| From: | "Jeff Freeman (a person, not a Character)" <WFREEMAN@*****.BITNET> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Slavery: Applying human concepts to non-human entities. |
| Date: | Tue, 20 Apr 1993 08:42:59 CDT |
After following the slavery discussion for something like a week, several ideas
have sprang to mind, both about the concept of "spirit/elemental slavery" and
how this would fit into the game world. Anyway, here's my not-so-humble-opinio
ns on why slavery of spirits is a "misguided" concept.
The first problem is assuming the service of spirits is involuntary. The shama
n asks a spirit to perform a service, the spirit complies because of who/what t
he shaman is, i.e. the servant of a totem, and a protector of nature. Basically
the spirit gives the shaman a hand because s/he is "on the same side." If anyo
ne is "forcing" the spirit to the shamans service, it is his/her totem (this
might explain the extra dice in summoning spirits, shamans gain from their
totem, or it might simply be that the shaman of that totem is considered a clos
er ally). This also helps explain why most shamans cannot summon toxic/insect
spirits, and why shamans of those totems cannot summon the "normal" varity of
spitis. This argument does not neccesarily apply to hermatic mages, but they
may be absolved (at least legally) in part three of this post.
Secondly, the slavery debate assumes (erroneously) that the degradation/
forced servitude of slavery applies to the spirit elemental psyche as it does
to a human being. What most fail to realize is that these beings are IMMORTAL,
and (for instance) the sunup-to-sundown service of a spirit to a shaman is very
possibly about as significant to them as holding a door open for someone is on
our life. My reply to someone claiming I was being forced into sevitude by ho
lding open a door would be "You're being silly, it's just not that big a deal,"
and a spirit may well feel the same way. Again, the service time for an eleme
ntal is often longer, but is it really significant in a truly ENDLESS lifespan?
Point three is that, according to the grimoire, the sentience or even "Life"
as we mere mortals know it is debatable for a spirit or elemental. Several sp
ecific ideas in the Grimoire support this:
A) The watcher is defined as a pice of the mage's subconcious/superego. This do
esn't seem to relate to spirits until one considers
B) The book descibes the moment a spirit becomes free as its "birth." Indicatin
g that it was not alive beforehand. The fact that{a) only free spirits have a
true name b) a true name is needed to destroy a sprit (as apposed to merely "se
nding it home") c) therfore, only a free spirit can be killed d) death is said
by metaphysicists to define life, ergo, without death, no life} support this th
eory.
C) Remenber, not all released entities become free spirits. Only the strongest/
luckiest (the ones the summoners put more of their consciousness into) actually
begin a "life" as a free spirit.
D) All this philisophical stuff aside, the law defines a mage/shaman as respons
ible for the actions of the spirit/elemental they summon. Admitting independent
voilition on the part of the spirit gives the summoner the excuse that the sum
moned was acting under it, and I doubt the law is about to make mages LESS answ
erable for their actions. AS a side note, the actions of a free spirit (an ackn
owledged sentient entity) are not the fault of the summoning mage, leading to a
n interesting game plot: a) magician summons spirit/elemental b) orders it to k
ill someone c) does everything in his/her power to make entity a free spirit, a
nd d) claims it was so at the time of the murder, leaving the mage blameless.
SO, as I'm sure you're all asking, what does this mean in game terms? Well,
although it is not rational, policlubs like those mentioned before could exist
(rationally is hardly the strong suit of, say, Los Alomos 2000, or other clubs)
to give PC'S headaches. An interesting legal question also comes to mind. Suppo
sably, the UCAS laws are based on the U.S. constitution. If spirits/elementals
are seen as notsentient, then they are PROPERTY, as in say, The Dread Scott Ca
se. Now, imagine a law-enforcement-type mage banishing anothers elemental/spir
it. The victim has just been deprived of property without DUE PROCESS. Imagine
a shaman-lawyer saying "your jail looks architecturally unsound. My force 10 sp
irit will therefore guard me. If you try to banish it, you're violating due pro
cess, AND endangering my life needlessly, constituting cruel and unusual ounish
ment." Now what happens? Aren't litigacious societies fun?
Sorry about the length of this post, but unless clarifications of the above poi
nts are asked for, this will be my one and only post on the matter. Remenber,
I'm only playing the Magician's advocate here, not trying to force everyone to
my way of thinking. Comments/criticism welcome, flames make good targets for my
delete key.
Ciao for Now,
Jeff Freeman, user of no fancy sig files
