Campaign Standards: Slavery yea or nay?

[Sammael]

I mostly run FR games, so slavery is fairly common. Looking back at my campaigns, I know I've used slavery in the following contexts:

1. Most recently, Chief Kralgar Bonesnapper of the Uthgardt Griffon Tribe keeps slaves, but treats them fairly well. (Mostly neutral) PCs didn't seem to have a problem with this.

2. Obould's orcs keep slaves of many different kinds. PCs took it upon themselves to free some enslaved dwarves (mainly because one of the PCs, a dwarf cleric of Gond, insisted that they free them).

3. Xanatar's Guild of Waterdeep has a slave trade branch that operates in Skullport and the Undermountain. Recently, they've began expanding into the rest of the North (which is overrun with refugees running from Obould).

4. Red Wizards of Thay keep slaves. If their enclave is located in a region that doesn't approve of slavery, they'll keep them concealed. I ran several scenarios with Red Wizard slavers involving the kidnapping of PCs.

5. Slaves are kept in Mulhorand, Unther, and Chessenta (setting of my future epic campaign).

6. Although slavery is officially prohibited in Amn, many rich merchant families keep slaves disguised as servants. The society is decadent enough that virtually nobody is bothered by this.

7. Needless to say, slavery is a big thing in the Underdark, especially among drow, beholders, and illithids.

Nations that are vehemently opposed to slavery (which figured prominently in my game) are Waterdeep, Silver Marches, Cormyr, most of the Western Heartlands, Rashemen, Evereska, and the Dalelands.

 

[rogueattorney]

In my Known World campaign based in Karameikos, slavery was a very big deal, as slavers out of the Black Eagle Barony had depopulated a good portion of the pcs' homeland. Finding the slavers and tracking them back to whence they came, and eventually trying to liberate many of the slaves was a big part of that campaign.

In my Greyhawk campaign based in Ratik, slavery was more on the periphery. Orc tribes were notorious for taking slaves and selling them in the decadent southern kingdoms. The northern barbarians took thralls. It was more a constant implicit threat of what could happen to you if you fall in battle.

In my campaign based on Goodman Game's Points of Light setting, Borderlands, slavery really isn't a major part of the setting. There's a religious civil war going on and the sides are more interested in conversion or extermination than prisoners.

 

[Mark Chance]

In my campaign-in-the-works, slavery will be a noticeable feature as the world is patterned after the 17th and 18th centuries and taking place largely in what were the British colonies of North America. Slavery takes several different forms:

1. Punishment for certain crimes
2. Debt-slavery
3. Identured servitude
4. Prisoners of war
5. Chattel slavery

My fantasy version of Africa features dwarves as the predominant race in what was the Slave Coast, so many of the slaves in the campaign setting will be dwarves.

 

[Desdichado]

For a Hero, winning the War is half the job.
Winning the Peace is the other half.

You keep talking about Heroes with a capital H. Whoever said PCs were heroes?

The iconic figures in the literature on which D&D was primarily based were certainly not heroes. Conan? Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser? Elric? Cugel?

Pshaw.

In my settings, like I said earlier, I've rarely made a big deal out of slavery, but it's in the background. If the PCs decided that their raison d'etre was to abolish slavery, that'd end up being more difficult and quixotic for them to accomplish than Prohibition was for the Americans early last century.

 

[evildmguy]

I am running Dark Sun, so there is slavery. It's mostly in the background but it does come up every session. My players surprised me in that when they earned a title, they want to abolish slavery in their city and then go from there. I doubt it will stay as the focus, or that it even was the focus, but they did make it a goal and I was impressed by it.

I always liked this quote about slavary:

I’m not sure I’m in step with the rest of the African-American community. I mean, I carry the scars of slavery just like everybody else, but somehow, it’s important for me to know that, while slaves, we were good while stacked up to other slaves throughout history, and I don’t know if we were. You know, I’m looking at the Pyramids of Egypt, which were built by slaves, and I’m thinking to myself, “Whoa. Nobody told us we could use geometry.” God sent the Hebrew slaves Moses, and don’t get me wrong, I like the Emancipation Proclamation, but the Hebrews got a burning bush, plague, slaying of the firstborn, parting of the Red Sea… we got a memo."
- Darius

It raises some good points on how to view slavery, within the institution itself, which I like. Essentially, it gives the players a goal, if they are slaves, to be the best slaves they can be while working for their freedom. Not mutually exclusive goals.

edg

 

[Mark Chance]

… we got a memo."
- Darius

And more than a half million dead in the Civil War.

 

[Jack7]

You keep talking about Heroes with a capital H. Whoever said PCs were heroes?

I guess it does indeed depend upon one's definition of a hero.

If a hero is defined merely as brave and powerful, then a hero is indeed merely brave and powerful. Then again if that is the definition then many villains throughout history have by definition been heroes. At least of a kind.

And that depends of course upon how you define brave, and powerful.

Eventually though, doesn't a word like Hero have to stand for something other than a least common denominator, or a least restrictive definition? Suppose I wanted to call a Heroin Smuggler a US Marshal cause they both wear semi-automatics under their overcoats, and are both willing to risk their lives for job-pay? They can you know. So they have that much in common.

Well, I guess in that case it depends a lot on what one is willing to allow as the least common denominator in defining a thing. And in which direction one wants to work at it, up, or down.

But don't blame me for the capital "H" on the Heroes bit.

It's on the front and back of the Player's Handbook in capital both times.
As in, "The World Needs Heroes."
So, I'm just following their stylistic lead...

But I will agree that the world also does need villains, and just average Joes who will do whatever they want whenever they want for their own ends. Because after all, if everybody could be, or would be, a Hero, then you wouldn't need em anymore. And if being a Hero is the same as being a hero, then I'll just have a regular sandwich, hold the mayo.

But if you don't mind, I'm sticking with the idea that a Hero might be something a little more important than, "I'm strong enough to do whatever I want whenever I want."

That's just me and my definition.
I've never seen a definition to the contrary that I thought really captured the essence of the word.

 

[Desdichado]

Oh... kay.

I know what the definition of hero is. I know many applicable definitions. But you didn't answer my question: who said the PCs were heroes?

 

[Barastrondo]

Oh... kay.

I know what the definition of hero is. I know many applicable definitions. But you didn't answer my question: who said the PCs were heroes?

The guy standing over there next to the one who said they aren't.

 

[Desdichado]

The characters I tend to get very definately are (frequently) not heroes. They're very much in the vein of Cugel the "Clever."

So, who's this guy next to me, then?