How to Fix a Slavery situation without murder? (Solved!)

[Kemrain]

Perhaps I'm missing something, but why don't they just buy all the slaves from the slavers, then free them?

This would do nothing to discourage the Slavers from simply collecting more children to abuse. It would even benefit them, as they'd have more revenue to spend in the hunt. Buying the slaves would free them, but would be counter productive in the long term. Plus, unless we take the slaver's wagons and food, we couldn't keep the children alive very long.

- Kemrain the Expectant Murderer.

 

[John Morrow]

In a world where there is good and there is evil -- even if they're not technically using alignment, it's quite clear that they view, say, murder, as an evil -- doing good is necessary. If you only do good when it's expedient to do so, I'd say that's a rather timid set of convictions.

I'm not talking about being timid. I'm talking about looking at the big picture. What is the net benefit and cost of a particular course of action?

If I witness a woman being attacked in an alley, I could just run down the alley without thinking like a hero and try to stop the attack. If her attackers have guns and shoot us both dead because I decided to play the hero (me because I frightened them and the woman because she was a witness to my murder) I've not only not helped the woman avoid being attacked but I've gotten both of us killed. I've made the situation worse. That's not heroic. It's stupid.

I'm not suggesting that the PCs do nothing. I'm suggesting that they avoid making things worse by throwing the setting into chaos without having any idea how things will turn out. That requires some consideration of the implications of what they do. And unless the GM protects the PCs from utterly catastrophic outcomes, which some GMs do, some utterly catatrophic outcomes are quite possible from some of the things being suggested. Grensha being conquered by Voushta would make things far worse than they are.

As much as I enjoy snideness, especially when set off with italics, you're making the classic Internet blunder of assuming that someone who doesn't agree with you must be missing some of the facts, despite the fact that we're dealing in opinion here.

This thread had been filled with plenty of people making suggestions that don't make much sense in light of the details that have been presented so far (e.g., slave revolts when there are 24 slaves and 40 slavers, etc.). It helps when everyone is working with the same details.

I honestly didn't expect someone to understand that the good guys could lose the war and still suggest that they start one without addressing that possibility, at least in passing. The thread has alread established that (A) Grensha's last war "took a heavy toll on Grensha's army", (B) Baron Woodsrow, their leader, is "very ill" having been "poisoned by a succubus", (C) "Grensha is in no condition to fight another war, and this is plain to see", (D) "Woodsrow sending even a small contingent of his army to stop the slaveing ring would be taken as an act of war by Voushta", and (E) the war is "one they might lose." You know all of that and you still think they should start a war to end slavery?

I don't CARE if it's not a war they know they can win. A nation that supports paladins is not a nation that should be sitting by and watching evil occur just over their border. Paladinhood is a mantle from the divine granted to be an active force of Good, with a capital G, in the world. Not fighting evil because it might win isn't the act of a paladin. That's Neutral Chicken, not Lawful Good.

So you are saying that a nation that supports paladins is not a nation that should care if they win or lose the battles they take on? That's not Lawful Good, in my opinion. That's the proverbial Lawful Stupid.

No, I'm not, but I'm also used to (in games and in real life) doing the right thing and having to live with messy consequences, and doing the right thing KNOWING the consequences are messy.

I'm not saying that Good characters should avoid messy consequences. I'm saying that they should avoid messy consequences that are, on balance, worse than the problem they were trying to solve. What's the point of starting a war between Grensha and Voushta if it won't bring about an end to slavery and might actually increase it?

No, I'm not making that assumption at all. You're making the assumption that I believe that, simply because I believe in a universe where there are such things as paladins and demons, there is a difference between good and evil, and that both are very real, and that both demand certain things of those who subscribe to those beliefs.

In the D&D game that I'm running, all of those things are also true and I'm not a moral relativist in real life, either. In fact, alignment is such an important part of my game that I had a lengthy discussion with my players before they created characters so they'd understand what the different alignments meant. I simply draw a very different conclusion about the implications of those beliefs than you do.

Good that does not consider the "big picture" is the sort of Good that ultimately helps or creates Evil. Good certainly has ideals but it also has responsibilities. Yes, ignoring your ideals because of your responsibilities is not necessarily Good, but neither is ignoring your responsibilities in favor of your ideals.

Of course I'm not sure how any of this pertains to the context of the situation under discussion since they've clearly said that they aren't using absolute alignments like that in this game.

 

[MerakSpielman]

This would do nothing to discourage the Slavers from simply collecting more children to abuse. It would even benefit them, as they'd have more revenue to spend in the hunt. Buying the slaves would free them, but would be counter productive in the long term. Plus, unless we take the slaver's wagons and food, we couldn't keep the children alive very long.

- Kemrain the Expectant Murderer.

Sorry, I thought the goal was "free a particular group of slaves," not "defeat the slavers."

You have to admit my method would have greater chances of both success and survival than attacking the slavers or trying to steal the slaves.

 

[Kemrain]

Sorry, I thought the goal was "free a particular group of slaves," not "defeat the slavers."

You have to admit my method would have greater chances of both success and survival than attacking the slavers or trying to steal the slaves.

We could buy the slaves, but the slavers would be unlikley to sell us their wagons to transport them in. They might sell us food, and we have the money to buy it all, but not on hand. Freeing the slaves is priority number 1, but making sure the slavers never hurt anyone ever, ever again is a close number 2. Belle wouldn't let it stop at freeing the slaves, and even if we talked her out of killing them now, I'm sure she'd eventually hunt them down and kill them all, and I couldn't really blame her, even if it was wrong. It seems the easiest and most expedient way of accomplishing both goals is murder. The buying solution would solve issue 1, but leave issue 2 wide open.

- Kemrain the Cheapass Murderer To Be.

 

[kigmatzomat]

This thread's getting a bit muddled but if I'm reading it right it's the NPC Belle who's driving this. The others have no deeprooted desire to deal with this at the moment but are in essence being guilted into it by Belle, the precocious 12-yr old Rog3 NPC, particularly Melissa Angel-wife.

Well, it sounds like you're basically screwed. You can't decide to walk away without doing something against your nature. You can't take the time to do the long-term solutions. You've got a thin chance of surviving the short-term solution and that doesn't necessarily help the slaves all that much.

You need deus ex or a miraculous idea.

The best I can offer is subterfuge. See if you can acquire a supply of wine and lace it with sleeping poison. Buy a few slaves using the wine as part of the payment. It's pretty much guaranteed the slaves won't be drinking wine so you'll at least minimize the number of slavers you have to fight.

If you get lucky you'll be able to minimize the bloodshed and possibly take the place with only a handful of fatalities. Bind the slavers, take their stuff and burn the compound. Make sure it's known that the slavers are incapacitated and Diamondback is quite likely to do the dirty work for you.

Beyond that you'll need deus-ex. Maybe you can run into some of the survivors of Diamondback's forces that you can recruit for vengeance & mayhem.

All I can say is that I hope the players enjoy moral dilemmas. I've seen groups that thrive on it and others that are destroyed by it.

 

[Kemrain]

This thread's getting a bit muddled but if I'm reading it right it's the NPC Belle who's driving this. The others have no deeprooted desire to deal with this at the moment but are in essence being guilted into it by Belle, the precocious 12-yr old Rog3 NPC, particularly Melissa Angel-wife.

Well, it sounds like you're basically screwed. You can't decide to walk away without doing something against your nature. You can't take the time to do the long-term solutions. You've got a thin chance of surviving the short-term solution and that doesn't necessarily help the slaves all that much.

You need deus ex or a miraculous idea.

That's what we were hoping ENWorld could help us with. So far, I think my odds of survival have tripled since reading this thread, the ideas are good ones and they have me thinking.

The best I can offer is subterfuge. See if you can acquire a supply of wine and lace it with sleeping poison. Buy a few slaves using the wine as part of the payment. It's pretty much guaranteed the slaves won't be drinking wine so you'll at least minimize the number of slavers you have to fight.

If you get lucky you'll be able to minimize the bloodshed and possibly take the place with only a handful of fatalities. Bind the slavers, take their stuff and burn the compound. Make sure it's known that the slavers are incapacitated and Diamondback is quite likely to do the dirty work for you.

Beyond that you'll need deus-ex. Maybe you can run into some of the survivors of Diamondback's forces that you can recruit for vengeance & mayhem.

Well, we have one guaranteed survivor, as he's a player's new PC, but I doubt we'll get more than that. The poison idea's a good one, as was suggested earlier, and I have some potent Wisdom damage poison, injested type, that could go over real well if introduced to the slaver's booze. I'm just hoping I can get some of them subdued with it. I suspect DC 16 2d8/2d8 Wisdom damage will be enough to reduce the threat of some of them, or at least keep them from waking up if we trip over anything in the dark.

All I can say is that I hope the players enjoy moral dilemmas. I've seen groups that thrive on it and others that are destroyed by it.

We enjoy them, but only so far. In the end, we put our murderin' hats on and make with the stabbey. Melissa is half demon, after all.

- Kemrain the Poisonous Stabbity Death.

 

[ThirdWizard]

This reminds me of one of my favorite moments in Bleach.

Rukia: Wait!
Ichigo: What?
Rukia: Why are you helping him? He's a complete stranger.
Ichigo: I can't just stand here and not help him. He's getting attacked right in front of my eyes, for crying out loud.
Rukia: Don't give me your pathetic reasoning.
Ichigo: Wha-
Rukia: A Soul Reaper must be fair to all ghosts. You can't just save them only when you see it or when its convenient for you. Don't help him! If you are going to save him now, you must commit yourself to saving them all. You must be willing to go anywhere, and even be willing to sacrifice yourself for them.
*Ichigo kills the beast and saves the boy*
Rukia: Have you made your decision, Ichigo?
Ichigo: No. I don't buy all this commitment crap. I helped him because I wanted to. And what about you?
Rukia: What?
Ichigo: You sacrificed yourself last night to save me. Was that just your duty as a Soul Reaper? Duty is no reason to sacrifice yourself. At least... not for me.

Both have good points and make me think about their oppinions. Sometimes you just have to do what you feel is right, even if logic says otherwise (Spock would Death Grip* me for that).

I wish my players put as much thought into their actions as you do. They're great and all, but sometimes they can be so stubborn once they decide on a course of action, to their own detriment often. Sounds like a really fun game you've got going there.

*The Vulcan Death Grip is not real

 

[Amal Shukup]

...and I have some potent Wisdom damage poison, injested type, that could go over real well if introduced to the slaver's booze. I'm just hoping I can get some of them subdued with it. I suspect DC 16 2d8/2d8 Wisdom damage will be enough to reduce the threat of some of them, or at least keep them from waking up if we trip over anything in the dark.

Well...

Lessee. Slavers are going to be (if I understand correctly) attacked by underworld types, and are likely to defeat them soundly. Victorious Slavers Start thinking about celebrating.

Just a little while later, an incredibly rich and stupid Merchant (you disguised - with 'spear carriers') buys a few slaves for far too much (fool the slavers into thinking they've fooled you - lynchpin of any good Con job). Merchant pays with cash and - "hey - would you be willing to take some of this (exceedingly well regarded) wine? Have an entire case/keg of it here..."

drink some of it with 'em as to seal the deal. It's Poisoned of course, but you avoid that through sleight of hand, delay/neut poison or previously ingested antitoxin - as your abilities/resources dictate.

Note, that you're also giving the Slavers ANOTHER reason to celebrate...

(another way to do this is to attack 'em again, but lose very quickly - running off in terror but leaving your pack(s) behind - filled with enough treasure that they KNOW you didn't do it on purpose. Including a generous supply of VERY expensive liquor...)

Later in the evening, your party (no kid) disguised as appropriate - not the Merchant again - Crash the party. Nobody has a drop of Wisdom left, so those few Slavers who aren't unconscious will have Will Saves and Sense Motives in the dust. You tell them (bluff, bluff, bluff) that "some crazy escaped slave girl - ittle bitty thing - (or adventurers on a vengeance kick) has made some kind of ruckus and is leading a HUGE mob of torch-carrying adventurers and ex-slaves and such to come rescue the Slaves and murder the Slavers!"

AND that everybody's (bluff, bluff, bluff) best chance to avoid a problem is to let you take the slaves (in their wagons and with all evidence of same) away and hide 'em while the Slavers either wait here all innocent, or run and hide elsewhere as appropriate. "That way the Mob'll think the crazy girl was lying!" For a modest fee of course. You'll (bluff, bluff, bluff) bring em back the following morning for the other 'half' of the negotiated fee.

Nobody dies. (Although, I think they could do with some 'killin', but hey. It's an option). If you feel they need to be executed, simply add murder to the menu after you've safely separated the slaves...

Note, you get the wagons and food et al too...

A'Mal

 

[RandomUsernamehmimo71]

Ooh.. I like that answer.. Bluffing them with poisoned wine is a lot of fun.. It doesn't solve the problem of them still being in a good position to buy more slaves, but it solves the immediate problem, without anyone having to die.. Even the guards..
It's safer, smarter, and a good plan.
It doesn't deal with the larger issue, but it may be that the PCs aren't ready to do that. The nice thing is, though, that politically, it should be safe, because it's not "Some outside murderers" who did this, just another dishonest merchant, in a sea of dishonest merchants.

No war, no death, no slaves. Sounds pretty darn good to me.

Colin "Nice One... " Davis

 

[ecliptic]

I personally would drug them, then kill them,

If you simply drug them, kidnap the worst of the slavers. So all the slavers think they ran off with the slaves.