of a dark cave). There should be no "set and forget" style punishments, they should all demand the attention and creativity of the punishment giver. I'm not saying I like torture RP either, but that's a false binary, the possibilities are endless.

[Cnaym]

I do not see why everyone say "If player consent". That is not the point Im making. As I see it, most people agree to it out of "Sportsmanship". The mechanic is still lacking an "IC" countermeasure of equal level.

Just a little more on this. The way it works is that you walk to an NPC and they tell you the conditions for both, being a slave and being a prisoner. You get reminded that you can have the slave status removed whenever it bothers you by reaching out to a DM or use it as a long term stay. You also get informed that prisoner is exactly the same, except that you can take it off whenever you want to and no one single person gets to put their name on your neck.

Both are really just tools to show "i'm stuck here now roleplay can commence" to other players - even though we all know it's not really the case.

Whenever you make a new slave or get captured, people will also send you tells, get a feel for your character and ask you for long term goals, talk about their houses and such, just to make sure you are cool with it.
This is purely optional but so far happened every single time to me and I was positively suprised. Good on you Andunor players

---

The main issue why I think hardly anyone would ever do it out of sportsmanship is rather simple. Taking the prisoner collar lets you keep your quarter. The slave collar costs you EVERYTHING in that regard - Citizenship, Quarter and stored stuff in whichever place you lived at before.
More often than not it also ruins whichever plot you were part off, trust you had built up with or even your faith in entire governments. "They'd die before taking the collar, so they must be dead." is peak Arelith, how dare they are trying to survive lol.

Meanwhile the prisoner collar is taken more as a Andunor guest pass, even for visiting important people and such. You get the funny prisoner tag, you get the funny prisoner RP instead of "GET LOST OR WE BONK YOU." - a tag frequently seen around Cordor as well. They have nice prisons though.

[D4wN]

Is there any upkeep to keep slaves?

If not, why is there not? As it is, without chainbreakers and no counter measures, The whole server can technically icly become enslaved. Seeing that we have to pay upkeep on the surface to pariah and exile enemies of the settlements, I think there should be an upkeep for the slaves if there isn't. Since I requested new tools for the surface to use to counter the enslavement raids, non been implemented as it is often monster races doing the raids, there need to be some other way of handling this.

To respond to your original point here:

I wouldn’t say I’m personally concerned about the Underdark potentially enslaving the entire Surface, though I do understand where you’re coming from and the point you're trying to make.

Right now, all slaves are technically owned by the Slavemasters of Andunor or Sibayad. In the past, DMs have sent reminders from the Slavemaster clarifying that characters don’t truly own slaves, they lease them. Eventually, the slaves are either sold to someone else by selling them back to the Slavemaster or returned to them for release by paying a hefty sum (or freed by other ILLEGAL means). A potential addition could be a recurring upkeep fee for slaveholders, reflecting the cost of food, clothing, and the Slavemaster’s cut reinforcing the idea that these slaves are still ultimately his property.

[LurkingShadow]

Is there any upkeep to keep slaves?

If not, why is there not? As it is, without chainbreakers and no counter measures, The whole server can technically icly become enslaved. Seeing that we have to pay upkeep on the surface to pariah and exile enemies of the settlements, I think there should be an upkeep for the slaves if there isn't. Since I requested new tools for the surface to use to counter the enslavement raids, non been implemented as it is often monster races doing the raids, there need to be some other way of handling this.

To respond to your original point here:

I wouldn’t say I’m personally concerned about the Underdark potentially enslaving the entire Surface, though I do understand where you’re coming from and the point you're trying to make.

Right now, all slaves are technically owned by the Slavemasters of Andunor or Sibayad. In the past, DMs have sent reminders from the Slavemaster clarifying that characters don’t truly own slaves, they lease them. Eventually, the slaves are either sold to someone else by selling them back to the Slavemaster or returned to them for release by paying a hefty sum (or freed by other ILLEGAL means). A potential addition could be a recurring upkeep fee for slaveholders, reflecting the cost of food, clothing, and the Slavemaster’s cut reinforcing the idea that these slaves are still ultimately his property.

I know there is many other who put in their opinions in here. But I think most things been said already and I dont want to turn it into an arguement. But to answer this.

Yes, I think that should be an reasonable thing really. Since the surface on Arelith (and other settlements with pariah/exile systems) pay for people not being there. But slaves are really an asset but cost 0 after one initial cost.

[chocolatelover]

I think what the OP has been asking, is do the UD districts pay for upkeep of Exiles in resources just like the Surface settlements do, and I believe the answer is YES.

Most slaves in the UD were either captured from surface or actually created a character as a slave, if I am not mistaken. I have only seen a few UD characters becoming enslaved as punishment, and obviously that had to be accepted IC.

Could any UD district leaders chime in here.

[The GrumpyCat]

Is there any upkeep to keep slaves?

If not, why is there not? As it is, without chainbreakers and no counter measures, The whole server can technically icly become enslaved. Seeing that we have to pay upkeep on the surface to pariah and exile enemies of the settlements, I think there should be an upkeep for the slaves if there isn't. Since I requested new tools for the surface to use to counter the enslavement raids, non been implemented as it is often monster races doing the raids, there need to be some other way of handling this.

To respond to your original point here:

I wouldn’t say I’m personally concerned about the Underdark potentially enslaving the entire Surface, though I do understand where you’re coming from and the point you're trying to make.

Right now, all slaves are technically owned by the Slavemasters of Andunor or Sibayad. In the past, DMs have sent reminders from the Slavemaster clarifying that characters don’t truly own slaves, they lease them. Eventually, the slaves are either sold to someone else by selling them back to the Slavemaster or returned to them for release by paying a hefty sum (or freed by other ILLEGAL means). A potential addition could be a recurring upkeep fee for slaveholders, reflecting the cost of food, clothing, and the Slavemaster’s cut reinforcing the idea that these slaves are still ultimately his property.

I know there is many other who put in their opinions in here. But I think most things been said already and I dont want to turn it into an arguement. But to answer this.

Yes, I think that should be an reasonable thing really. Since the surface on Arelith (and other settlements with pariah/exile systems) pay for people not being there. But slaves are really an asset but cost 0 after one initial cost.

Well, how about this: Remove caps and costs of all exiles BUT! Exile now becomes opt in. The other player always has the right to refuse exile, if they don't like it. Just like the current slavery mechanic. Would that make everything more equal?

[LurkingShadow]

To respond to your original point here:

I wouldn’t say I’m personally concerned about the Underdark potentially enslaving the entire Surface, though I do understand where you’re coming from and the point you're trying to make.

Right now, all slaves are technically owned by the Slavemasters of Andunor or Sibayad. In the past, DMs have sent reminders from the Slavemaster clarifying that characters don’t truly own slaves, they lease them. Eventually, the slaves are either sold to someone else by selling them back to the Slavemaster or returned to them for release by paying a hefty sum (or freed by other ILLEGAL means). A potential addition could be a recurring upkeep fee for slaveholders, reflecting the cost of food, clothing, and the Slavemaster’s cut reinforcing the idea that these slaves are still ultimately his property.

I know there is many other who put in their opinions in here. But I think most things been said already and I dont want to turn it into an arguement. But to answer this.

Yes, I think that should be an reasonable thing really. Since the surface on Arelith (and other settlements with pariah/exile systems) pay for people not being there. But slaves are really an asset but cost 0 after one initial cost.

Well, how about this: Remove caps and costs of all exiles BUT! Exile now becomes opt in. The other player always has the right to refuse exile, if they don't like it. Just like the current slavery mechanic. Would that make everything more equal?

That is a very do or die scenario. And makes it impossible to punish people breaking laws if they can just oocly opt out of it. Since people said its not as many as I think who opts in to slavery when asked. This is not an solution.

Also. There is an big different.

One contains breaking laws and being an enemy of an settlement, the other is most of the time happening after being raided or ambushed on the road.

[chocolatelover]

I think you are misunderstanding what happens in the UD. They also have pariahs and exiles and must support them with resources. And exile/pariah happens for much the same reasons.

They just also have slavery which is an opt in.

[Rei_Jin]

This whole thing seems a bit... off.

Settlement leaders are rarely making their enemies who otherwise would be engaging in their settlement "slaves" in Andunor, as far as I know. I have never heard of a settlement leader using slavery as an alternative to the pariah/exile system.

All settlements that have elected officials, regardless of where they are, use the same systems in terms of settlement upkeep, pariahs/exiles, and elections. Andunorian districts, surface cities, they're functionally the same.

Slavery is done by individuals, not settlements. Why would a settlement be paying for slave upkeep, when a slave is not even tied to the settlement by any mechanic, including citizenship???

If the issue that the OP has is that slavery exists, well that's a different issue and has already been beaten to death.

If the issue that the OP has is that surface settlements don't have slavery as an option, then talk with staff about an alternate mechanic that could be used (as previously mentioned here, prisoner tags can have fun RP come from using them).

If the issue that the OP has is that slavery is "cheap/free", it's just another roleplay option and tool that is entirely opt-in and anyone can make use of. It has just as much of a cost as getting pirate ink does, in that you choose to get it, no-one forces you into it, and it has as much IC effect as the players around you want it to have.