Do Your Characters Engage in Slavery?
- Thread starter Tiefling
- Start date
Slavery is endemic to my homebrew campaign's setting, so much so I recently bought the _Chains and Misery_ pdf package from Skald Books to help decide various game matters, including prices and prestige classes. I haven't had a chance to really read it, yet, though, so I can't render an opinion concerning it.
My group's characters have at various times been slaves, owned slaves, and indulged in slaving. They have also fought slavers tooth and nail to rescue people from slavery. The practice is a neutral alignment factor for my group. All the nations in the campaign setting save one legalize slavery to some degree or another, using the old Roman and Greek models for comparison.
My group's characters have at various times been slaves, owned slaves, and indulged in slaving. They have also fought slavers tooth and nail to rescue people from slavery. The practice is a neutral alignment factor for my group. All the nations in the campaign setting save one legalize slavery to some degree or another, using the old Roman and Greek models for comparison.
I perfer the term Trall.
Slavery is a defined evil act in my games.
Slavery is a defined evil act in my games.
FungiMuncher
First Post
In my campaign, both the "good" guys and the bad guys deal in slavery. It's a pretty well ingrained institution in the world. However, there are a couple of groups that are opposed to it under any circumstances. For the most part, the players have opposed it.
However, there have been two situations where my players have dealt with it. One character had a noble background, and said that he had some slaves back at his estate. He took to adventuring for financial reasons, so it never came into play too much.
In another situation, a low level bard wanted to buy a civilized ogre for protection. I thought the party was just too low level at that point to have an ogre in the party, so I hit him up with a bureaucratic mess to acquire him legally. He eventually gave up.
After reflecting, I think they're now at the level where I'd be comfortable with it. The bard is still in the party, so I'll try presenting the option to him again. I'll have to look into that Chains and Misery book.
FM
However, there have been two situations where my players have dealt with it. One character had a noble background, and said that he had some slaves back at his estate. He took to adventuring for financial reasons, so it never came into play too much.
In another situation, a low level bard wanted to buy a civilized ogre for protection. I thought the party was just too low level at that point to have an ogre in the party, so I hit him up with a bureaucratic mess to acquire him legally. He eventually gave up.
After reflecting, I think they're now at the level where I'd be comfortable with it. The bard is still in the party, so I'll try presenting the option to him again. I'll have to look into that Chains and Misery book.
FM
baseballfury
First Post
Never done it. I'm done the "evil party" thing as a one off, but not in our usual campaigns.
Sir Whiskers
First Post
I'm definitely of the "slavery is evil" camp, but I've had two semi-contradictory reactions by my players:
1) Captured kobolds chained and forced to serve as beasts of burden by the party. They never used the word "slave", but that's how they treated them (until the kobolds escaped). They seemed to feel it was acceptable, since the kobolds were evil and had ambushed the party. (Ain't relativity great?)
2) Rescued dwarves who had been enslaved by some troglodytes and kobolds. The kobolds were formerly enslaved by the dwarves, so while the party still rescued the dwarves, they felt the dwarves had it coming.
1) Captured kobolds chained and forced to serve as beasts of burden by the party. They never used the word "slave", but that's how they treated them (until the kobolds escaped). They seemed to feel it was acceptable, since the kobolds were evil and had ambushed the party. (Ain't relativity great?)
2) Rescued dwarves who had been enslaved by some troglodytes and kobolds. The kobolds were formerly enslaved by the dwarves, so while the party still rescued the dwarves, they felt the dwarves had it coming.
Tonguez
A suffusion of yellow
Captured enemies and conquered peoples often serve as 'slaves' IMC. They are members of the village community but NOT the clan and will be seen working in the background avoiding attention. Occasionally the PCs have been offered a slave to help them on their current adventure and a couple have been given as rewards.
Slavery is an accepted institution and good slaves are generally treated well. If they manage to attract the attention of and marry a free clansman of higher status they gain freedom and their children are free citizens of the clan (but usually of one caste lower than their clansman parent (but never higher than Freeman). Caste = Noble, Aristocrat, Freeman, Commoner, Prole, *Servant, Slave, Outcast
*Servants are slaves who are recognised as members of the clan serving the Nobles/Aristocrats. Outcast are non clansmen living in a clans territory. Proles are clansman who a seen as serving no useful function
Slavery is an accepted institution and good slaves are generally treated well. If they manage to attract the attention of and marry a free clansman of higher status they gain freedom and their children are free citizens of the clan (but usually of one caste lower than their clansman parent (but never higher than Freeman). Caste = Noble, Aristocrat, Freeman, Commoner, Prole, *Servant, Slave, Outcast
*Servants are slaves who are recognised as members of the clan serving the Nobles/Aristocrats. Outcast are non clansmen living in a clans territory. Proles are clansman who a seen as serving no useful function
Last edited:
DM with a vengence
First Post
I think my players would torture them all to death before they got back to civilization.
Doesn't say such good things about my players...
Doesn't say such good things about my players...
Similar Threads
