Master/Slave AU thread

Okay folks, if you have any suggestions for yet another new AU approved by our lovely admins *coughIvancough*, please do post it here. I know we had some discussion going in the chat (can't copy/past or she would), but just so we can work out the...details *shot for missing the obvious pun*

Things to think about
- Locations (i.e. Mansions, dungeons, etc) for our RPs to take place in
- Debt slavery versus just being a huge difference in social classes, or both?

GO FORTH AND DISCUSS SO WE CAN GET THIS UP! >D

(I mean...pie?)

Here is basically the copy pasta'd gist of our plotting after Russia approved it.


Flying is learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss. says (6:07 AM):
*(( AU where there's no human rights, a gigantic split between the rich and the poor. The poor are too poor to even afford scraps, and the only way to survive is to sell themselves to the rich. How about that for a quick idea? ))
5th year Kiku: searching for his pillow says (6:07 AM):
*(*wants pie and russian ass time for this* XD)
Ivan Braginski [bad-ass bouncer] says (6:07 AM):
*((I approve.))
Huffletoni says (6:07 AM):
*(oooo~)
*(i like the idea of debtslavery)
Ivan Braginski [bad-ass bouncer] says (6:07 AM):
*((*stamps with stamp of approval all over that fucking idea*)
Huffletoni says (6:08 AM):
*(...but mostly because of headcanon gambler toni)
Ivan Braginski [bad-ass bouncer] says (6:08 AM):
*(Ehehehe~)
5th year Kiku: searching for his pillow says (6:08 AM):
*((*gets hand stamped* yay! I can ride the ride!)
Huffletoni says (6:08 AM):
*(i think maybe putting a value on your freedom might be a better way to say it?)
Huffletoni says (6:09 AM):
*(because the idea of selling yourself into it is less revolting to the masses - less chance of uprising - than being forced into it.)
Flying is learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss. says (6:09 AM):
*(( Sure, we're going to word it better. But yeah, just quick way to explain it here. ))
Huffletoni says (6:09 AM):
*(and your kids don't belong to anyone...your master feeds and clothes them etc, at 18 they go do whatever they want)
Flying is learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss. says (6:10 AM):
*(( Also possibly a rule that we have to keep Masters and slaves equal just so we don't get a huge number of one group and not enough of the other. ))
Huffletoni says (6:10 AM):
*(*might have thought about this    a lot     some*)
*(anyway, SHOWERTIME don't decide anything without me or i'll cry)
5th year Kiku: searching for his pillow says (6:11 AM):
*(hmm...to be a slave...or master...dammit choices!)
*(pfft, I will post up a thread on the forum to discuss it ^^)

Okay just remembering to add here. Two things to ask people about.

- Should we set this in a fictional country?
- How modern is this world going to be? On par with our own, or will there be more inventions/less technology around?

And I lied, I just decided to ask this while typing this up and it's easier for me to ask here. (No did not discuss this with anyone, but I'm asking here anyway)
- Should we at any point have the slaves not "owned" so that for those of you not paired off with a master, has a chance to found by one? Also, some idea of Master to slave ratio, so we don't get too many slaves and not enough masters, or vice versa?

Here are my personal answers...which doesn't mean they are the right ones...to your questions~ <3

- Fictional country?

I say yes. I think it'll be a little more ideologically sensitive/tasteful...not to mention more inventive to do it in our own fictional place. ^^

- How modern is this world going to be? On par with our own, or will there be more inventions/less technology around?

I could honestly see this world going either way. At first, I was going to say less technology, as differences in social classes and those in debt are more noticeable...but of course those things can be easily spotted even in a very futuristic setting. *isn't thinking of an anime...no she isn't*

And I lied, I just decided to ask this while typing this up and it's easier for me to ask here. (No did not discuss this with anyone, but I'm asking here anyway)
STOP LYING! YOUR CAKE WAS A LIE LAST NIGHT FRANCEEEEE *pouts* <3

- Should we at any point have the slaves not "owned" so that for those of you not paired off with a master, has a chance to found by one? Also, some idea of Master to slave ratio, so we don't get too many slaves and not enough masters, or vice versa?

I say allow some slaves to run around without Masters, just like some people can run amok and unowned in Eternal Darkness. I don't think there will be a problem with master/slave ratio, UNLESS we have something utterly ridiculous like 1 master/21 slaves (or vise versa...though the opposite problem never seems as bad as the former *shot*)

I vote that we let people just make their profiles first while talking it out. In other words, create the 'character database' section first, but no places. Then people can talk and make profiles/plans, and then once things seem organized and ready we can just quickly add the places and RPs can start. ^^

Yeah, the problem with deciding places is when you have a setup like this...probably many of the rps will take place in the masters' individual houses. Unless we have a specific setting where they would all naturally gather - maybe a pleasure cruise? - but that might just overcomplicate the AU.

Only throwing out some ideas here.

I did suggest it, so I'll reiterate my support of debt-slavery/slavery as a criminal punishment. That way if people decide they don't want to be a slave anymore, they can "work off their debt" - and masters who want to be slaves can lose their money somehow and be enslaved that way. It allows for more player freedom, instead of having your character locked in at creation. Also, it makes a more interesting narrative, in my opinion, to have a character enslaved for mistakes - either his/her own or those of the government or someone with power over them who set them up - instead of the personality cop-out in some Dom/sub books and worlds, or the subjugated people moral ambiguity.

If you're a slave because you fell in debt or were somehow derelict in your duty, there's less chance of some kind of moral outcry against masters, as long as the treatment isn't horrific. So say a character betrayed the government, the government enslaves them and auctions them off. No one's really gonna be upset if that slave gets mistreated. If you gambled away your money and your family couldn't support itself, again, people aren't going to be upset. But unlike a criminal-punishment enslavement, debt-enslavement you should be able to work off. Sort of a long-term indentured servitude, with your freedom coming sooner if you work harder.

On the other hand, if a character feels like they are unsuited to the responsibilities of a free life, they can sell themselves and have the money held in a trust or given to a family member. That way people who don't want to commit a crime in backstory or have a flaw like gambling can still be slaves. If that person decides they want to be free, they have to buy back the contract - again, the money they've earned with work can do it, or the original contract price.

You don't really "earn" money - that is, if you wanna stop being a slave, you don't get paid back-wages. The value of your labor is credited towards the price of your freedom. So, if Antonio fell $10,000 in debt, and he was enslaved for a year, depending on his master's generosity and the quality of his service, then the value of his work might cover his debt. But if he was sold for $15,000, $10,000 covers his debt and his new debt is to his master - who he owes $15,000. So he might have to work a year and a half. If he wants to leave with money, then maybe a deal is negotiated once his debt is paid - he'll stay on a few more months with room and board provided, and he'll leave with a few hundred dollars, maybe a few thousand.

But they're not making minimum wage, because the master is expected to provide everything for them: food, shelter, clothes, dental and healthcare...I think it would have to be a modern society, with modern values. The things they are "given" are counted against the value of their work - that's why Antonio doesn't even make poverty line wages (roughly $30,000 in some areas).

Does that make sense?

Well, we could have different places in that case, such as a block where the manors are located, an open market where auctioning/selling/buying/etc. can take place, and then maybe a central location where gambling/pubs/all other manner of temptationy things can go? *just throwing out suggestions*

As for the rest of it, it makes perfect sense to me at the moment (just ask me when I'm more awake to repeat any of it XD) and sounds okay to me. I think it still leaves things open enough for people to choose whether they want to be a master or slave...but also gives everyone the versatility to 'change' if things become unbalanced...or just to make more epic plots

Okay, so here's my lame attempt to summarize what's been going on. If anything is wrong, feel free to correct it so that we can get this AU rolling

SETTING
Time: Modern society with modern values
Place (aka subcategories): ??? (to be determined)

CLASSES/CHARACTERIZATION
MASTERS - The socially well-off who own and take care of slaves.
- Responsible for feeding, clothing, etc. both slaves and the families of slaves, as well as providing their benefits (i.e. healthcare, dental, room and board, etc.)
- Have a system of 'marking' their slaves (i.e. a collar, piece of jewelry, etc), which only they can remove via a key or some equipment. These markers have some sort of tracking device in them.
- Can buy/sell slaves to other masters or the government
- Have the potential to BECOME slaves, depending on what they do.
Examples
a) a Master gambles away/loses their money, they will have to sell themselves into slavery to work it off.
b) a master simply does not feel up to the social responsibilities of being a master, he/she can sell themselves into slavery. They can buy their contract back if they so choose at a later time.
c) a master commits a crime and becomes a slave as punishment. The length of their servitude depends on the severity of their crime.

SLAVES - those that are not Masters, but who work for them for various reasons
- the reasons for their working for their masters vary from punishment to debt to simply not feeling up to the pressures of the life of a master.
- Slaves can attempt to remove their 'markings', but it would take a considerable amount of effort (in other words, they can't just take them off)
- How much they 'owe' to their masters depends on the quality of their work, the debt they accumulated, etc.
- Have the potential to BECOME masters, depending on what they do.
Examples
a) A slave works off their debt to their master.
b) A slave earns enough to 'buy' their contract back

OTHER THINGS
(I was too lazy to think of their PROPER categories methinks)
- 'Government' is an NPC that is simply in charge of punishing/selling off slaves
- Master and slave are the main two social classes. However, with slavery there are different TYPES of slaves.
- The number of masters/slaves will fluctuate throughout the RPing in the AU, depending on the choices of the players, so even if we start out with an uneven ratio, things might even out.

IS THIS THE GENERAL GIST OF THINGS? Again, if things need corrected or if there are things that need added, please feel free to post and I'll try to adjust the above. I just figured it would be easier to look at a summaryish thing of what has been going on so that when the AU is created, we're all on the same general page ^^;;

We still might want "crime" to come with term limits. Thus, if you became a slave because you stole a car, the length of your sentence would be shorter than someone who became a slave for murdering someone.

Also, there's probably opportunity for a delightfully complex means of marking slaves based on status, but I'm going to go with something more simple and say the master can choose what his or slaves "marks" are - collar, type of jewelry, etc. The mark should not be removable by anything other than a single key in the master's possession or a great deal of effort and equipment (in other words, they can range from fancy to plain, but the main point is you can't just get them off when you feel like it.) Probably also there's a GPS tracker in it, if we're doing modern stuff. Escaping is just rude, don't you think~?

Okay! *edits the above* is that about the gist of things, oh lovely Toni? <3

And yes, I do think escaping is just rude. And as a representative of a very polite country, I'd be very upset if someone just up and left me *sobsob*

Yeah, looks pretty good~!

(also: lolololol yeaaaah how ruuuude~)

Antonio FernandezCarriedo wrote:

Yeah, looks pretty good~!

(also: lolololol yeaaaah how ruuuude~)

*sighs, relieved* I tried to piece together everything...I'm really glad it's to your liking. After all, this was your idea <3

(*clings to Toni* Don't leave meeee *shot* Well, that's what I get for being an island x.x)

I have only a simple thought on the issue of harming and killing a slave. Is it allowed/not allowed/limitations/different for each type of slave/etc? I know killing is not allowed in an RP, but I only add that in for threat reasons (e.g. if a master wants to threaten it even though we won't allow them to do it) or on the off chance someone does want to kill their character off.

Francis Bonnefoy wrote:

I have only a simple thought on the issue of harming and killing a slave. Is it allowed/not allowed/limitations/different for each type of slave/etc? I know killing is not allowed in an RP, but I only add that in for threat reasons (e.g. if a master wants to threaten it even though we won't allow them to do it) or on the off chance someone does want to kill their character off.

Actually, you can kill someone in a RP. They just have to be fine with their character dying off. XD

Therefore, the 'limitations' are generally dependent on what the RPers agree on.

(I'll give this more...attention when I'm awake XD)

Kiku Honda wrote:

Actually, you can kill someone in a RP. They just have to be fine with their character dying off. XD

Therefore, the 'limitations' are generally dependent on what the RPers agree on.

(I'll give this more...attention when I'm awake XD)

Should have been more specific. I meant godmode killing XD Sorry I just don't usually think to add that.

Francis Bonnefoy wrote:

Kiku Honda wrote:

Actually, you can kill someone in a RP. They just have to be fine with their character dying off. XD

Therefore, the 'limitations' are generally dependent on what the RPers agree on.

(I'll give this more...attention when I'm awake XD)

Should have been more specific. I meant godmode killing XD

Usually god-modding of any kind is not permitted in the RPing...do you mean say, the NPCs (i.e. the government or representative of the government) killing someone?

(again, might be asking stuff that's RIGHTTHAR in your post...so forgive me if my answers are silly X.x)

Kiku Honda wrote:

Usually god-modding of any kind is not permitted in the RPing...do you mean say, the NPCs (i.e. the government or representative of the government) killing someone?

(again, might be asking stuff that's RIGHTTHAR in your post...so forgive me if my answers are silly X.x)

Go to sleep. I think you'll understand what I meant clearer when you wake up. *shoves to bed* Goodnight.

Francis Bonnefoy wrote:

Kiku Honda wrote:

Usually god-modding of any kind is not permitted in the RPing...do you mean say, the NPCs (i.e. the government or representative of the government) killing someone?

(again, might be asking stuff that's RIGHTTHAR in your post...so forgive me if my answers are silly X.x)

Go to sleep. I think you'll understand what I meant clearer when you wake up. *shoves to bed* Goodnight.

That I shall! I just know that god-modding by players is not allowed. NPC god-modding would kinda be like player god-modding, since no one is really 'in charge' of the AU. So basically, it would just have to be someone...agreeing to have their character killed off. By what means is kinda up to them...if that...makes sense.

NOWTOBEDWITHME! >D

Francis Bonnefoy wrote:

I have only a simple thought on the issue of harming and killing a slave. Is it allowed/not allowed/limitations/different for each type of slave/etc? I know killing is not allowed in an RP, but I only add that in for threat reasons (e.g. if a master wants to threaten it even though we won't allow them to do it) or on the off chance someone does want to kill their character off.

OKAI! Lemme try this again, now that I'm supposedly more awake XD

1. You can kill someone IF they are okay with having their character killed off.
2. Threatening to kill someone? That kinda happens all of the time, even if the character never actually DIES in the end. So yes, you can threaten to kill someone.
3. This kinda falls under what Spain said. If a person is sold into slavery for say, killing someone, than mistreatment isn't going to raise a lot of outcry. If someone sells himself/herself into slavery and then gets mistreated, then yeah, generally there might be some repercussions against that particular master (aka, they might be punished and made a slave). The master is responsible for giving the slave what they need to survive, as well as supporting the slave's family.

Limitations are well, you can't just up and kill someone unless they are okay with it, as THAT is considered god-modding. You can threaten all you like, but if someone doesn't want to die then you can't do it.

So yes, a slave can die...if the person's character is okay with it. This usually falls under talking outside of an RP, not god modding' etc...so I guess if you still have a question about my answers after I answer I am not quite sure what you are asking.

D-Did that help at all?

Kiku Honda wrote:

OKAI! Lemme try this again, now that I'm supposedly more awake XD

1. You can kill someone IF they are okay with having their character killed off.
2. Threatening to kill someone? That kinda happens all of the time, even if the character never actually DIES in the end. So yes, you can threaten to kill someone.
3. This kinda falls under what Spain said. If a person is sold into slavery for say, killing someone, than mistreatment isn't going to raise a lot of outcry. If someone sells himself/herself into slavery and then gets mistreated, then yeah, generally there might be some repercussions against that particular master (aka, they might be punished and made a slave). The master is responsible for giving the slave what they need to survive, as well as supporting the slave's family.

Limitations are well, you can't just up and kill someone unless they are okay with it, as THAT is considered god-modding. You can threaten all you like, but if someone doesn't want to die then you can't do it.

So yes, a slave can die...if the person's character is okay with it. This usually falls under talking outside of an RP, not god modding' etc...so I guess if you still have a question about my answers after I answer I am not quite sure what you are asking.

D-Did that help at all?

Other than one, which was what I meant with the "killing off a character" bit, yes it helped. But I also wanted to know the legal status of it in the AU. Such as will the government allowed slaves to be killed off, or not? Or will it be like a debt slave cannot be killed cause they owed the government money, but a private slave or a slave who committed murder they won't care. Damages running on a similiar principal with, what you said Spain already mentioned (point 3). Or for the purpose of this RP, should we treat them all like a serfdom regardless?

If this is too much to think of, could we go with the option of each slave profile having their own conditions on it, i.e listing what limitations their masters have on length of slavary, severity of harm, and right over life or death?

Francis Bonnefoy wrote:

Kiku Honda wrote:

OKAI! Lemme try this again, now that I'm supposedly more awake XD

1. You can kill someone IF they are okay with having their character killed off.
2. Threatening to kill someone? That kinda happens all of the time, even if the character never actually DIES in the end. So yes, you can threaten to kill someone.
3. This kinda falls under what Spain said. If a person is sold into slavery for say, killing someone, than mistreatment isn't going to raise a lot of outcry. If someone sells himself/herself into slavery and then gets mistreated, then yeah, generally there might be some repercussions against that particular master (aka, they might be punished and made a slave). The master is responsible for giving the slave what they need to survive, as well as supporting the slave's family.

Limitations are well, you can't just up and kill someone unless they are okay with it, as THAT is considered god-modding. You can threaten all you like, but if someone doesn't want to die then you can't do it.

So yes, a slave can die...if the person's character is okay with it. This usually falls under talking outside of an RP, not god modding' etc...so I guess if you still have a question about my answers after I answer I am not quite sure what you are asking.

D-Did that help at all?

Other than one, which was what I meant with the "killing off a character" bit, yes it helped. But I also wanted to know the legal status of it in the AU. Such as will the government allowed slaves to be killed off, or not? Or will it be like a debt slave cannot be killed cause they owed the government money, but a private slave or a slave who committed murder they won't care. Damages running on a similar principal with, what you said Spain already mentioned (point 3). Or for the purpose of this RP, should we treat them all like a serfdom regardless?

If this is too much to think of, could we go with the option of each slave profile having their own conditions on it, i.e listing what limitations their masters have on length of slavary, severity of harm, and right over life or death?

OHgood...then my brain is awake...er, moreso? *shot*

(Sorry about 1...it was just a mention of the general rule XD Force of habit x.x)

I don't think the government can stop them from being killed, but they can punish the person who killed them. I think if the person who was killed owed the government money, the government might add that person's debt onto the killer's debt...but we'd have to ask Toni if that's her mindset or if it's just me babbling and making up what I think she might say XD