Non-cliche slavery in fantasy campaign settings?

[Majoru Oakheart]

In the ensuing conflict, tribe B wins. And has prisoners of war. And has to decide what to do with them- kill them, let them have what they wanted in the first place or find some compromise where the POWs live but don't just get to walk away after killing a bunch of the tribe. Maybe make them make up for what they've done somehow- make restitution.

Sounds a lot like justice... and one viable option for a tribal society with no tradition of jail or imprisonment in this situation is to enslave tribe A.

Maybe, but one thinks there would be other options. I mean, they did win. Tribe A has been defeated. Why not let them go in peace after they lost? After all, they are likely to die without food or water in the wilderness anyways. I mean, in real life if POWs are captured during an attack, they are either sentenced for crimes, traded back to the original countries for POWs of their own or eventually let go. After all, you can't hold every member of an army responsible for an attack on you.

Not sure I understand the provision on "no tradition of jail or imprisonment". That's like saying "What if there was a society with no tradition of jail, imprisonment, slavery, or mercy? Wouldn't that mean the only option is to kill all of their enemies?" Just because they don't have a tradition of jail or imprisonment doesn't mean that isn't an option still.

It sounds like this is simply justification to enslave your enemies by saying "sorry, we don't believe in the other options". The reason you don't believe in the other options, however, is that you are evil.

 

[N'raac]

Maybe, but one thinks there would be other options. I mean, they did win. Tribe A has been defeated. Why not let them go in peace after they lost? After all, they are likely to die without food or water in the wilderness anyways. I mean, in real life if POWs are captured during an attack, they are either sentenced for crimes, traded back to the original countries for POWs of their own or eventually let go. After all, you can't hold every member of an army responsible for an attack on you.

Emphasis added. Is it merciful/good that we let them starve? "Well, I didn't pull the trigger" makes it OK?

I think one reason many alignment-type discussions get uncomfortable is that it shines a spotlight on areas where "in real life" compromises ideals and Good for pragmatism and expediency.

Not sure I understand the provision on "no tradition of jail or imprisonment". That's like saying "What if there was a society with no tradition of jail, imprisonment, slavery, or mercy? Wouldn't that mean the only option is to kill all of their enemies?" Just because they don't have a tradition of jail or imprisonment doesn't mean that isn't an option still.

It sounds like this is simply justification to enslave your enemies by saying "sorry, we don't believe in the other options". The reason you don't believe in the other options, however, is that you are evil.

Hard labour is a pretty common component of jail or imprisonment throughout the ages. Economically, they are getting food, shelter, etc. Is being forced to produce some of their own necessities, with a surplus they can effectively trade for other necessities, a lot different from the lot of many free people in the society? Is imprisonment with no labour somehow "more good"? Aren't we still depriving the prisoners of their basic freedom?We did make war on them to keep what we have. Would it have been more good to share what we have voluntarily? What happens when there are simply not enough resources for everyone? How much must the "good" culture sacrifice their own standard of living to benefit the displaced group before they cross the line and are no longer expressing "good" behaviour? That's likely an uncomfortable issue - given we live a pretty good life ("we" who have electricity, internet access, computers, leisure time for RPG's, etc.) compared to a lot of the world.

 

[GSHamster]

Hard labour is a pretty common component of jail or imprisonment throughout the ages. Economically, they are getting food, shelter, etc. Is being forced to produce some of their own necessities, with a surplus they can effectively trade for other necessities, a lot different from the lot of many free people in the society? Is imprisonment with no labour somehow "more good"? Aren't we still depriving the prisoners of their basic freedom?We did make war on them to keep what we have. Would it have been more good to share what we have voluntarily? What happens when there are simply not enough resources for everyone? How much must the "good" culture sacrifice their own standard of living to benefit the displaced group before they cross the line and are no longer expressing "good" behaviour? That's likely an uncomfortable issue - given we live a pretty good life ("we" who have electricity, internet access, computers, leisure time for RPG's, etc.) compared to a lot of the world.

To some degree, I think it would depend on what happened to their children. Are the children of these war slaves themselves slaves?

 

[gamerprinter]

Maybe, but one thinks there would be other options. I mean, they did win. Tribe A has been defeated. Why not let them go in peace after they lost? After all, they are likely to die without food or water in the wilderness anyways. I mean, in real life if POWs are captured during an attack, they are either sentenced for crimes, traded back to the original countries for POWs of their own or eventually let go. After all, you can't hold every member of an army responsible for an attack on you.

What if even though Side B wins, all the farmers of the community have been killed although most of the warriors survived, however, now without some kind of subsistence farmers (slaves) they are doomed to perish. It could have been a Pyrric victory. If both Side A and Side B were clan villages with relatively low economy and technology there might be little facility for trading POWs. Its not holding every member of an army responsible, rather it is holding an army responsible, and the survivors are all that is left of this army, perhaps even their commander was killed. The survivors count as the army.

Not sure I understand the provision on "no tradition of jail or imprisonment". That's like saying "What if there was a society with no tradition of jail, imprisonment, slavery, or mercy? Wouldn't that mean the only option is to kill all of their enemies?" Just because they don't have a tradition of jail or imprisonment doesn't mean that isn't an option still.

Again, if both Sides were villages and the war was really a grand raid and attempt to takeover. Perhaps there is no caged area, cave or other enclosed facility to hold 'prisoners', all the buildings in the community include individual villager homes, the clan hall and some food storage huts. If side A hopes to have enough food to survive the winter the only way to do so might be agree to forced labor by working Side B's farm fields under duress.

It sounds like this is simply justification to enslave your enemies by saying "sorry, we don't believe in the other options". The reason you don't believe in the other options, however, is that you are evil.

I don't believe it is, nor believe that was the point Jester was making. It was only a viable possibility to provide food to survive the winter by both sides in the conflict. It might not have been the only solution, but perhaps the only feasible one due to season and facilities available. Had the war occurred at the start of the growing season instead of towards harvest, other options might have been available and preferrable. Even if it was a bad decision on the part of the winning side, as an option for survival, it doesn't necessarily have to be an evil act. Its always the circumstances that help define what is evil and who is to blame in any given conflict.

It could be argued that every Neolithic/Bronze Age/Iron Age culture, especially the Celts and Vikings, for example, practiced raiding and the taking of cattle and war prisoners as the standard operating procedure for many/most early societies - just as described by Jester and myself regarding these circumstances occurring. Were all Celts and vikings evil as societies, because the taking of human lives as chattle did occur and was a practice for thousands of years by most human society at some time in their history?

 

[N'raac]

To some degree, I think it would depend on what happened to their children. Are the children of these war slaves themselves slaves?

I think this is a good question - is the result slavery through the generations, or indentured servitude of the current generation, who took the actions resulting in the enslavement?

It could be argued that every Neolithic/Bronze Age/Iron Age culture, especially the Celts and Vikings, for example, practiced raiding and the taking of cattle and war prisoners as the standard operating procedure for many/most early societies - just as described by Jester and myself regarding these circumstances occurring. Were all Celts and vikings evil as societies, because the taking of human lives as chattle did occur and was a practice for thousands of years by most human society at some time in their history?

Let's turn that around - does the fact that a given practice was the normal practice for some period of human history mean the practice cannot be evil in-game? Torture was pretty common for much of human history as a means of both interrogation and punishment. It was common to kill all children of a deposed or defeated monarch to prevent future uprisings.

I'd also note that "commits one or more evil acts" does not necessarily equal "is evil". The individual character, or the society as a whole, is not good/evil/neutral based on a single act.

 

[VelvetViolet]

If the concern is about innocent people suffering, then why not just enslave races that are inherently evil like orcs, goblinoids, gnolls, etc? If it's already okay to break into their homes, slaughter them en masse, and steal their valuables... then what exactly is the problem with enslaving the walking pieces of garbage so they're actually helping our good societies instead of attacking our villages, killing our men, eating our children and raping our women? These creatures were created by evil gods with evil literally in their DNA. The only thing you can do with them is either kill them or make them do something useful, because if you don't kill them or enslave them or brainwash them with sanctify the wicked they will try to eat you.

 

[GSHamster]

If the concern is about innocent people suffering, then why not just enslave races that are inherently evil like orcs, goblinoids, gnolls, etc? If it's already okay to break into their homes, slaughter them en masse, and steal their valuables... then what exactly is the problem with enslaving the walking pieces of garbage so they're actually helping our good societies instead of attacking our villages, killing our men, eating our children and raping our women? These creatures were created by evil gods with evil literally in their DNA. The only thing you can do with them is either kill them or make them do something useful, because if you don't kill them or enslave them or brainwash them with sanctify the wicked they will try to eat you.

Because having slaves that are innately impelled to turn on you and eat you is unlikely to end well?

You don't try to put a rabid dog to work, you have to kill it.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I struggle to try to imagine a fantasy society where there's magic sufficient to create and control undead that would bother with slaves. Undead don't need feeding, upkeep, or security, and aren't going to conspire to overthrow you. (I'm listening to Brandon Sanderson's Warbreaker at the moment, which has a morally-neutral take on undead.)

That said, if you want an alternate model ... how about a society where citizenship (and thus political power) is only earned via service as a slave? Everyone becomes a slave, and stays a slave for life or eventually earns citizenship. Alternately, you can be a member of society without political rights (e.g no vote, no property ownership), but to earn those political rights you have to earn citizenship by volunteering to serve as a slave for a fixed or indefinite period. There might be complex legal structures built around the service as a slave, or not, depending upon how involved you want the relationship to be.

 

[Zardnaar]

I struggle to try to imagine a fantasy society where there's magic sufficient to create and control undead that would bother with slaves. Undead don't need feeding, upkeep, or security, and aren't going to conspire to overthrow you. (I'm listening to Brandon Sanderson's Warbreaker at the moment, which has a morally-neutral take on undead.)

That said, if you want an alternate model ... how about a society where citizenship (and thus political power) is only earned via service as a slave? Everyone becomes a slave, and stays a slave for life or eventually earns citizenship. Alternately, you can be a member of society without political rights (e.g no vote, no property ownership), but to earn those political rights you have to earn citizenship by volunteering to serve as a slave for a fixed or indefinite period. There might be complex legal structures built around the service as a slave, or not, depending upon how involved you want the relationship to be.

Undead as slaves would probably annoy various nature and agriculture based gods. Undead can't tend crops if the powers that be render the soil infertile or manipulate the weather. Hell most sun gods in D&D hate the undead and your lands could have a few gloomy days if the sun god decides to withhold his favor.

 

[pemerton]

I think this is the sort of story element that has an obvious "handle with care" sticker on it. I have run one campaign in which the presence of slavery was an important plot-point. One of the PCs was a slave who had bought his freedom, and who had two principle motivations: a mostly self-serving desire to become a magistrate; and a mostly altruistic desire to bring the institution of slavery to an end. He had little success in the latter goal, but did manage to run a successful campaign in his wizardly order to prevent it adopting a more exclusive policy towards admissions that would have excluded various candidates for admission on ethnic and status grounds. It was the player who decided to foreground the issue of slavery in the game, though once he had done this I was happy to run with it.

As to whether paladins would be obliged to liberate slaves - this depends on the broader theory of duty and entitlement within which a particular game locates paladins. In a modern superhero game presumably Superman isn't obliged to free all the convicts, because Truth, Justice and the American Way uphold the conclusion that prisoners deserve to be there. Even if Superman knew that a particular prisoner had been wrongly convicted, presumably he would proceed through the normal processes of judicial and executive appeal rather than just break open the jailhouse.

A paladin in a serf- or slave-oriented game presumably could be played in a similar way. There would be some sort of theory of just deserts that explains why most slaves deserve their lot (eg because they are POWs who, having lost a battle, have forfeited their lives to the victors), and even where some slaves are held unjustly presumably we can imagine a paladin who only seeks to liberate them through lawful means (much like Superman and the wrongly convicted prisoner).

If you don't want this sort of somewhat gritty/realistic paladin, then take a leaf out of Tolkien's book: erase all those features of poverty, servitude etc from your fantasy world.