Maids & Masters Lore Post - Thralldom

Slight change in plans from what I posted last week; I'll put that up in the Community chat after this goes up so this post isn't bogged down for future readers.

What I want to cover, aside from the base concept of thralldom as it applies to the fiction, is exactly what being a thrall means in the world of Commorance. That's going to require some context and history. While Master calls thralls "fancy slaves" during negotiations with Griselda (stemming mostly from his viewpoint as a Master, given that the vast majority of Masters see themselves as above everything, including deities), it's a much more complex concept that came from a completely different series of historical events in the fiction compared to the real world. The lack of additional information has led to some people on other platforms giving me no small amount of grief. Some through willful misunderstanding after getting an explanation, but there is a genuine lack of information regarding what being a thrall actually means in the game. This will definitely be getting turned into an in-game book, and while I'm sure some people will still misunderstand and lose their minds over it, at least after this I'll have done my part to make the information available.

First, a disclaimer. I shouldn't need to say this, but slavery is bad. There is no and will never be any slave content in Maids & Masters. Everything from here to the end of the post is fictional historical precedent and etymological context, not game content.

Now historical context. There certainly was a point in time somewhere between the first Servant and modern Servants where people - mostly Folk and islanders (instead of generational Servants) - were put into indentured servitude. These were actual slaves, and were typically kept obedient through the use of Slave Collars - thick metal bands that were clasped around the neck after being very, very heavily enchanted.

These complex pieces of Theurgic equipment provided a non-Servant individual with an amount of Theurgic fortification that allowed them to perform most of a Servants' tasks (meaning they were still strong enough to lift furniture with a single hand relatively easily) without actually providing them with actual Theurgy through a Pact of Servitude.

Of course, not being actual Servants, they weren't subject to Orders. This meant the collars were, by perceived necessity, also enchanted to provide the Master attuned to the collar the ability to discipline an unruly slave with little more than a thought. What form this discipline took varied based on the enchantments, but they were obviously unilaterally unpleasant.

Slavery fell out of favor on Commorance and was fairly short-lived for a number of reasons. There were still Masters that were very vocal about slavery being immoral and unethical (whether they actually believed that or simply couldn't afford the expense of Slave Collars and wanted to level the playing field is up to debate) as well as some Masters that actively allied with the Folk (both providing shelter and effectively claiming entire villages for themselves), but the majority of pushback came from the now-fallen Queen. Folk obviously have few means of protecting themselves from Masters or Servants, but as Masters became increasingly aggressive in acquiring slaves, more and more of the Folk moved further north into the Queen's domain, giving the Queen an increasing amount of leverage under the pretense of protecting her people.

This effectively left only the islands that Masters could take advantage of, but Commorance's rocky coast and limited ports meant that really only the Wickham, Amaira, and Ambrose names had any real access. Given the Ambrose name had recently begun building what would become Ambrose City and the Wickham family used their port alongside their ally, the Emmerich Estate, exclusively for overseas trade, this left the average Master with next to zero options.

Knowing any shape an actual conflict with the Queen would take would be a messy one and being in a position to either accept the Queen's conditions or enter open conflict, Commorance's Masters agreed to abolish the practice of slavery. Slave Collars, though they still exist, have had the majority of their enchantments either removed or repurposed, leaving them little more than high-end equipment. Though they're left mostly unused, due to the form factor being so large and obvious, and having the historical implication that they do.

Thralldom as a concept has an entirely different origin, and has little to do with how slavery once existed. It's largely only referenced as being a "fancy slave" due to the value that Masters put on personal freedoms.

Linguistically, the concept of being "enthralled" (as in "fascinated with," not as in "held captive") came first in the fiction. It began as "enchanted," with the Aenglish context eventually shifting to mean "having Theurgy applied" rather than a more general "having a magical quality," with "enthralled" replacing it in the same sort of fashion as misspellings and abbreviations often lead to new words. Enthralled stuck as meaning "losing one's senses to the situation at hand" and eventually becoming "losing oneself," following the means to make another Master into a thrall generally being closely related to the song and dance covered in the Etiquette & Entrapment post.

Conceptually, the differentiation comes when a Master has been so thoroughly fooled - or has willingly submitted themselves, for whatever reason or circumstance - that the leading Master effectively (or actually) controls their thrall's Estate. With Masters' sense of self being so closely tied to their Estate, the idea of "losing one's self" seemed a fitting description, so if a Master has been more permanently enthralled, they were referred to as a thrall.

This is where the "fancy" part of the "fancy slave" comment applies. To a Master, any loss of control feels like enslavement, but in practice, being a slave and being a thrall are two very different things, and becoming a thrall can even be advantageous in certain situations - hence the in-game choice.

As a short aside, this is why I chose the term "thrall" in particular; while it does have etymological origins that make it a synonym for "slave," it was also used to mean things like "scoundrel," "inferior" (as in "person of low(er) degree"), and "runner" (basically making it the proto-Germanic word for "gofer" as it applies to assistants made to do coffee runs today).

The distinction is important, because unless a Master actively agrees to abandon their Estate to become a Servant, a Pact of Thralldom behaves closer to what we would call a protectorate. In Commorance, a thrall retains complete control over both themselves and their internal affairs. What the thrall offers to the leading Master varies based on the agreement in question, but I'll use the situation Master can agree to with Griselda as an example, as it's a very simple "become my thrall."

As a baseline, the leading Master gains access to their Thrall's Holds and Estate, and is able to treat the Holds as though they owned them (which is why becoming a thrall leads to you earning only a percentage of what you'd otherwise receive in Emily's shop). Some sort of indicator is also gifted to the thrall, such as a statue (like Griselda's gargoyles) both to signify their relationship to the leading Master and to remind both involved that the relationship is still one of give and take.

While the thrall does effectively surrender the contents of their Hold(s), the leading Master is now responsible for the long term survival and health of the Estate of their thrall. This means any and all necessary expenses, from food to cleaning supplies to replacing staff, is paid for by the leading Master. This leaves the thrall financially restricted, but no longer responsible for any standing debts. Based on the specifics agreed to, the leading Master may also pay other expenses for anything else the thrall's Estate might request.

This applies to things like alliances and aggression as well. A thrall and the leading Master can have their own alliances separate from each other, but any alliances are effectively shared - at least to the extent that harming one would effectively be harming the other. This effectively doubles (or more, if multiple thralls are involved) any negotiating power either party would have otherwise.

Should a tertiary Master wish to take action against the thrall, the leading Master has every right to (and would be expected to) involve themselves on behalf of their thrall. The same applies to the leading Master, and they may choose to involve their thrall(s) in any negotiations they see fit to involve them in. Should a disagreement escalate to conflict, the leading Master would be entering the conflict alongside their thrall as if it was their own Estate entering the conflict, and is able to call upon their thralls to do the same for their own conflicts.

While there can be some additional nuance (such as in the case of Lothario, who serves a very different purpose as a thrall than Master does if you take the deal), these are the basics. This is also why (if you accept) Griselda is rather blasé about what you're required to do after you've become her thrall. The actual control she's able to exert on Master as an individual is minimal at best.

Even if you do feel it every time you go to collect your Silcrow and receive barely a pittance.