Campaign Standards: Slavery yea or nay?

[Celebrim]

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

Well, the guy sitting over here is still not sure what you two are arguing about.

"For an Anti-Hero, winning the War is half the job.
Winning the Peace is the other half."

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

Methods and modes and goals may change, but the ethics of the protagonist don't change the fact that the protagonist is the one struggling - just who is cheering for him.

Besides which, Cugel the Clever meets the definition of hero for a certain standard of ethics. Mind you, I wouldn't recommend adopting those ethics, but I wouldn't recommend adopting the ethics of Achilles or any of the other Greek heroes either.

How did a side comment provoke this dispute anyway? Certainly nothing about the original aside implied that D&D heroes were always noble, and in fact quite the contrary. And just what are you two trying to prove?

 

[Minicol]

Well, the players need a reason to go kill the bad guys after all ?

If your bad guys are just naughty-naughty, that's not quite as motivating as if they are BAD !

So if you don't portray some evil, and run a too sanitized game, it won't work IMO.

 

[ExploderWizard]

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

What about George? George is a good name for a hero.

 

[Ed_Laprade]

Well said, Celebrim. Well said.

Agreed, XP for Celebrim.

Edit: I've always had slavery in my campaigns, although it rarely got used much. (As in, became the focus of more than an adventure or so.)

 

[Desdichado]

How did a side comment provoke this dispute anyway? Certainly nothing about the original aside implied that D&D heroes were always noble, and in fact quite the contrary. And just what are you two trying to prove?

Dispute? Argument? I think you're coming on a bit too strong. I'm just pointing out that you can't assume that PCs are heroes. That's one paradigm of play. It's not the only one. It's not even the most common or default, necessarily.

 

[Barastrondo]

Dispute? Argument? I think you're coming on a bit too strong. I'm just pointing out that you can't assume that PCs are heroes. That's one paradigm of play. It's not the only one. It's not even the most common or default, necessarily.

For the purposes of your personal campaign, you probably can, though. Isn't everyone in this thread speaking with that caveat?

 

[El Mahdi]

deleted

 

[Celebrim]

Throughout history, there's a direct correlation between the amount of slavery within a society, and the so-called level of enlightenment and power a society had

I think you have a hard time proving that thesis. And in any event, you'd have to explain why the modern world was an exception, and if an exception, why you thought the thesis then had any explanatory power in the first place.

If I had to guess, the basis of your thesis is that the history taught in survey courses tends to focus on the 'movers and shakers' of history, and so you are less well acquainted with the cultures and slave holding practices of the less powerful societies that don't get taught, you assume from that that the lack of mention of it in your studies means it wasn't happening there. That is, you know slavery was happening in the places you studied, and you are biased assume by default it wasn't happening in the places you didn't.

Even more ironicly, so far as I know, the strongest common thread of questioning the ethics of slavery runs through that list of nations you list. Babylon was the first nation I know of it articulate that the strong ought dominate the weak. Roman ethicists were the first I know of to denounce slavery. Great Britain was the first I know of it actually renounce slavery completely, and further the first to make the connection that it was wrong not only to enslave their own citizens, but also wrong for their own citizens to enslave others, and further the first to take steps to stop slavery on a global scale.

 

[Snoweel]

I think you have a hard time proving that thesis. And in any event, you'd have to explain why the modern world was an exception, and if an exception, why you thought the thesis then had any explanatory power in the first place.

I'm not sure the modern world is an exception.

The globalised economy has institutionalised master-slave relationships between the few and the many. It's only that it's more-or-less voluntary (although most modern 'slaves' won't be certain exactly when they 'chose' to become so) that we don't use the term 'slavery'.

Roman ethicists were the first I know of to denounce slavery. Great Britain was the first I know of it actually renounce slavery completely, and further the first to make the connection that it was wrong not only to enslave their own citizens, but also wrong for their own citizens to enslave others, and further the first to take steps to stop slavery on a global scale.

There was a religious movement common to Rome and Great Britain that might have had something to do with it.

 

[Desdichado]

For the purposes of your personal campaign, you probably can, though. Isn't everyone in this thread speaking with that caveat?

Uh... no? I'm speaking generically. I always do in topics like this.

Except when I specifically caveat it otherwise.