Slavery, Rape, Madness and War!

[NoOneofConsequence]

Edited in the interests of keeping on topic.

Request: can we keep focussed on game related ideas, since subjects such as DV and rape are highly politicised and so far no one on the thread has effectively grappled with the genuine subtlety of the situation.

 

[Kibo]

Jumped the Shark

Sorry, but it's pretty clear your thread died along time ago. When the same people are arguing over a tangent and one of those people is saying, "I see your real statistial data, and I raise you my baseless assertions and preconcieved notions which I charish for no particular reason." You're only one hippie jew, and 'oh yeah, yer hitler' away from the inevitable conclusion.

You and your thread have my condolances.

It's too bad, in a way, that I had that little trip just when your thread was getting interesting. At least for me, even with all baiting of the moderators and their trolling of me aside.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

How 'bout some Vile Defenses?

Now, from a theoretical point of view, or maybe it's philosophical--I haven't decided for sure yet--but why would you *not* have such topics and themes in a campaign? I mean, if such doesn't exist in a campaign, what is then going on, you know?

What was going on in LOTR? high fantasy regularly includes the idea of rape, torture, slavery, etc in an "off camera" way, and the 'luck' of main characters in not being exposed to it is taken for granted.

In a mature D&D game, (IMHO of course) such things are acknowleged in the world at large, but simply not inflicted on PCs. Why? Its interactive storytelling. You create the character whose story you want to tell, and the DM provides the world that story takes place in. When running D&D there is an implicit assumption that such a story will involve heroic characters in control of their own lives. Unless there is clear and ADVANCE communication that one party or another wants to make this a 'darker' story, throwing in story elements such as rape or torture is simply the DM running a power trip over their players, and making it their story that the players merely must survive. If you like this style of play, fine, but I work for more cooperation between DM and Players.

The other issue is that because (to get to the main point) rape is not a standard part of the high fantasy/D&D "story", neither are defenses against it. There's sneak attacks and criticals, so there is fortified armor. There's poisons, so there are feats for better fort saves and spells to detect and nullify poison. There's scrying and other magic spying, so there's nondetection and mindblank. If the DM is going to have rape as part of the game, my character is going to have a Dentata. (see Snow Crash, a book that actually dealt with such subjects maturely). Spells, psionic abilities, feats and magic and mundane items would all exist to provide defenses. I flipped through the BoVD in the vain hope that Cooke would be mature enough to know that, but sadly, he deals with it the same way most DMs do - radically change one part of the story without including any other changes that would happen as a result.

One DM refered to a story where an female assassin NPC was raped by mutual enemies. She had poison use, some spells and the skill points to spend on craft traps, and she was running around completely undefended? (Sure in such an unballanced situation she could have been raped eventually, but where's the unlucky first guy who put himself into a fishhook trap?) This is not realism. Any DM who is throwing in "vile darkness" without some realistic "vile defenses" is honestly just out to put a power trip over the PCs, or is not thinking through the changes he is making in the system.

Kahuna Burger

 

[mythago]

BoVD makes it crystal clear that the GM needs to agree with the players just how much vile darkness is going to be in the campaign.

It's not going to be a happy game if the players are expecting something like the original Warhammer game (dark fantasy, nasty evilness, slavery, etc.) and the GM is looking forward to running "Deliverance on the Borderlands."

 

[JoeGKushner]

There have been some interesting ideas here.

One thing perhaps that could be gathered together and fleshed out are the consequences of these topics and the 'evolution' of things that would be used against them.

For example, I found the idea that a female assassin would have some protection an interesting idea and probably a true one, especially if she was normally a solo operative.

Adult themes can be covered in RPGs and I think that providing the 'defenses' if you will against such targets are an interesting game mechanic rarely touched on.

For example, would the assassin have a death tablet in her own mouth as many 'modern' spies are supposed to in order to avoid capture? Ways to avoid bad things or something eh?

Slavery is another complex issue as it revolves more around the society. If you're in Kalamar where it's legal and you wind up a slave, what's the defense? Not much except escape.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

BoVD makes it crystal clear that the GM needs to agree with the players just how much vile darkness is going to be in the campaign.

But it does not (AFAIK) touch on what the PCs can do about such a thing other than agree in advance that its a possibility. If I was a female bard who was planning on spending a lot of time gathering info in seedy taverns, there are a few spells I'd want to know if I knew this was a 'vile' campaign, that would be a waste of time in a high fantasy game. And in a 'vile' world, those spells would not be things I'd have to spend XP researching, they would be standard knowlege. If I am playing a nobleman's daughter in a 'vile' world, there are some items not on the standard equiptment list that I would expect to have available.

BoVD says that everyone should agree on the level of darkness, and thats definitly the starting point. But if its also the ending point, you are not making a "realistic" game any more than if there were optional poison rules that you used without any of the spells, class abilities or feats that a PC can use to protect him or her self against being poisoned.

I started a Vile Defenses thread on the house rules forum for more specific discussion on the topic...

Kahuna Burger

 

[Al]

Give me a GOOD example

Boadicea killed around 70,000 in her revolt. Admittedly, she was sorely provoked, but the tally is still fairly devastating.

 

[Agback]

How would different alignments regard the treatment of slaves?

There is an interesting observation on this point in Adam Smith's 'Inquiry into the nature and causes of the Wealth of Nations'. Apparently in Smith's times slaves were treated better in those colonies where the governors were appointed by absolute royal governments (eg France) than in those more democratic (ie. British and Dutch) colonies in which the governors were in part answerable to the slave-owners. That seems fairly obvious once someone points it out. Smith also claims that Roman slaves were better protected by the law under the Empire than under the Republic.

So perhaps we ought to expect more laws to protect slaves in the lawful societies than in chaotic ones.

Regards,


Agback


*The reference, in case anyone is interested, is to Smith, A. 'The Wealth of Nations', book IV chapter vii part b [1776].

 

[mythago]

Interesting idea--and the laws will differ as well based on a slave's status.

A lawful evil society where slavery is a temporary punishment for a crime will not permit owners to kill their slaves, for obvious reasons. A chaotic good society where slaves are "not human" might very well allow slave-owners to kill their slaves--why not? You can kill your farm animals, right?

If you're in Kalamar where it's legal and you wind up a slave, what's the defense?

Well, presumably the PC is not the first person ever to visit Kalamar, so if Kalamar has any kind of government, there will be rules about how one becomes a slave and what happens should a slave be under the governance of another power.

Kalamar may not care about the PC per se, but nobles and church officials do care if their valuable knights/paladins/agents are seized by someone who has 'no right' to do so.

Which could lead to a sticky situation for the PCs on a whole new level, of course...

 

[David Argall]

Supply and demand

"Apparently in Smith's times slaves were treated better in those colonies where the governors were appointed by absolute royal governments (eg France) than in those more democratic (ie. British and Dutch) colonies in which the governors were in part answerable to the slave-owners. That seems fairly obvious once someone points it out. Smith also claims that Roman slaves were better protected by the law under the Empire than under the Republic."

This was more a function of the supply of slaves. In the case of Rome, the republic featured an expanding Rome, and an expanding number of captive slaves, which mean you could cheaply replace any you killed or abused. The empire featured a stable to declining size and a declining number of slaves, which meant you really got hit in the wallet when your slave died, which meant you were lots nicer to them.
Royal governors were often more pro-slaves, but this was an incidental. They simply had a master to please who was not as pro-slaver as the slave-owners wanted.

"So perhaps we ought to expect more laws to protect slaves in the lawful societies than in chaotic ones."

Lawful societies have more laws on everything than chaotic ones, and in general more slaves as well. Laws protecting the slave should be a function of Good vs Evil.