Non-cliche slavery in fantasy campaign settings?

[VelvetViolet]

Most fantasy campaign settings, when they bring up the issue of slavery at all (which is typically only as an offhand mention in the descriptions of evil races like drow and goblins), use the field slave/serfdom model of slavery where the slaves are are treated horrifically, being regularly worked to death, casually beaten, raped or murdered.

The institution of slavery has existed throughout history all over the world and in many different forms. Most pertinent to this discussion, however, is the institution of slavery in the Roman Empire and Ancient Egypt. In that context, HOUSE slaves (not FIELD slaves, which were treated the same way they were in the American South) actually had rights and were more akin to second-class citizens than what most modern persons would consider slaves. Being a house slave would actually give a person a better standard of living than many peasants and many foreigners in the Empire willingly (and pragmatically) sold themselves into slavery because it would give them an economic advantage until they became free men.

AFAIK fantasy campaign settings only ever use the field slave as a model and completely ignore the far less horrific house slave model, or even give field slaves a more humane treatment like that of house slaves. It would quite refreshing if the otherwise evil proud warrior race considered it morally wrong to mistreat a slave because they aren't worthy opponents and the paladin has an actual moral dilemma about freeing the slaves because many of them don't want to be freed due to their better standard of living as opposed to being free peasants.

What say you?

 

[gamerprinter]

There are examples of slave trade in the Song of Ice and Fire (Game of Thrones TV show), that are more akin to Greek/Roman slaving than US history slavery - I'd say a lot more people are being 'educated' on older style of slavery because of GoT, including those Americans (you believe are uneducated about slave history throughout the ages). Of course, I'm American too, but happen to love history, and am not uneducated regarding much older slave trade concerns.

While Roman/Greek slaves had some rights, they were to a large extent treated just as badly if not worse than the way slaves were treated in the American south. Though there were educated slaves of Rome/Greece that not only had more rights, but were treated fairly well. Still the vast majority of slaves were not treated well, in any era. On the other hand, while Celts consisted a large part of the Roman slave population, Celts themselves took and kept war slaves in their own lands - so slavery wasn't an unheard of concept to the Celts even before taken as slaves.

Despite the Bible stating that the Egyptians kept Jews as slaves, from all my historical research that is simply not true. In fact the Hyksos, a semetic tribe from the Near East, ruled Egypt with their own pharoahs for a century, until their defeat by the older Egyptians at the end of that period, and they left ahorse with arms and supplies - these were the only signifcant population of Jews in ancient Egypt as far as the historical record reveals.

While it cannot be overstated that the treatment of slaves in the American south was inhuman, Americans didn't take slaves themselves (at least not in the first centuries of slave use) this was the act of the Dutch East India Company, who should be getting some of the blame as well.

 

[Celebrim]

I say you are being overly provocative. Your proactive attempts to defend yourself from percieved attacks are over the top and unnecessary. And your assertion that no one else is doing it "right" indicates you aren't maybe as broadly experienced with fantasy settings as you think. In my experience, there are far more settings that ignore slavery entirely than make any sort of take on it at all, but I don't think I could make any broad assertion about the most common approaches.

 

[gamerprinter]

I'd agree with Celebrim here, that most D&D/PF settings slavery is not even a consideration, nor casually mentioned. Sometimes references are made regarding drow, mind-flayers, aboleth and other specific evil slave taking beings, but these are isolated and never part of a larger existence of society or the setting.

I have seen some sword and sorcery settings with the slave trade, as well as more recently in Golarian - but I think that was done to bring some S&S concepts into the kitchen sink that is Golarian.

I cannot think of a setting over the last 30 years that had significant inclusion of the slave trade - Escape from the Slave Pens is the only adventure I can think of that had anything to do with slaves since 1e, and in this adventure's case, its the PCs who are among the slaves of the adventure.

 

[DMZ2112]

I had an argument with a player years ago over whether slavery was an evil act or a lawful act, specifically in the context of whether or not a paladin should always attempt to free slaves regardless of their situation. For what it's worth, I think it's a lawful thing, rather than an evil thing -- all four cardinal alignments have a big ugly at their ultimate extreme, and I think slavery is a decent synonym for the lawful one.

To clarify: I don't think slavery is necessarily evil, but that does not mean it is not /always bad/.

 

[Greenfield]

We're running our current campaign in a Grecco-Roman setting, and I did my homework. Here are a few numbers for you

At the height of Rome's glory, the city had an import rate on slaves over a million a year. That was to replace the ones who died in service.

Getting a valid population count on Rome, or Thebes or Athens of the period was hard, as some sources included the slaves and some didn't. What is apparent is that the slaves may have outnumbered the actual citizens of these cities.

Like the slavery of the American south a century and a half ago, slaves in Roman times tended to fall into several categories.

House slaves, who directly served a family in their homes, had a fairly decent life all things considered. They lived in the master's house, had good clothes (if only to keep the household appearance up to some standard), and ate food almost as good as the family did.

Field slaves, on the other hand, were treated like animals. Poor clothes, poor housing, poor food, and lots of backbreaking work made for a short life.

While their over all status varied from age to age and from culture to culture, there was always a "pretty" side and a dark side.

 

[I'm A Banana]

You're right, the horrors of the trans-Atlantic slave trade are not the same pains that all "slaves" in history endured. Of course, one may still wonder if there is any rightly moral way to treat another free-willed human being as property, ever. And it's wrong to call this a simple "American" concern , given especially what happened to the French empire with that trade, and their colonies such as Haiti, and the continued effects on large swaths of the African continent and whatnot. The thing was trans-national, after all -- nothing causes horror quite like economics.

What you seem to be asking for in regards to fantasy RPG's, though, is some model of "slavery" or serfdom or somesuch that isn't so clearly abusive and cruel as one informed by the abusive and cruel legacies of the trans-Atlantic era in human brutality. Given its historicity, fair enough, right?

I think the challenge with that, as it relates to RPG's, is just this: "Where is the adventure here?"

In an abusive, cruel slavery situation you have a clear villain and a clear heroic path of action. If the party comes across a city where slaves have voting rights and get paid and eventually become free after having worked off their debt (or whatever), what's the story? Who's the villain, and what is the action the party should take?

If you can find a reason for it to be an interesting adventure, you can probably get people on board with it more easily than just pronouncing that it should be done.

 

[Derren]

"Where is the adventure here?"

Why must everything in the game world be a hook for a simple black&white adventure?

 

[Grue]

This one is a thorny topic to approach but I think the core of it is how slavery actually functions in a society. While there were some notable difference in the institution of slavery between the African slave trade (and pre-antebellum U.S.A.) and the ancient world I think there are a number of lurking assumptions that are a bit overblown by latter period revisionism and romantic notions. While slave 'rights' fluctuated between different cultures and historical periods the core concept that slaves are property (like land or livestock) can be hard to wrap the noggin around at times.

Laws in the Roman Empire (or from Hammurabi on) weren’t particularly concerned with what you did with your property, but moreso with how much was owed if you killed another man’s property. The Serville Wars weren’t fought by prized skilled labor (Greek) slaves (who could one day hope to buy manumission) but by laborers. A notion of some sort of 'life was better as a barbarian slave in the Roman Empire than as African one in South Carolina' is a bit of bunk... for the vast majority it was awful in either case.

As far as a ‘non-cliché’ slavery… like an ‘evil proud warrior race that wouldn’t stoop to mistreating a slave’… I can’t think of any realistic way of how they would get any work out of their slaves…ask them nicely maybe? The Spartans were pretty freaking evil to their helots and their entire warrior culture in many respects was built to keep a police state level of control over their slaves. The Mongols, while valuing skilled labor slaves, were not known to play nice with uppity property. And for the Norse, their thralls were one of their most common trade items.

On the paladin issue… it strikes too close to the Southern plantation owner argument over protecting his inferior child-like slaves and the endless ‘is it evil to kill goblin babies?’ trope. I guess from a historical perspective, while Charlemange tried to discourage slavery it remained an institution and the 12 peers (the Paladins) lived with it. It’s a fantasy rpg, if you want to play out a story of a Paladin crusading against one particular social ill, do that. If the evil lich who is corrupting the countryside is the more pressing problem, do that instead.

 

[the Jester]

I think the challenge with that, as it relates to RPG's, is just this: "Where is the adventure here?"

Isn't worldbuilding itself a valid reason to look at the topic?