Monster-raising societies

For a while I've wanted to write a story that takes the dynamic of a teen psychically bonded to a dragon or similar bond-pet, and spin it into a more adult story from the pet's point of view. I was reading Cute And Fuzzy Cockfighting Seizure Monsters (a Big Eyes, Small Mouth expansion) and it says the most important element of a pet-monster RPG setting is the societal focus on obtaining, training, and using the animals. I agree with this, and it's an aspect I've struggled with, in trying to imagine some more real need to own monsters than recreational combat for badges and league standing. (But not as dark as war or an ongoing environmental war against wild monsters trying to kill humans.)

I'm trying to imagine a society where human-intelligence mansters play key roles in human cultural infrastructure, from medical services to magical ownership of territory; perhaps they are carry out essential responsibilities for enhancing the fertility of fields and orchards, neutralizing environmental toxins, and hunting for food. And there would still be pets specialized as fighters, used in the various ways an 18th century or earlier society used human fighters.

Anyway I just wanted to know if anyone had any intereating thoughts about what would motivate a society to be heavily dependent on monster use, what important non-combat uses of monsters there might be, whether you think the overall concept sounds interesting, and if you can think of any examples of a story told from the monster's perspective.

I haven't read His Dark Materials, so I don't know. I believe the 'monsters' in that setting are supposed to be people's souls though, so there wouldn't be an economy built around breeding, selling, capturing, and collecting them.

Having a pet of human-level intelligence could be considered slavery if the pet would prefer to be free. However monsters aren't human, and it's reasonable to imagine monsters who were temperamentally suited to prefer being owned to being free. Or the 'humans' of the scenario might have some magical charisma/psychic power that made others love them and feel loyal to them. Or the 'ownership' could go both ways, a human being as bound to their monster as the monster was to their human.

wordmonkey said:

This seems a somewhat flawed piece of thinking. And I am really talking about this in a more philosophical sense.

By assuming that someone/thing with a human level of awareness does not want something as basic as freedom is a similar mode of thinking that society used about African slaves. Yeah, technically they're human, but they're not really our equals.

Now if there is some kinda equal pay-off, that the MASTER loses something to possess the SLAVE, then you might have something. (Star Trek's Trill)

Of course, deconstructing the Pokemon-esque trope, again, that's something that I'd find interesting. (House Elves in Harry Potter)

But for me, as a reader, simply justifying a slavery-type scenario where the purpose of owning a creature for my benefit at no cost to me isn't that interesting and philosophically something I would dislike.

But that's just my two cents.

Click to expand...

There are humans who prefer being kept/possessed in one way or another to being free, so I don't thing it's at all implausible to construct a species of monster (or alien for that matter) where the personality of the average individual is like that of humans who feel fulfilled by taking submissive/follower social roles.

Portraying slavery as a universal evil and portraying free people as better than slaves are both wrong. Whether an individual is happy or unhappy with their situation is all in the details. In any situation where people are owned, some will hate being owned by anyone, some will hate a particular owner but love a different one, some will be mildly annoyed at being owned but tolerate it pragmatically, some will be unable to imagine not being owned and find the concept of freedom frightening, some will love their owner and not really grasp that bad owners exist, and some will feel that they aren't really owned because they could run away if they really wanted to.

I don't see why the owner's paying some sort of price would be useful unless the price was paid specifically to the slave/pet. In general though I dislike themes of sacrifice. I would like to show an owner/pet dynamic that is mutually beneficial when the owner and pet have compatible personalities and good ethics. I would also like to show specific owner/pet relationships that are mutually destructive when the members are incompatible or unethical.

Edit: actually, thinking about it a bit more I would say that getting to own monsters is a compensation for the racial 'price' that in this type of series humans usually have no magic powers; if they didn't use culture to form a symbiotic relationship with the monsters and dominate the wild ones, the monsters would have humans for breakfast.

Team 2012 said:

Let me suggest you look at "Practical Demonkeeping" by Christopher Moore, one of the funniest writers alive.

Click to expand...

Thanks, that does look like it will be a fun read.

wordmonkey said:

Seriously?

You are seriously arguing that there are situations where slavery is OK?

Click to expand...

Being drafted into the military is a type of slavery many people think is okay. Being put to work in a prison chain gang is a type of slavery many people think is okay. Indentured servitude, contractual apprenticeship, and arranged marriages, while not currently practiced in western society, were considered ok for centuries; surrogate motherhood is a similar contractual temporary ownership of another's body which is still legal and practiced. And I already mentioned the bdsm variety of consensual slavery or one person treating another as their pet. Personally I think it would be great to be some rich man's pampered housepet. So yes, I am very seriously arguing that there are some situations and types of slavery which are ethical; and there might be more where a non-human species is involved.

Maybe you guys are not coming from the same background? My writing/reading background contains plenty of erotica and historical fantasy examples where the main character is captured or becomes a party to some kind of permanent mental bond, often without their full knowledge or coerced consent. So I don't think I'm trying to do anything particularly unusual.

elae said:

I think there's a difference, though: you're talking about a society where every single one of these creatures is owned and comparing it to our society where one person may choose to be submissive, but can voluntarily stop at any point they choose.

What do these monsters get out of the permanent mental bond, other than the joy of fulfilling their master's wishes? If you can figure that out and argue it, then I think people will have a lot less difficulty accepting the concept. As it is, "ethical slavery" isn't really appealing (again, I don't see why them being non-human changes anything).

Click to expand...

Who said every creature was owned? In something like Pokemon there are maybe 3 wild monsters for every owned one. Slaves is the harshest thing one can compare pet monsters to, you could also compare them to regular housepets where it's relatively easy for one to run away and go feral, and would presumably be even easier if they had opposable thumbs and were as intelligent as their owners.

What I was imagining for my own setting is that % of a species which was owned would vary with how rare and useful they were - a super-rare monster with a unique skill would have a harder time of it because they would be heavily hunted in the wild and ones that were already owned would be prone to being stolen, or confined to prevent them from being stolen. (The main character would be one of these, and a little bitter about it.) On the other hand useless or ubiquitous monsters would mostly be ignored in the wild; there might even be more of them volunteering to be pets than people who wanted to own them. So ones who decided they no longer wanted to be pets would have no trouble leaving because it would represent a minor loss of money and it would be quick and easy to find a replacement.

Axler said:

That ground was pretty well covered and degraded with the interminable Gor series by John Norman...all those Slave 'Hos of Gor type of books didn't do anything to make the Master/Slave dynamic come off as anything but creepy.

Click to expand...

Those are old, (and badly written, I tried to read one for research and was continuously wincing at the prose). They don't really represent the dynamic I was referring to, which is more on the romance-novel side of things. Here's a summary of a more modern story archetype I like: a woman, unknown to herself, has some genetic trait or special ability which is really valuable to an alien race. They kidnap her with no intent to ever let her turn to earth, which is more or less the same as if they had enslaved her - they probably also force her to go through some training or use her ability for their benefit. On the other hand they see her as valuable, desirable as an ally or mate, and many of them are anxious to get her good opinion and convince her that life is nicer than the aliens and she doesn't want to go home. They may view with each other as to who can treat her the best because she has some choice in which ones she allies with. So the treatment she gets is not typical of slavery.

There are still going to be people who think the aliens have horribly violated the woman's rights and the basic story concept is nasty. That's their right to think that. Personally I think it undervalues the main character if they never gain enough influence over their situation that they become able to escape but prefer not to. I think the essence of slavery is believing that you are a slave and there is nothing you can do about it; on the other hand you will never truly be a slave as long as you identify whatever leverage and opportunities you have to influence your situation, whether those are persuasive words, seduction, clever escape plans, or at last resort poisoning your owner.

Compare to a classic fairy tale like Beauty and the Beast. The Beast initially takes Beauty's father prisoner for basically no reason, or in some versions the father trades his daughter for his own freedom. This is a general symbol for the various reasons women were historically forced into arranged marriages. The whole set-up is somewhat unethical - at best blackmail, and at worst basically slavery. But, the Beast comes to appreciate Beauty as an equal and gives her the best treatment because he can't stand to see her suffer. Beauty for her part comes to see the Beast not as a monstrous captor but as an equal who is lonely, has poor interpersonal skills, and needs her help and affection.