Campaign Standards: Slavery yea or nay?

[Jack7]

i.e., someone who does good and goes around saving people from trouble, etc.

Well, that was my point.

But beyond that I don't reckon we're gonna get much real agreement on the internet about what makes a Hero, even imaginary ones, so as far as I'm concerned, I'll let it drop.

I should'a known better than to swim in those waters anyway. I'm allergic to Sargasso Seas.

 

[Nymrohd]

Ah slavery. Sometimes I think the only reason I feel we abolished it is that maintaining slaves is actually more expensive than actually paying the workforce. In my campaign there is a lot of slavery and not only in evil societies. I have an enlightened theocracy that maintains a massive slave force, a magocratic empire that has hereditaty slaves that are better treated than most commoners, dragon kings (the ambiguously good metallic kind) who have slaves. Obviously some of the inarguable evil societies have slaves as well but I think there is a fallacy in stating that slavery as an institution can singularly define the morality of any given society.
If your players are of the explorer variety, they should at least be willing to entertain cultures different than their own without going on arms against them. I have had players discurse slavery with an ancient gold dragon and with a foreign princess of a country that used slavery and neither encounter ended up in slaughter and looting.

 

[Starfox]

One of the trickier things about slavery is how to define it. Strictly speaking, an oppressed person is not a slave unless the agency that controls him can also sell him (or her).

Examples of not-slaves that live under slave-like conditions abound: Serfs, prisoners of war, debt prisoners, indentured servants, prisoners, labor camp internees. These are just the tip of the iceberg.

There are even more tight borderline cases: In some cases a serf is bound to the land and can be sold along with the land without technically being a slave. And trafficking victims, while not technically slaves, are so dependent on others that they are functionally slaves.

A major slave conflict in Europe in the 12th century was the war between pagan states in what is today Lithuania and the crusaders of the Teutonic Order. Enforced emigration eventually turned large swathes of land into uninhabited wilderness. The pagans took slaves and sold them east to Russia and the Golden Horde. The crusaders did not take slaves, but they forcibly moved people to "safe" enclaves where they could be tightly controlled. By the standards of the day, the crusaders considered themselves very humane, but today we'd probably condemn similar tactics as "slavery" in the vulgar sense.

 

[Chainsaw]

Which is why I never leave any sentient as a "beastie".


My games are run with a "Shades of Grey" theme, deep morality issues and such. The heroes in my games are probably much like the heroes in Hobos, based more on classic greek and celtic myths. Flawed, brave, tragic, boastful, wise, stupid, cowardly, etc...


One of my favorite character from a few years back was a slave of another character (indeed the entire group was the 'party leaders' slaves). It was a blast.

I think this is pretty cool. We have shades of grey a well and I employ humans/elves/dwarves when it's at the forefront.

 

[Aus_Snow]

So in your campaign, is slavery a part of it?

O yah. Slavery rawks!

Bring it.

Or uh, if you prefer: it has its place, just as does horrific war, genocide, torture, or whatever else you consider a fun sunday afternoon.

 

[JoeGKushner]

One thing I noticed in a few posts, was that the players seemed to be objecting to slavery. Looking back at my OP, I see how I could be inferring that of my players.

What I actually meant was that the players in my campaigns often hate the idea of them being taken slaves and are very against the grain of it happening to them and I've had players kill themselves right off the bat rather then be a slave. Mind you, they had no problem with its existance up to that point but once they became a part of the grind.

For me as a GM, that seemed baffling as many characters wind up catprued and passed around a time or two. For example, I'm just finished reading The Reavers of Skaith, a trilogy of books by Leigh Brackett, and the main character Eric John Stark has been captured and put into death's jaws so many times, if it was a RPG using the Mutants and Masterminds system, the guy would have like a thousand hero points.

But I can also see why it would bother players. It's the Rush Monster/Wraith/etc... problem with a total loss of control of the character and a potential loss of all items.`

 

[Jack7]

Mind you, they had no problem with its existance up to that point but once they became a part of the grind.

Ain't that always the way? One man's problem is his til it's yours, then it's yours til it's over.

For me as a GM, that seemed baffling...

But I can also see why it would bother players. It's the Rush Monster/Wraith/etc... problem with a total loss of control of the character and a potential loss of all items.`

I've lived through near-death and near capture a few times myself. In real life even. But I've never lost a possession that I didn't think I couldn't really do without, or replace, or take back later on once I recovered. (Assuming I recovered. But if giving up your stuff is the price of keeping up your rate of respiration, then that seems a square deal to me. Maybe I'm just old fashioned that way.)

So, I'm afraid I don't much get that one either.
One step at a time, as far as I'm concerned. First you live through your disaster, then you fix it.

Course in real life you don't get the trash and rehash model of characterization. But even in games it just seems like a fuzzy operating-principle to me.

What doesn't kill ya makes you stronger, lessen you kill yourself, then it don't.

 

[Dykstrav]

What I actually meant was that the players in my campaigns often hate the idea of them being taken slaves and are very against the grain of it happening to them and I've had players kill themselves right off the bat rather then be a slave. Mind you, they had no problem with its existance up to that point but once they became a part of the grind.

Just food for thought... Soldiers in ancient armies would sometimes kill themselves rather than be taken as slaves by their opponents. If I lived in a typical fantasy setting, I'd certainly consider falling upon my own sword rather than being captured by gnolls or orcs (if fighting to the death wasn't an option).

On the other side of the coin, many sword-and-sorcery heroes did a stint as a slave before rising to greater things. Kull and Conan are the most prominent examples. I've had some of my own D&D characters rising from common slave stock.

Either way, I think that slavery as a harsh reality for people in a fantasy setting can be compelling when done right.

 

[Garthanos]

Ain't that always the way? One man's problem is his til it's yours, then it's yours til it's over.

Hmm never noticed that. I do play with folk who have basic human empathy but I also assume others do as well.

Hmm maybe its player characters are granted the status of worthy of empathy and npcs are not?

 

[Set]

One of my favorite fighter archetypes in all of D&D is the Mameluke from from Al-Qadim, exotically tattooed members of elite fighting orders of soldier-scholars who are all slaves to the ruler of their nation.

Historically, the Mamelukes ended up with significant political power, manning the bureaucracy, and, in the game setting, they ended up with less restrictions on their behavior than a Paladin... (Although it's easy to see Paladins as slaves as well, as they lack freedom of choice.)

Slavery makes the most sense in very specific situations, such as Vikings raiding other lands and bringing back thralls (who then have no way back, no real ability to survive in their new lands, etc.) or slavery of races with distinctive features (dark skin in the real world, or Calastians enslaving halflings in Ghelspad or humans being enslaved by the Forsaken Elves of Termana or whatever), or slavery of individuals who have a cultural reason to accept their status (such as debtors, who willingly enter a period of servitude to absolve debts that are threatening their families).

If the terms of the servitude are less precarious than their current living conditions, it's possible, that just like the thousands of Asian / Russian / etc. women you can find in mail-order-bride catalogs, that people will find themselves willing to trade personal freedom for a sense of security.