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

[John Morrow]

John Morrow, Good post, and I certainly appreciate the examples, but we don't use Alignment. It's too much of a cop-out for Moral stuggles for me.

Well, I'm seeing a lot of "alignment talk" in the examples...

I would argue that alignment isn't really a cop-out. Yes, it makes moral elements more clear, but it doesn't eliminate the hard choices, especially if your players are role-playing their characters. Yes, a Detect Evil spell would make it easier for your players to select only Evil slayers for killing but it would also make it impossible for them to simply assume that all of the slavers must be Evil and, therefore, fair game. Yes, you can kill Evil opponents without moral abiguity but you also can't rationalize away the killing of Neutral or Good opponents. In morally ambiguous situations, most players in my experience default to "Action Movie Morality", which is (roughly) if they are a bad guy, are working for a bad guy, or are attacking the good guys, they can use lethal force and kill them with impunity. In many ways, I find that (and GM attempts to add some depth to it) more two-dimensional.

Sometimes, people need to do things that aren't good at all. If they could find more, it would be an interesting change.

Sometimes people need to ignore one Evil to address other Evils. Unless your deities define Good as "A hopeless struggle against all Evil, win or lose", one can ignore Evil going on around them (A) if they have no reasonable chance of doing anything useful about about it or (B) if they've got greater Evils to deal with.

 

[John Morrow]

I disagree. Doing good where you can is what's needed. It doesn't have to be all or nothing, and deciding that it has to be ties your hands and prevents doing what good you can, most of the time. Just because you can't free ALL slaves doesn't mean you shouldn't free THESE slaves.

I didn't say it has to be all or nothing. I said that you need to evaluate the big picture. What's the implication of a killing a few dozen slavers and freeing their slaves? It doesn't sound like these slavers are so isolated their their deaths and the freedom of their slaves will be ignored. If the PCs kill these slavers, will they (and the slaves they freed) wind up being hunded down by either the authorities or a powerful crime sydicate?

It doesn't sound to me like they'll be able to just free the slaves and walk away from the situation and live happily ever after.

 

[Bagpuss]

(1) Spartacus was also a trained gladiator and possibly (some think) a trained Roman soldier in his past. (2) He had other trained warriors in his ranks.
(3) Ultimately, he lost.

1) So are the PC's
2) Theres 4 of them there was only one Spartacus... if you ignore the shouts of "No, I'm Spartacus!"
3) So he's a tragic hero, doesn't mean the players will lose, and even if they do they die heroically for a cause they believe in, no better way for a PC to die.

On the plus side...

1) With the slaves armed and on thier side they will vastly out number the slavers. So no need to murder them in thier sleep.
2) Any other plan that doesn't involve revolution will mean that even if you kill these slavers other slavers will just take over the work to supply a market need. You have to destroy the market.
3) You get to lead your own army, and maybe even your own country afterwards.

And after all you are ment to be playing heros, isn't freeing slaves and overturning a corrupt system of government that survives on the taxes on slaves misery, the sort of thing hero do? Or is it sod the slaves, as that could get a bit complex and even dangerous; lets go kill a dragon that hasn't bothered anyone in years, but has some phat lewt!

 

[jerichothebard]

You could have them get a talking to from a powerful and influential cleric running an underground railroad who cautions them about the dangers of their radical path.

Here might be your answer - have them run the underground railroad, only maybe not quite so underground. They take up arms to help escaped slaves, then come into conflict with the slavers and plantation owners. Slavery only works as long as popular opinion supports it. The more people that help escaped slaves get free, the more it will cost the slavers to keep their slaves,leading eventually to a war. If they aren't high enough level to challenge the establishment directly, this might be the route to take.

And as the Sicilians say, revenge is a dish best served cold.



Also bear in mind that slavery is only economically viable as long as there isn't a better (i.e. more economically feasible) way. Slavery pretty much was doomed in the US with the invention of the cotton gin and a few other machines - the better way.

 

[John Morrow]

1) So are the PC's

Are the PCs going to stay with the slaves and lead the revolt? It doesn't sound like they want to.

2) Theres 4 of them there was only one Spartacus... if you ignore the shouts of "No, I'm Spartacus!"

Actually, Spartacus (I'm talking about the historical one, not the movie) escaped with 70-80 other gladiators.

3) So he's a tragic hero, doesn't mean the players will lose, and even if they do they die heroically for a cause they believe in, no better way for a PC to die.

That's fine if the players don't mind playing out a tragedy. Consider the scene in The Princess Bride where the grandson shouts, "Jesus, Grandpa! Why are you reading me this thing?"

1) With the slaves armed and on thier side they will vastly out number the slavers. So no need to murder them in thier sleep.

Reread the examples. There are 40 slavers and 24 slaves. The slaves don't "vastly outnumber the slavers".

2) Any other plan that doesn't involve revolution will mean that even if you kill these slavers other slavers will just take over the work to supply a market need. You have to destroy the market.

There are several ways do to that, including a few that are far less direct (I suggested a few).

3) You get to lead your own army, and maybe even your own country afterwards.

Absolutely. I think that if the players want to play that sort of game, that option is clearly available to them. Remember, the GM and player are asking for alternatives here.

And after all you are ment to be playing heros, isn't freeing slaves and overturning a corrupt system of government that survives on the taxes on slaves misery, the sort of thing hero do? Or is it sod the slaves, as that could get a bit complex and even dangerous; lets go kill a dragon that hasn't bothered anyone in years, but has some phat lewt!

False dichotomy. There are plenty of other wrongs that the players could right. For example, killing the dragon might be far more important than freeing the slaves if the dragon is going to show up in a year or two and lay waste to everyone, regardless of whether they are a slaver or slave.

The question is whether or not the players and GM want to go into a full-blown game about overthrowing a slave-owning society. Is it heroic? Yes. Is it going to consume the entire game if they start it? Yup.

There is slavery in the D&D game that I'm running but the players aren't off trying to start a slave revolt (though they've freed more than a few). Why? Because they are working on stopping their entire planet from being conquered and enslaved. In the big scheme of things, the local slavery is small potatoes Evil that they can worry about tackling later. When the opportunity presents itself to free slaves, stop slavers, etc. the PCs take it but they can't afford to get sucked into that full time, no matter how much they want to.

[Edit: galdiators->gladiators]

 

[ARandomGod]

"Not a very Good act."

Sounds like a perfectly good act. Perhaps not a lawful one, but killing monsters has always been considered good. And anyone realistic should be able to realize that sometimes humans are monsters.

 

[Draconus Mortis]

Well, it doesn't sound like your group of adventurers are crusading for glory. This being the case, I believe I have a solution that works better than all of the aforementioned ones, both morally, politcally, and realistically. Basically, if the PC's do a little manipulation i.e. start conflicting rumors or some such thing, they could plunge the whole slaving industry into a guild war. The now rival guilds would kill each other off, with any "innocent" people dropping out at the beginning of the whole fiasco. The PC's are free of any responsibility, as they didn't kill anyone, and those that were killed were evil. In the end the only people that die are the morally reprehensible, and not even by the PC's hands. The PC's could free the slaves in the confusion, and no-one would suspect that it was anything more than an accident. In the aftermath of such a catastrophe the government may very well rule that slavery is not worth the trouble, perhaps due to financial reasons, and outlaw it. The catastrophe of the guild war/slave rebellion could also extend to the other nearby proslavery nations, which in turn would lead to it being outlawed everywhere. The PC's menwhile sit back in a tavern, have a couple of beers, and privatley congratulate themselves on doing away with salvery, and no-one is the wiser. That work for ya?

 

[Kemrain]

That work for ya?

Welcome to the boards. Thanks. That might work for me, but only after we deal with this group of slavers.

- Kemrain the Inspired.

 

[Bagpuss]

Are the PCs going to stay with the slaves and lead the revolt? It doesn't sound like they want to.

If they free them they have to take responsibility for them, else what's the point? The slaves will only be rounded up and probably killed as an example to other slaves not to escape.

Actually, Spartacus (I'm talking about the historical one, not the movie) escaped with 70-80 other gladiators.

200 actually but 120 of them died in the escape. Hmm that doesn't help my arguement any. Ah but my slave revolt will be armed with swords and spears not, pastry cutters and spatulars. (and I thought there would be a lot more slaves...)

That's fine if the players don't mind playing out a tragedy. Consider the scene in The Princess Bride where the grandson shouts, "Jesus, Grandpa! Why are you reading me this thing?"

Every hero tale has to end sometime. Better in a heroic death than overweight sitting on the loo.

Reread the examples. There are 40 slavers and 24 slaves. The slaves don't "vastly outnumber the slavers".

Oh well in that case just wait a few weeks, with those sorts of overheads they should be out of business in a less than a month.

 

[RandomUsernamehmimo71]

There are only 40 slavers there at the moment, normally, there's 12.

Basically, what's going on there is that the Slavers got wind that Diamondback (the Crime lord, Above) sent a group of thugs to "Rough up" the slavers, as they haven't been paying protection money.

The slavers are starting to get sick of it, so a bunch of their groups gathered together to resist the team. They fought off the thieves, and are now at the camp the PCs are headed to.

There aren't normally that many. But keep in mind... Even if there were than many, Most of the people there wouldn't be slavers, just people who work in the area.
So it's not like you need to support all of them off of the sale of 24 slaves

In any event, I really appreciate the suggestions. At least this will give them something to think about..

Colin "Greater wrong making a right." Davis

In any event, Leading an army might work, but as I suggested above, it's likely to cause poltical tension. Maybe the PCs will have to risk that, if they want to avoid murdering the slavers.