Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Lyn Farel]

So, maybe it's the combination of slavery for (supposedly) religious reasons? Might very well be, as I met people in eve who have little problems with slavery á la Angel cartel, who had much more problems with Holders who apparently feigned religious motivation, but who had even more problems with Holders who were apparently honest about their religious conviction, especially if those were also believably benevolent.

Though I don't quite understand the why of this pattern, it seems to be what is observable. If so, I ask myself why? Maybe because people not only loathe theocracy, but even more so the (perceived) implication that in some cases theocracy might be justified?

That.

They are two distinct paths, albeit with some overlap.

On to your other points!

Here's the thing. There will always be those who won't play with a particular style of RP or character type. It's the problem with choosing a path in a social game. Someone will always dislike your choice for some reason. OOC conflicts occur as well. Dealing with these is the challenge, and dealing with them well is it's own reward.

Instead of looking at it as a case of exclusion, why not figure out a way to include those who decide on the "path less traveled" in other ways? When the world puts up a  "No Slavers Allowed" sign, why not put up your own "Only Slavers Allowed" to counter it?

There's always alternatives.

I do not think that would be very wise. Go on with that kind of escalation of ostracism and you will end up in a trench war of IC blended with OOC all over. It is NORMAL for an anti slavery character to organize a party without slavers. It is maybe normal for a slaver VIP group to organize one with only slavers as well, but that is pretty rare. As long as it remains purely motivated for IC reasons, fine. But here we are not speaking about minorities.

Then of course, there will always be someone that will dislike your choice OOCly. I have seen a lot of people litterally hating IC slavers and sometimes the player behind (since they do not seem to make the difference), considering that is probably the most common case of OOC prevailing on IC when the OOC feelings are strong enough to bypass everything that has to remain IC, but I have also seen cases linked to a lot of other conflicts as well (for example, anti Federation hatred of an imaginary blending Gallente = USA, etc). As long as it does not lead to OOC bleeding everywhere it is fine. I can't bear myself a lot of tropes coming from Geek Social Fallacies that Mata linked an article about in another thread, and the people playing "everyone are friend, and the people thinking differently than we do must be shuned and gratuitously mocked until the end of times", because this is what I deal with constantly in an OOC/RL basis. I just try not to make that bleed all over ICly since it has absolutely nothing to do with it.

I would even dare say that people are in their right to avoid their character playing with a slaver character if they think that they will not be able to overcome that OOC bleeding, and this is very respectful of them to think that considering what it takes to admit it, but this, as long as it does not go too far : if the player starts simply to ignore everything about slavery, then it is basically equal to deny the PF itself when the character will inevitably be confronted to slavery, since slavery is omnipresent in that universe.

[Nicoletta Mithra]

Why would I want to place "Only slavers allowed!" signs anywhere? It's also not that I am having any deep and fundamental problems with the slavery - OOC morality/ethics conflict. Though I'd rather like to not seeing it happen, it's indeed a fact that it happens, and people are in my opinion free to choose with whom they want to play to what extent as they see fit, for whatever reasons they have. So mainly it's how I answer the "Where have all the slavers gone?" question:

It is socially unrewarding.

For sure, though, there are reasons why I keep playing a slave-holder.

(as to mysticism/shamanism: I agree with your assessment of the situation, Echo. Others don't, seemingly.)

[Graanvlokkie]

Most people in the Eve community focus on Colonial Era United States or 1980's South Africa when they think of slavery (yes I know South Africa wasnt a slave country 1980's but go with me here) ...

Interesting, but if anything I would say 1980's South Africa would be closer to a Caldari system than an Amarian one. Poor workers with limited political rights and limited social rights, earning a wage and participating in the free economy.

It was a much different system from the Colonial Era United States.

[lallara zhuul]

/snip
I just can't bring myself to go Renegade, I can't play an Amarrian slaver or someone who actively supports any form of slavery.
/snip

If you eat chocolate, you are supporting real life slavery.

There is more slaves in the world at the moment than there has ever been in the history of human race.

The price of a slave is between 20(Nepal) to 2000(USA) American dollars.

For me making black and white morality choices in games is a moot point, since pretty much making real life choices on black and white morality would leave you unclad and hungry.

I wholeheartedly support the choice of a person to choose any way they play any game, I just think it tells something about that person.

To me, the thing about Amarrians is the fact that they have the only empire in New Eden that does not lie about what it does.
They are playing with their cards in the open and they justify what they do is by knowing what they do is Right.

They have their Empire, their culture, their God to show for it.

I just feel that the whole term 'slaver' is a bit of a misnomer that has come into play through a mistranslation by the Neocomm.
The more accurate term might be 'a religious Reclaimer of heathens that does not want the poor things to spend eternity in Damnation'.

\o/ Brekkies!

[Vieve]

On the other hand, no one who isn't Amarrian wants to do any real RP (outside of 'hi, how are you') with an Amarrian. It's just too jarring, I guess.

Jarring?

Wow. There must be something wrong with my brain.  Actually, there is, but never mind that.   In my assortment of characters, I've generally found it easier to RP with Amarr folks than I have Matari or even some Federation types.

What do you mean?

Would like to know as well. As a rule of thumb and from my experience, it's easier to communicate with more-mainstream (in relation to IRL) Caldari and Gallente characters than the culturally alien and in that venue more complex Amarr and Matari ones, with concepts of slaveholding feudal systems and neotribalism ones.

So much for my trying to be vague and polite about things.  I grew up in the American Rural South during the 1970s/early-to-mid 1980s¹.  As such, I do not find it difficult to grok a religion-driven feudal society; dynastic-based authority and other aspects of the planter-sharecropper dynamic (some of which evolved from the plantation owner-slave dynamic after Reconstruction), were social elements at work within  my native childhood cultural environment.


¹Yes, I'm old.  Cope.

[Louella Dougans]

what is the doctrine behind slavery? What is the canonical source of the practice? What are the legitimate IC reasoning that an Amarrian would use? Where are the scriptures an Amarrian would point to in order to support their view of slavery?

the evelopedia says some things, but lacks detail :\

The Amarr point to various passages in the Scriptures as a religious reasoning for enslaving other races. Many of the passages are from the Book of Reclaiming, which deals explicitly with the conquest and enslavement of other races. Some, however, are older and more ambiguous. These passages, such as the prophecies of Gheinok the First, Book I, and Book II tell of the fall into darkness of mankind and the anointing of the Amarr as the chosen of God.

ok, but then if you go to the Scriptures and look at Book I, II, Reclaiming and Ghienok, then there's hardly anything that seems relevant imo.

There's this:

And the Lord spake, and said, Lo, my people,
Witness, for I have made the worlds of Heaven;
And these worlds I give to you, My Chosen,
So Amarr shall rule the worlds of the Heavens.

None shall stand higher than you save the Sefrim,
Who serve Me as others shall serve you,
For all things under Me serve one higher;
So Amarr shall rule the worlds of the Heavens.

As Garrulor rules the skies; as Frisceas rules the sea;
As Emperor rules Holder; as Holder rules Serf;
Yet all under Heaven serve Me;
So shall Amarr rule the worlds of the Heavens.
- The Scriptures, Book of Reclaiming 3.19 - 3.21

everything else from those books, doesn't seem to me to say anything about the idea of slavery.

[Leopold Caine]

So much for my trying to be vague and polite about things.  I grew up in the American Rural South during the 1970s/early-to-mid 1980s.  As such, I do not find it difficult to grok a religion-driven feudal society; dynastic-based authority and other aspects of the planter-sharecropper dynamic (some of which evolved from the plantation owner-slave dynamic after Reconstruction), were social elements at work within  my native childhood cultural environment.

Alright. Didn't mean to be indiscreet in the first place, but I suppose that does provide some explanation and context to what you said.

[Matariki Rain]

I've been thinking about this for a day or so. I can play Mata with religious characters of various flavours. It really is the "enslaving my people" that's the social killer. That applies to Angels and Sansha as well as Amarrians who support their empire. Spaces that are "open" for them to perform in tend to be spaces where Mata will seldom play.

[Mizhara]

re: Places being "open to all" automatically becoming closed to all but those of 'lower' standards. Similar principle, almost the same result.

[Leopold Caine]

I can play Mata with religious characters of various flavours. It really is the "enslaving my people" that's the social killer. That applies to Angels and Sansha as well as Amarrians who support their empire.

This is actually a good self-test of whether the character's issue with amarr is a matter of religious culture or the whole slavery part.
A Vherokior/Gallente Angel vs. a True Amarr Holder. Who does your character dislike more? Discuss.

[BloodBird]

I can play Mata with religious characters of various flavours. It really is the "enslaving my people" that's the social killer. That applies to Angels and Sansha as well as Amarrians who support their empire.

This is actually a good self-test of whether the character's issue with amarr is a matter of religious culture or the whole slavery part.
A Vherokior/Gallente Angel vs. a True Amarr Holder. Who does your character dislike more? Discuss.

The Angel. The Amarrian Holder's 'crime' was birth into a society and a position in it (or the ability to gain that position) and the baggage that comes with it. Far as many of my toons go, hating on a Holder for being a holder is quite... hypocritical. Might as well complain that a Federal citizen from wherever was born and raised in his/her/it's environment. Now, various levels of debate exist around what Holder's do, obviously, but that's another topic and even then, that topic is taken into context with the Holder's purpose, stated goals, the fact this is considered normal in Imperial society, and ofc. the cocktail of personal traits and methods for each individual.

The Angel, however, is another story entirely. Your typical Angel, no matter where they are from, have no overlying purpose for their actions that can be considered benign save survival. I, as well as my toons, can understand that. The means employed however are detestable and capsuleers who join the angels have no real need for 'survival' - this is covered by default as part of the whole 'being a capsuleer' thing - ergo all the remaining reasons revolves around personal enrichment. Obviously, all capsuleers aim for this in some form or other, but not all go out of their way to join a faction that see to this need nearly exclusively at the cost of everyone else. Angels, Guristas, Serpentis, Blooders... factions like this offer absolutely no excuse for the capsuleer that joins, and hardly any for your average non-egger members.

The EoM, Sansha and other 'kill all humans' factions is rather self-evident and require no explanation.

In short, the Amarr might get flak for what they do and why, but there are other, infinitely worse offenders out there, and all will be judged by their actions and beliefs, set in context to whom they are and from where, etc.

[Merdaneth]

IMO the negative slaver-bias is (largely) a result of real-world bias. Most of us take quite a bit of our real-life morality into the game.

There are a lot of children from our reference groups who play-pretend to be pirates, our perhaps mercenaries/bounty hunters (Boba Fett), and gangsta culture is quite popular. Slavery is not popular and (also very important) totalitarian religious fundamentalism also isn't.

That's why Verone and Veto are cool guys in most RP circles, while most Amarr loyalists aren't (yes, I mean IC). Merdaneth doesn't understand (IC) why many people have great respect for those that kidnap and kill thousands for personal profit, but would despise those who try to uplift a dozen of slaves. I have sometimes let him such express these things, but never got much traction.

I have great respect for Louella who has managed to create an slaver persona that is still religious fundamentalist, but due to emphasis on specific aspects of her play, managed to avoid being stereotyped with our own ingrained culture images and thus suffering less of the current 'slavers-woe'.

Additionally, woe to the person who starts playing something like an ancient Greek culture style pederast btw. Our real-life sensibilities would likely cause most people to absolutely despise his role, while its a perfectly acceptable EVE culture alternative.

But let's not forget that those who play religious fundamentalist (not necessarily slavers) rarely would want to mingle outside their own circle as well. Of course, this is crap for RP, but not all RP archetypes lend themselves well for it.

[BloodBird]

^
THIS. FUCKING THIS.

I agree with everything Merdaneth pointed out. I've been annoyed at this myself and wondered how the RP scene in EVE could have been if piracy, rebelling against authorities and generally being a 'free-spirit quasi-bad' persona was not generally considered to be "cool", IRL. I'm no more a fan of slavery in thsi world than others here, but I happen to be disgusted with things like piracy, overt-betrayal, theft/murder and harming others for shits and giggles, let alone fucking profit, as well. Why don't pirates and joy-full mass-murderers get much smack from the self-appointed 'honorable' toons around?

They are cool and edgy, for starters. I think we have had this discussion before. Likely several times, in fact.

[Mizhara]

^
THIS. FUCKING THIS.

I agree with everything Merdaneth pointed out. I've been annoyed at this myself and wondered how the RP scene in EVE could have been if piracy, rebelling against authorities and generally being a 'free-spirit quasi-bad' persona was not generally considered to be "cool", IRL. I'm no more a fan of slavery in thsi world than others here, but I happen to be disgusted with things like piracy, overt-betrayal, theft/murder and harming others for shits and giggles, let alone fucking profit, as well. Why don't pirates and joy-full mass-murderers get much smack from the self-appointed 'honorable' toons around?

They are cool and edgy, for starters. I think we have had this discussion before. Likely several times, in fact.

Because that means you limit your RP to two or three people in some hidden private channel. Been there, done that, palmed much face. It even limits you from RP with your "allies" since pretty much everyone's allies will be kicking it with pirates and so on anyway. However, it's not like there's any real bias against slavers. Even the Matari side will be hugglefucking slavers all over the place for the sake of convenience. When pointed out it'll be "oh but we are trying to win hearts and minds!" or some crap like that.

In short, advocating any kind of "stick to your guns/principles/whatever" is completely pointless in Eve, since that will basically cut you off from almost all the RP that ever happens. Make some kind of excuses and go give your mortal enemies a nice sloppy kiss.

[BloodBird]

I'd rather they kiss the pointy end of my gun while I squeeze the trigger ever so gently.

But that's me. I suspect 'returning to EVE and RP' will be about as lonely as my toon is right now.

I'll cope. I'll have to as I'm not interested in bending nor breaking.