DM Slavery Ruling

[Zombniac]

Hey thanks for the reassurance selhan and Endelyon. I have to reiterate that while I am pushing for the admins and DMs to reconsider this ruling, a player always and completely has ultimate say over whether or not their character is a slave or not. Forcible PC slavery is NOT a thing. Slave PCs also have a right to keep their items.

A drow making a slave carry something heavy while cackling evilly because they're struggling to carry them because the character is mechanically encumbered is not gruesome violence and detail. Gruesome violence and detail is graphic torture and gore like whatsittoya mentioned. I also don't want to read about surgical vivisection. I just don't see the difference between being around evil NPCs that enslave other races, canonically do wicked things, and even ask the player to kill escaped slaves during a low level Sshamath quest versus two consenting players engaging in the same exact themes.

I just don't agree with eliminating an arguably major roleplay function for evil-aligned players because of a couple bad apples nor because someone else that doesn't engage in it, doesn't like it (again, assuming there's a safe amount of rules surrounding the function which there absolutely can be). Once again, two of those rules being that graphic torture and gore isn't introduced and there are zero romantic themes between slaves and slave masters.

There's really not much else I can think of, but let me know if you have any questions.

[Young Werther]

If you're really gung-ho about playing a slave maybe try being an indentured servant this time around.

[Zombniac]

It's mainly about supporting the Underdark and building its playerbase. Playable goblins, kobolds, gnolls, troglodytes and orogs would also be amazing. I'm certain that it would get some economy going.

[GholaMan]

Right, interesting discussion. If you dont know, i'm very much a longtime UD player on the server, most of my characters are UD side. Most of what I want to say about slavery in RP has been said by selhan, endelyon, DM ghost. Zombniac does bring up some good points though that I would like to go over. The first and most obvious point is that there are NPC slaves in Sshamath, you can buy bugbears to carry your stuff and there is a quest for killing escaped slaves. However that is as far as the slavery part goes in the UD unfortunately that isn't enough slavery. If i remember correctly canonically the school of enchantment has an absolute massive slave trade going on via domination then shrinking the slaves to fit into bottles. This is just part of a bigger issue in the UD which is a lack of canonical representations of the setting. And every time someone that primarily or exclusively plays in the UD brings this up in a discussion there is always the argument of "This server doesn't follow canonical lore already, its not on the same timeline" etc. I would like to point out, that isn't a real argument, and this argument in the context of UD lore is always brought up by someone that doesn't play in the UD. I'll give an example of why it isn't a real argument.

Since the server has already deviated from canonical lore and player agency is important in directing the story of the server then we should allow Chaotic Evil paladins. Uh yeah no we shouldn't not in a hundred years, why? Because it's a major violation of lore and you can already just play a blackguard right?

To people that play in the UD and love the UD lore for what it is, many of the decisions regarding UD role play have been this egregious to the UD player base. And when the players complained to the staff well, basically we get told too bad, or the trite and illogical argument that because the server has its own lore so canonical lore doesn't matter. Which you would never see that argument when applied to the role play that happens on the surface realm, you might see someone say canonical lore is X, and another person say, well on the server its like Z. And that is fine, but the staff of this server need to put their foot down on this issue and come out and just say canonical lore for the UD is important and will be followed unless there was prior RP or a specific reason to deviate, just like is already done on the surface.

I know its never been a priority of the staff to do this, and the result of that is an abysmal UD population, a lot of people have played in the UD over the years, the vast majority of them just moved to different servers. Yes as a lack of respect for the UD lore, among other reasons, but always is that one of the reasons people who love the UD setting of Faerun quit playing on the server. And that is just the very tippy top of the iceburg that are the problems with the UD.

So what does all that have to do with allowing or disallowing PC slaves? Here is my gripe about how slavery in the UD is handled, its just not pervasive enough, slaves are on a total of two maps on the entire UD, and there are technically three interactions involving slaves in the UD. One on the slave killing quest, one when the svirf in glouras mentions he used to be a slave, and the third is when you can buy a bugbear. Do I honestly thinking allowing PC slaves will fix this? No, honestly I don't it will, for several reasons

First reason is that perhaps to many people's dismay, I'm sure including Zombniac is that according to canonical faerun lore Drow do not take adventurers as slaves. So there actually is no lore basis for drow raiding parties to take PC's as slaves, the reason is because adventurers are seen as far too dangerous to take as slaves. And that makes perfect sense, drow want slaves they can control and will always be more powerful than, so it really doesn't make sense to try and maintain control over someone that has the potential to become more powerful than you. Its important to note that drow interact differantly with adventurers than they would say a peasant farmer, artisan, merchant etc. They understand that a priest of a god or a paladin, wizard or cunning rogue is far more powerful than the average human, they are exceptional. So in lore drow treat adventurers as either a threat, a tool if they can be manipulated and used, or a combination of both. It would be very atypical for a drow to take an adventurer as a slave.

Another reason I dont think PC slaves will fix the UD setting in its current state is because the vast majority of slaves that drow have are from races that aren't even playable. Most slaves in the UD are gobliniod, lizardmen, minotaur, and orcs. Yes orcs are playable, but they still make up a much smaller portion of slaves in the UD that are owned by Drow. The majority of playble races on the server make up a tiny minority of the slaves in the UD according to the lore of faerun, humans, elves, and dwarves are in the minority when it comes to slaves. Furthermore, Sshamath wouldn't allow a human, elf or dwarf as a slave since they are classified as beings capable of sorcery, which is another canonical reason not to have PC slaves.

With all of that being said, if we already disallow ERP, and torture then really It should be okay as a compromise for people to play in the UD as someone's servant. Which fits more with the server's rules already and will give UD players a sense of being able to lord over and act evil toward a person that can actually interact back with you and not an NPC you cannot interact with. But that would require allowing surface characters to be able to choose to spawn in the UD like genasi and tieflings can which I personally would be okay with. Plus it would let someone who wants to play as the evil person's henchman be able to do, and do so within the context of whatever RP the two of them want to do within the limits of the server's rules.

[GholaMan]

It's mainly about supporting the Underdark and building its playerbase. Playable goblins, kobolds, gnolls, troglodytes and orogs would also be amazing. I'm certain that it would get some economy going.

Personally I would love to be able to go round up some kobolds as slaves for Sshamath, drow houses etc, but we have to swim through a sea of red tape before actually interacting with the server on that kind of level.

[selhan]

Maybe they can make Slave Familiars like Kobolds etc. Much like the pets you can buy. Might work for rp in regards to the Drow side of things. Gives the UD controllable slaves that are not other players but themselves, and it would avoid making others uncomfortable. Lets do lean back and take that deep breath while looking over other things..currently we even got peoples hands that get cut off..ijs..removal of limbs ..has already been a thing and Im pretty sure it was as the request and consent of the player losing a limb. Responsible gameplay at the end of the day is what matters to help enjoy and protect our server. IF I aint read wrong, Endelyon said this is open for input, so lets do think out the box and look at all angles and scenarios so the UD can get something to help with RP down there.

IF ppl are confused in what im trying to say above its something in the lines of this..

01 - Pet collar purchase from npc, much like the cats and dogs and hawks etc. But instead it be something of a race used for UD Slavery ie, Kobolds, bugbears, surface races.

That way the character that makes such the purchase is the only one to control their purchase slave like the current pet system. At the same time I would think such pet collars only be purchased in Evil aligned areas. Why? Maybe someones wants a labor force, servant or maybe someone on the surface wants to sale to the drows for profits. It promotes them seeking the UD to buy/sale slaves thus promoting RP opportunity without traumatizing players in a negative way.

I guess some fine tuning and rules to be overlooked in such a thing would be warranted but it one gives the UD their slaver RP , A surfacer their Surface Traffic/smuggling RP and the server is still without "Player Slaves" to avoid a harmful drama of a mess.

Man I do miss Deekin from nwn1 !

[Zombniac]

It's mainly about supporting the Underdark and building its playerbase. Playable goblins, kobolds, gnolls, troglodytes and orogs would also be amazing. I'm certain that it would get some economy going.

Personally I would love to be able to go round up some kobolds as slaves for Sshamath, drow houses etc, but we have to swim through a sea of red tape before actually interacting with the server on that kind of level.

I agree with everything you wrote! I'd especially like to be able to interact in the ways you described. NPC slaves are not the same as player servants but should also have a place. Like if the kobold players captured my gnome and wanted ransom or to start a dark ritual. As for playing a monster myself, I'd totally be down to play one that serves a drow house. And if that doesn't work, maybe even start a clan or tribe.

[Ewe]

I think people in general prefer to avoid RP'ing in detail things that are unethical in real life (racism, slavery, torture, gratuitous violence, mutilation, so on).

My other concern is that it's a slippery slope, especially when Drow Matrons are concerned to lead to RP that is not considered pg-13 by our rules. If this were an 18+ server I would say it wouldn't matter so much, but Drow are heavily sexualized in most all of their artwork and placed in extreme power dynamics.

That and considering minors have expressed interest in playing slaves in the past due to it seeming exciting and more grownup is really concerning to me.

So in short, unless we move to an 18+ server I vote against it.

[Zombniac]

I think people in general prefer to avoid RP'ing in detail things that are unethical in real life (racism, slavery, torture, gratuitous violence, mutilation, so on).

My other concern is that it's a slippery slope, especially when Drow Matrons are concerned to lead to RP that is not considered pg-13 by our rules. If this were an 18+ server I would say it wouldn't matter so much, but Drow are heavily sexualized in most all of their artwork and placed in extreme power dynamics.

That and considering minors have expressed interest in playing slaves in the past due to it seeming exciting and more grownup is really concerning to me.

So in short, unless we move to an 18+ server I vote against it.

I believe drow matrons are already in the server? There is no slippy slope. There are PG-13 servers with a thriving Underdark population because they're given the resources and investment and there's no looming problem. There's a reason why GholaMan mentioned that Underdark players have migrated elsewhere. I haven't played nearly as long as them or you but I can see why.

My general opinion is that the Underdark needs heavy revision. GholaMan put it better into words, so I won't go too in-depth about it. There ARE people that prefer to play in the Underdark because they love its lore and setting even more than the surface world. But you won't keep those players unless you invest in them. If you invest in them, the population will grow. And so long as there's proper rules in place, the issues that other players are pointing out are not as big as they're being made out to be.

Also I can't wait for that gnome settlement to be finished so there can be a svirfneblin spawn option that isn't with the drow. Because that's weird. Drow and monsters are enemies to svirfneblin.

[Arcavius]

If someones toon is a slave and their master commands them to do something and this makes them feel uncomfortably then they shouldn't have been roleplaying a slave in the first play. If someone is actually "raping" their slaves then they need to be removed from the server, it shouldn't have came to this point anyway. Do the DMs not monitor what is going on in their game? I mean that is the role of the dungeon master, no? Maybe have an application that needs to be approved by DM or maybe make a custom class (slave) that is only allowed creation by previously known RPers( aka those the DMs know are not going to around raping people). It's possible to allow slavery and ban RP porn. You put a set of rules in place and if people do not follow them then they get the boot, it really is that simple. If this is seriously a problem then you need to just delete the Underdark completely. This whole "don't want to make people that are RPing slaves feel uncomfortable" is kind of ridiculous. YOU SHOULDN'T BE RPING A SLAVE IN THE FIRST PLACE. I'm doing my best not to come off as blunt/a d**k and still articulate my opinion correctly(can't even get my thoughts fully together because of how much this just blows my mind) but I mean it really just comes down to exactly that, if anything that has to do with slaves AT ALL makes you or were to make you feel uncomfortable then you shouldn't be RPing a slave in the first place. Period. That simple. Make a custom class, make it application required to RP a slave/master, etc.

[JustAnotherGuy]

I believe drow matrons are already in the server? There is no slippy slope. There are PG-13 servers with a thriving Underdark population because they're given the resources and investment and there's no looming problem.

Could you name a few of these servers? In NWN2, if you look at the "thriving" servers, we have:

BGTSCC
Sigil
Haven
The Rise of NeverwinterZ

Haven's Rating:

The Haven persistent world multiplayer module is open only to players over the age of 18 due to adult content and mature themes.

TRoN's Rating:

This is a PG-21 server.

Sigil doesn't have a stated rating that I could find easily, but I've played there and know that they allow nudity (in public) and ERP (in private), making them automatically an 18+ server.

Perhaps there's a server with a thriving underdark population that remains PG13 on NWN1, but there definitely isn't on NWN2.

If someones toon is a slave and their master commands them to do something and this makes them feel uncomfortably then they shouldn't have been roleplaying a slave in the first play.

This is exactly the attitude that leads to the issues of slavery on a server. Someone makes a slave, because they trust someone else. One or both people change, and suddenly the slave is uncomfortable with it; but since they've been told, "If you were going to be uncomfortable with it, you shouldn't have made a slave", then they feel pressured into doing things they aren't comfortable with.

This happens even in non-slave situations. I've had toons that had budding romances with other PCs that I've had to cut off, because the more the toons were around each other, the different they became, and I became uncomfortable with the romance between the toons. Should I have never played my toon in the first place? I've also had other RP that was purely innocent IC, but had to then remove myself from, because as it wore on I could tell it was becoming OOC for some people. This happens with PvP, conflict RP, romance RP, stealth/intrigue RP, political RP, and much, much more. But the difference with these and slavery is, there is a much bigger peer pressure to continue when you don't want to with slavery RP.

Now, someone mentioned the idea of NPC slaves. As I understand it, you can already buy an NPC slave. I would be alright with more races being able to be NPC slaves (as long as they understood the IC implications and are willing to deal with the IC consequences, such as being KOS in the wrong places) but I am 100% against PC slavery on this server. There's other places to do that. And I think it's telling that they are all 18+ (at least amongst NWN2 servers).

[whatsittoya]

Yeah the whole 'if someone throws an unexpected curveball at you and makes you uncomfortable, it's your fault' is some victim-blaming attitude.


The player of a slave is allowed to have standards and allowed to stand by them. The idea that said player is now obligated to be comfortable with anything and everything that might be expected of them actually makes the player the slave.

[Zombniac]

Yeah the whole 'if someone throws an unexpected curveball at you and makes you uncomfortable, it's your fault' is some victim-blaming attitude.


The player of a slave is allowed to have standards and allowed to stand by them. The idea that said player is now obligated to be comfortable with anything and everything that might be expected of them actually makes the player the slave.

I think what Arcavius is trying to convey is that if someone is generally uncomfortable with playing the role of a slave character, then they should just avoid playing as one rather than also try to stop other players that want to play as one. The precedent IS that a player has a right to certain standards and has the right and responsibility to say no from an out-of-character perspective. It's established that with proper guidelines (PG-13 or not), there is no problem with the system. If there is a problem then it's solely a player rule-break.

As for PG-13 versus 18+ servers, more of the PG-13 servers are on Neverwinter Nights: Enhanced Editon. But given how closely similar these two games are, it's not relevant. Right?