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

[Enkhidu]

The problem your players are faced with are very similar to that faced by the protagonists of Joel Rosenberg's 'Guardians of the Flame' novels, which (despite being fairly substantially trashy) I found quite enjoyable.

I was wondering if someone would post this.

 

[John Morrow]

Poppycock. We're not talking about a game of chess here -- thinking things out 10 steps into the future means that, at this moment, preventable evil is going on with the players' permission.

Did you ever hear the saying, "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions"? Not worrying about the consequences of good deeds leads to that problem. You may be a GM, or play under a GM, who never saddles the players with bad consequences for doing good things without thinking them through. I'm not getting the impression that this is that sort of game or game world.

Unless they're extremely reckless, I doubt the slaver nation would simply leap to that conclusion. And even if they did, why is going to war with them a bad thing? The status quo there needs to be overthrown, and it will almost certainly require force to do so at some point.

Again, if you'll more carefully read the examples, it's by no means a sure thing that the good guys will win and the slave nation will lose. Can you see why going to war might be a bad thing, without even going into the casualties, if the slaver nation defeats the non-slaver nation and everyone winds up with slavery?

Again, if you are a GM or are used to playing under a GM where everything always turns out OK, then this isn't a problem. Again, I'm not getting the impression that this is that sort of game.

But in a world with Commune spells, the odds of a nation going to war without figuring out who's responsible for the raid -- assuming that the raid is significant enough to go to war over -- are pretty small. The adventurers are more likely to have to deal with assassins paid with slaver money coming after them, which is all in a day's work, sort of Evil's way of saying "job well done, heroes."

You are making a lot of assumptions there and I'm making a different set of assumptions, based on the information provided so far. You are assuming that the consequences won't be that bad. I'm not. If the consequences of taking out the slavers are minimal, than I don't really see why there is any question about what to do here.

 

[Derren]

When you want to know if this action is good or evil you have to ask yourself "Do the slaves get a better life when I kill the slavers?".

When you kill the slavers, but the slaves are now homless and doomed to die, then the act of killing the slavers is neutral at best. But hey, at least the slaves now die in freedom (but still in agony), so the act is chaotic.

Only when the slaves when freed can live a better live than before the murder can be considered good depending on other circumstances. (Like do all of the slavers abuse the slaves? When not and you kill a slaver who only does his job, then you do evil).

 

[BlackMoria]

This scenario has a remarkable parallel to a game I ran a few years back.

Interestingly enough, the players were grappling with similar issues.

The game was taking place in Calimshan (Forgotten Realms) where slavery is legal. Here is what my players did.

They infiltrated the slaver's camp at night and silently eliminated the guards. They then, one by one, overpowered the sleeping slavers and bound them. The slaves were freed.

Now as a taste of poetic justice, they had slave shackles put on the slavers and transported them to another part of Calimshan via slaver cage wagons, where the slavers were not known 'businessmen' and sold the captive slavers to other slavers. Of course the captives protested and told their story to the slavers who bought them. These slavers either didn't believe them or finding out the truth, viewed the captives as rival competitors and kept them as slaves anyhow (a nice touch to getting rid of a rival). The irony was delicious....

They then took the proceeds from the sale of the slavers to help equip the former slaves and help them start new lifes outside of Calimshan.

The plan was bold, imaginative and relatively bloodless. The slaves were freed and their tormentors got to see the slave trade from the other side of the coin.

 

[John Morrow]

Look, I'm not saying that I agree with that principal, but you can't just apply our own morals to the situation, and decree that they're all inherently evil. It doesn't work that way.

I find it curious that you are unwilling to apply an absolute set of morals to decree that all of the slavers are Evil yet you seem perfectly willing to apply an absolute set of morals to declare that killing the slavers is "murder".

 

[RandomUsernamehmimo71]

I find it curious that you are unwilling to apply an absolute set of morals to decree that all of the slavers are Evil yet you seem perfectly willing to apply an absolute set of morals to declare that killing the slavers is "murder".

Sure. Fair enough.
I don't necessarily think that the act of ending the slavers life is evil, or a bad choice.
Murder is perhaps too loaded a term for this discussion?
Forgive my loseness of the tongue.

I certainly enjoy your points, particularly with regard to the greater political ramifications of their actions. You seem to have a great feel for the situation, and I appreciate your commentary.

No matter what the PCs end up doing, it's going to be an interesting choice, and I'm as curious as anyone to see what they'll do. At least now, I have some more ideas on how to better handle the aftermath.

-C

 

[MerakSpielman]

Who are the "slavers?" Are they a wealthy extended family, owning a slave-farm as their family business? When the PCs kill the slavers are they killing rough, crude, evil men, or are they killing women and children?

When the PCs sneak into a room to kill a slaver are they going to find him curled up in bed with his wife, and a baby sleeping in a crib in the corner?

What would happen to the family of the slavers if the PCs just swoop in and kill them?

What if the owner of the farm and official owner of all the slaves is a kind and benevolent master, who sees to it that his slaves are fed decent food and treated fairly, who was unaware that one of his lackies was abusing slaves against his orders? Does he deserve to have his throat cut in his sleep?

Do the slaves want to be set free? Or perhaps they'd prefer be slaves and have food and shelter than be outlaws?

Are some of the slaves convicted criminals? What if the majority of the slaves are evil? Are the PCs only going to free the "good" slaves?

This is a sticky situation, and it's up to you to make it as morally ambiguous as you like. If you're going for a grim and gritty real-world feel, then nothing about the situation could be black and white.

 

[Mallus]

Did you ever hear the saying, "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions"?

The road to high adventure is usually paved with a similar surfacing material...

Not worrying about the consequences of good deeds leads to that problem. You may be a GM, or play under a GM, who never saddles the players with bad consequences for doing good things without thinking them through.

Too much "thinking things through" isn't (usually) genre-appropriate. This is heroic action-fantasy. A small number of absurdly powerful and lucky individuals do ludricrously dangerous things that alter the course of history...

That isn't to say there shouldn't be repurcussions for the players rash actions. Just that the consequences lead to another set of potentially surmountable challenges, not some loss-state where the 'wrong' choice effectively wrecks the game.

At some very basic level, all heroic adventure stories are dumb, be they fantasy, SF, hard-boiled detective, etc. The heroic narrative model requires that a few special people take enormous risks against overwhelming odds, with a reasonable chance of the story continuing.

Debating that is akin to pointing out that its stupid for the captain and the highest-ranking officers aboard the Enterprise always lead dangerous away missions. Of course its stupid. But it makes the story possible... stories which frequently make sense, so long as you overlook the initial conceit...

Put another away, the simulation element of a game should serve player enjoyment.

 

[Razuur]

Sounds like a great way to start a campaign to me.

IF they break the law and murder all of those people, then the rest of the campaign should be them running for their lives, while bounty hunters, law officers, and mercenaries try to collect on these murderers.

On the other hand, this could be the first gore in an anti slavery resistance movement - ala Robin Hood - G&G style!

Sounds like you've given your campaign a dash of excitement!

Razuur

 

[John Morrow]

Let me set the theme for this reply up front: "There is no one right way to play D&D."

The road to high adventure is usually paved with a similar surfacing material...

It can be, with suitable script immunity and a GM willing to have everything work out in the end. Not every GM runs their game that way.

Too much "thinking things through" isn't (usually) genre-appropriate. This is heroic action-fantasy. A small number of absurdly powerful and lucky individuals do ludricrously dangerous things that alter the course of history...

D&D doesn't inherently have a single genre. Even "heroic fantasy" can cover quite a range of tone and conventions. If this game were using standard "action movie" morality that allows for ludricrously dangerous acts without much though to the consequences, then I don't think the GM or player would be asking for alternatives. They wouldn't need. to. Action movie morality allows the heroes to kill the bad guys and anyone who works for them and the slavers are the bad guys or people who work for them.

That isn't to say there shouldn't be repurcussions for the players rash actions. Just that the consequences lead to another set of potentially surmountable challenges, not some loss-state where the 'wrong' choice effectively wrecks the game.

Unless the game lacks consequences that can wreck the game (and this is true with some styles of play), then the consequences certainly could be something that wrecks the game.

At some very basic level, all heroic adventure stories are dumb, be they fantasy, SF, hard-boiled detective, etc. The heroic narrative model requires that a few special people take enormous risks against overwhelming odds, with a reasonable chance of the story continuing.

That's not the only way to run a D&D game, nor other RPG for that matter.

Debating that is akin to pointing out that its stupid for the captain and the highest-ranking officers aboard the Enterprise always lead dangerous away missions. Of course its stupid. But it makes the story possible... stories which frequently make sense, so long as you overlook the initial conceit...

It's also entirely possible to run a Star Trek game where the captain doesn't beam down on every landing party.

There are two types of genre emulation in role-playing. The first type seeks to emulate the type of setting in that genre. The second type seeks to emulate the types of stories in that genre. They aren't the same thing and there is no one right way to do it.

Put another away, the simulation element of a game should serve player enjoyment.

Of course some players (myself included) often consider versimilitude necessary for enjoyment. There is no one right way to please everyone.