What does everyone think about slaves? Obviously players can't enslave each other; but what about NPC's? After a siege, in which the conqueror is the victor, the leader of the conquering army would be given a choice, slay all who reside within or enslave the population. Of course there would be a cost for feeding the enslaved population, but there would also be a benefit of an NPC population that could help with the job of collecting resources.
@crowdac I read somewhere that there will be no system of slavery
That's a very interesting question you have here, @Fyrsey. NPC "slavery" is not a planned feature as of today.
NPCs will play a big role in Fractured - guilds will be able to attract them to their villages / towns, where they can settle and start their own businesses. They'll have proper names, be more or less skilled in different activities and - to an extent - have different personalities.
Reducing all of this to "slavery" (à la Conan Exiles) would downplay the whole system a lot
[NPC will have] - to an extent - have different personalities.
Hm... I wonder if they are planning something more than them having different barks and/or dialog trees.
why can't we have player slaves, although limited duration.
but we've discussed it before.
slaves could be useful for the solo player too.
I'm watching, and read the manga, The Rising of the Shield Hero. Where the Shield Hero can't equip a weapon! but he can have slaves which help the enslaved gain more stats and helps himself gain more. The whole idea of the hero weapons was pretty interesting. But I don't like the 'gear grows with you' thing unless it can be done right.
Well I would pretty much be open to the following:
Good alligned toons (especially beastfolk) can have soulmates - i.e. NPC and players that are bound to each other via their common allignment, good-will and goals. There would be a soulbinding ritual which makes your souls alligned to each other, hence you gain some small bonuses while being close to each other. Commiting crimes is slowly breaking the bond and once broken it is hard to repair it. If any of the soulbound characters suffers from being knocked down everyone bound to the character suffers from a small debuff in defenses, but gain offensive buff. If a bound character dies, the bond is temporarily broken and everyone who is bound and nearby suffers from a debuff and small damage.
As this bond is harder to break and create it should offer valuable bonuses and be also limited to the amount of bonds that one can create.
Neutral alligned toons (especially humans) can have companions - i.e. NPC and players that willingly join the party and undertake adventures together. As long as everyone in the party is close to being neutrally or good alligned everyone gains a very small bonuses (much smaller than soulbound characters gain). If someone is knocked down the party gets a short boost to their stats, which diminishes over time. If anyone from the party is killed, the party is afflicted with grief reducing some of their stats.
This kind of bond is the easiest to create and dismiss, yet also should offer the least/smallest benefits.
Evil alligned toons (especially demons) can have slaves - i.e. NPC characters; and zealots - players; which are characters bound to the demon. These characters give some of their powers to the demon, but the demon in return, shares the majority of their gains, so there is always someone, who is master and someone who his the subordinate/slave.
While master gains stat bonuses and suffers from decreased gains in knowledge, etc. the subordinates have it vice versa - they suffer from decreased stats and have increased knowledge gains.
If the master dies the slaves and mercenaries are freed - i.e. they regain their stats; but are unable to attack the killer (be it an NPC or a player) for some time - they can still continue to attack anyone as long as their master is only knocked out, but they only regain their power once their master is killed or releases them.
If a slave/subordinate dies or is knocked out, their master loses the bonus stats and suffers from decreased gains as long as the bond is in place.
The bond can only be willingly released by the master, if a slave/subordinate decides to break the bond, they can only do so by attacking and knocking out their master themself (which is no small feat due to the fact some of their power is with their master due to the bond) or by visiting a temple and asking their god for release.
As this is the hardest bond to break for the slaves/subordinates they should always gain the full benefits, at the same time as for the Master it is pretty easy and offers mainly only positive buffs, it should be with diminishing returns, making only a couple of slaves count, before some drawbacks and downsides come.
@dragomok That's a good insight, but still can't think of anything that wouldn't allow slavery. It seems to me that slavery would add depth to the game, perhaps even enrich the lore and the personalities that are associated with the lore. Any ideas?
@jetah I looked up, The Rising of the Shield Hero, the concept is interesting. I see what your trying to get at. A player slave system that benefits both the slaver and the slave. Though I would find player slaves interesting to say the least. I could see griefers taking huge advantage of a feature that allowed this. Do you have an idea to prevent griefing? Or maybe you don't find it relevant?
@meiki you seem to have expounded on @Jetah's idea, a slave system that benefits both parties. It kinda has a Darkest Dungeon vibe, which I like. This system may work, but I don't know how hard it would be for the dev's to implement. It also might cause the game to revolve around acquiring soulmates, companions and slaves.
@crowdac That is also the very reason why - soulmates should be hard to create a bond and be limited in number of bonds you can have at one time; partying up for neutrals without soulmate status automatically adding some party bonus, which would be the least impactful one among all of the benefits; slaves and zealots having to sacrifice their power for their master with diminishing returns, i.e. for example if it were that zealot/slaves chooses 2 stat points to give to their master, but if there are 2 slaves, the master gets 100% from his first slave, 50% from his second, 25% from his third and 10% for his fourth and onward. Making meaningful to have 2-3 slaves at max, yet still allowing for some RP and sandbox action with it.
If it can avoid player griefing then it could be a neat concept.
i was thinking more npc slave but player slave could happen too. there would have to be commands that force the player to action (maybe a little AI involved so said action happens).
if it were player slave then it'd have to be time limited. IE a player can only be a slave for a max of 1 hour (play time, not linear length of time). A new contract would have to be made.
another option is when the player logs off, AI takes over but the total duration can be longer than 1 hour.
Target last edited by
I don't know enough about how NPCs will work to have a strong opinion one way or another, but I'm not against the idea of enslaved NPCs. It seems like it would be especially appropriate on Tartaros.
If an NPC slave system is being considered, I want to put forth Life is Feudal's slave system for having player slaves. In Life is Feudal, when an enemy player is knocked out, an "enslave" ability can be used on them. This ability kills the player and creates an NPC slave with the player's stats and appearance. The enslaved player respawns and can play as usual but their title is forced to "Slave" for a few days, and the enslave ability doesn't work on them while they have this title. The NPC slave lives for 10 days before expiring.
I thought it was a pretty interesting system even if the game itself wasn't so great.
Why the need for slavery?
I would rather see an employment system where you hire NPC or players to work for you.
As some people mentioned before I don't understand why it must be "slaves" even on Tartaros. I'm pretty sure there will be protests from the majority of the sane players and I bet the game doesn't want to get into any trouble (especially with the law cause you know you can pretty much sue for anything) so a similar system like "hiring" a mercenary is probably more on point. There is practically no difference and we can avoid using the term "slaves". I mean how would it feel if I called you ****ing trash that you are cause you're just some ****ty slave that got away because you got lucky some dumb ****s decided to speak up and abolish slavery? See my point there (you inferior piece of garbage that's meant to be my slave in a better world)? We don't want that now do we.
@chrightt Slaves should be meant only for the demons. It is already world where murder, slaughter, genocide, etc. are your daily bread and butter, so slavery is just the top of the iceberg. The point is, slavery does not have to be of that kind where slaves have no rights. You can set it so, that slaves do have rights - like following:
Slaves on Tartaros are subject to following:
Rights - to be fed, to be sheltered, to have time to sleep and break and to live; demons may be subjected to slavery only of their own free will, while other races may be subjected to slavery using force.
These rights are common in all over Tartaros and stand over the local law. The rest would be set the local governments, i.e. towns, hamlets and villages.
This could apply only to NPC's and could add additional reason to participate in the Eclipse - to take human slaves back with you on Tartaros.
The point being - this is a sandbox MMORPG, the more options you have to play in the sand the better for the game overall. No one is saying it needs to be slaves and called slavery. You could call them Hands and the institution the Helping Hands Association - being still the same thing. In majority of cases the NPC's in games are basically all subjected to slavery - as you want them to work and be available 24/7 with no rest, sleep and sometimes even killing them on the spot. I would say they would welcome slavery with basic rights with open hands. Than to run a shop 24/7, be it a storm, snow, blizzard or whatever outside. While always being on the verge of being stolen from or killed by players.
@chrightt The Dev's can just create in-game safe spaces for players who find the word "slavery" offense or aggressive.
The point being - this is a sandbox MMORPG, the more options you have to play in the sand the better for the game overall.
This is exactly my thinking as well. Also I like your idea, but I would still use the term slave. If the player base didn't want slavery, they could ban it themselves.
i doubt demons will hire someone when they can force slavery on them (or they die or something worse than death).
Humans can have a ritual that summons a demon (could be random or there's a checkbox if you're open to being a 'human slave') then the humans cast a slavery ritual that forces the demon to be their slave. Again the slavery duration is limited because it wouldn't be fun being someone's 24/7 slave.
The slavery system could be a means to bypass the very limited duration on a different planet and your knowledge unlocks would still work.
i like the hiring mercenary system too so i'd like to see both!
Tbh i don't think a slavery system can work. As someone said it before, players can simply just change char.
Slaving pnj can work but i whould rather put a pnj hiring/workers that allows you with some item or monney as a fee launch them for activites and give you the loot they got. An example whould be the workers in albion online, i felt it was a very cool feat.