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

[Squire James]

Steal their money and steal their slaves. Then run a couple of interference missions when they try to "just take more". Eventually, their lack of money will cause the slavers to disperse or be destroyed by the crimelord.

At least, that's the only way I see not to make a major campaign out of the matter.

 

[Mallus]

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.

I don't think we're talking about the same thing. I'm not talking about some form of 'script immunity', or everything working out exactly the way the players want it to. I'm talking about choosing to use events like this to drive the narrative; giving the players a choice of viable options, rather than constructing situations with such clearly deliniated 'win-lose' (and 'right/wrong') conditions.

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.

Wasn't the intitial issue 'would that make us murderers' and not 'would we get away with it?'

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.

D&D morality says pretty much the same thing. I'm not saying its right, but its one of the default assumptions

...then the consequences certainly could be something that wrecks the game.

And this level of verisimilititude would benefit a campaign how?

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

Is it possible to run an RPG where the PC's aren't the protagonists?

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.

I don't see how its possible to seperate the setting from the kind of stories told in it. What constitutes a reasonable course of action is ldictated by the setting, and the genre conventions that undergird it.

 

[John Morrow]

I don't think we're talking about the same thing. I'm not talking about some form of 'script immunity', or everything working out exactly the way the players want it to. I'm talking about choosing to use events like this to drive the narrative; giving the players a choice of viable options, rather than constructing situations with such clearly deliniated 'win-lose' (and 'right/wrong') conditions.

I'm not necessarily talking about things working out how the players want, either. But if you eliminate outcomes that could wreck the game, you are eliminating the worst outcomes and protecting the players from catastrophic implications. I'm also not saying that things have to be presented in win/lose or right/wrong terms. But if you eliminate catastropic outcomes as a possibility, clearly losing in the worst possible way has been taken off the table.

Wasn't the intitial issue 'would that make us murderers' and not 'would we get away with it?'

The title of the tread is "How to Fix a Slavery situation without murder?"

They were already assuming that killing the slavers would be murder. They were looking for other options. At least that's how I read the thread.

And this level of verisimilititude would benefit a campaign how?

That all depends on how important versimilitude is to you and your players. It's pretty darned important to me. I'd personally rather see the game crash and burn than spot the hand of the GM protecting the characters from the logical consequences of their actions. YMMV.

Is it possible to run an RPG where the PC's aren't the protagonists?

Probably. I've played games without a GM and games where the players run multiple characters.

But you seem to be assuming that (A) the players must play the bridge crew and (B) that the protagonists need to be the ones always beaming down on landing parties. I don't think either is necessarily true in a Star Trek game.

I don't see how its possible to seperate the setting from the kind of stories told in it. What constitutes a reasonable course of action is ldictated by the setting, and the genre conventions that undergird it.

It's quite simple, actually. The fact that the red shirts are killed to show how dangerous the situation is while the main characters are immune from death has nothing to do with the Star Trek setting. That's a genre convention that has more to do with the realities of series television than the Star Trek universe. If you were running a game that emulates Star Trek stories, the protagonists will never die. If you are running a game that emulates the Star Trek universe but not the genre conventions created by the needs of series television, perhaps the PC captain will be the first to die and the red shirts will all survive in an encounter with an alien creature. Both are "Star Trek" games in the sense that they take place in the Star Trek setting.

 

[Amal Shukup]

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.

...sold the captive slavers to other slavers...

...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.

Sweet...

I'm not sure (personally) if I wouldn't be more comfortable just killing them cleanly rather than participating in slavery, but it has a rather appealing symmetry. Also very practical, financially speaking.

I think a key component of any succesful plan of action includes setting up the freed slaves in a new life. Considering the wealth and abilities typically available to adventurers, this should not be too hard:

- Robbing the slavers (as they are killed, sold etc.)
- Get 'em out of country with some start up funds
- Forgery Skill (Manumission documents, bills of sale etc.). Lets them stay in country
- Arming them, training them and setting them up as freedom fighters
- Front the capital for businesses or farms
- Employ them directly (buy a farm/business and pay them fair wages)

A'Mal

 

[Mallus]

But if you eliminate outcomes that could wreck the game, you are eliminating the worst outcomes and protecting the players from catastrophic implications.

While it really depends on how long a campaign has been going on, I generally remove game-ending consequences from the game. I just don't think it fun for anyone to spend a year embroiled in a storyline only to present the players with the narrative equivalent of the Tomb of Horrors (where two in three choices result in unavoidable doom).

That still leaves me with a full slate of catastrophes to witness upon the poor PC's...

That all depends on how important versimilitude is to you and your players. It's pretty darned important to me.

It's very important to me as well. But it has no value in and of itself. And there's a limit to it described by the genre conventions.

And given the context, insisting on a high level of verisimilitude is a little like insisiting that one wear a tie in room full of people who aren't wearing pants...

I'd personally rather see the game crash and burn than spot the hand of the GM protecting the characters from the logical consequences of their actions. YMMV.

But the DM decides whats the logical consequences are, what other forces are are in play, and to what extend (hopefully believable) coincidences bail the players out. A good DM presents a reasonable environment that fosters derring-do. I'm sorry, but a level of daring action is implicit in both the genres that inspired it and the mechanics; thats reflected in almost every part of the systems design...

And I'm just not seeing how the choice to not play the game is preferable to choosing to play it...

If you are running a game that emulates the Star Trek universe but not the genre conventions created by the needs of series television, perhaps the PC captain will be the first to die and the red shirts will all survive in an encounter with an alien creature. Both are "Star Trek" games in the sense that they take place in the Star Trek setting.

That's an interesting take... I'd argue that who the protagonists wind up being doesn't affect the genre conventions at work; in the case of ST, standing on ones principles would always win out against expediency, there'd always be another alternative that doesn't involve the sacrifice of innocents, diplomacy would (almost) always provide a solution, god-like entities would still be capable of shame/have sensible parents/and or be vulnerable to the 'calculate the last digit of pi' trick...

Take those away and you no longer have the Star Trek universe.

Ummm, you'd have Deep Space Nine...

 

[Kemrain]

Take those away and you no longer have the Star Trek universe.

Ummm, you'd have Deep Space Nine...

I suppose it doesn't help that e1ven is a DIEHARD DS9 fan, hmm?

- Kemrain the Hopeless.

 

[MeiRen]

"How to fix slavery without murder" is a serious problem in the real world as well. You can find Antislavery International's answer here:

http://www.antislavery.org/homepage/antislavery/about.htm

That's the slow, realistic, long term way of going about things.

Historically, most people's answer to the question has been "Its not murder if its war" A lot of otherwise pacificistic Northerners cheered when John Brown attack Harper's Ferry, there are other examples floating around. That said, there's a big difference between slitting someone's throat in the middle of the night and a decleration of war.

Notably, "fair warning". If the characters want to be Lawful, or maybe even Good, they should warn the people about what they're going to do, and hopefully get a legitimate authority to sanction it. If you have a high ranking Cleric in the group, he can probably order the killing done in the name of God (presuming that you give fair warning, and that his god approves of these kinds of things.)

If the characters slip in during the night, kill everyone in the place, and then slip out with the slaves, well, it may very well be ethically justifiable. But lets not pull any punches: the word for that sort of behavior is terrorism, and they're going to make the entire country hate them. They may very well be able to escape unscathed, they may very well be right to oppose the country, but its still going to feel really quesy.

There may also be magical ways around this. Really obscene Diplomacy rolls, Mass Charm Person, Teleportation circle - not anything the player's are likely to have, but they exist.

Goodluck. I think this is an awesome scenario.

 

[Mallus]

I suppose it doesn't help that e1ven is a DIEHARD DS9 fan, hmm?

- Kemrain the Hopeless.

Well, then you'll suffer, but in a highly entertaining fashion...

 

[Kemrain]

Well, then you'll suffer, but in a highly entertaining fashion...

Well if that don't describe this whole campaign...

- Kemrain the Totally Screwed.

 

[Amal Shukup]

If the characters slip in during the night, kill everyone in the place, and then slip out with the slaves, well, it may very well be ethically justifiable. But lets not pull any punches: the word for that sort of behavior is terrorism

Excuse me? These the same guys who go out on raids, capture innocents, strip them of their liberty, enslave their children unto the nth generation, abuse them in ways not really appropriate for discussion on these boards? THAT's terrorism. Or war. The PCs are just joining an already extant conflict. No warning really neccesary (although might be wprth giving for PR purposes).

It may be 'terrorism' by the lights of the slavers, but there's an implicit legitimacy in fighting back against those who have 'declared war' (on the NPC anyway) by enslaving her and others. Perhaps it's the opening salvo of a new war opening on a new front. Low intensity conflict, armed insurrection, just retribution... Targeting legitimate targets with discretion.

The goal isn't (or shouldn't be) to terrorize the population at large, but rather to visit punishment on the unredeemable, liberate the innocent, and start a popular movement to eradicate the indefensibly EVIL institution of slavery. Ideally, the population at large will sympathise with the activities in question.

...and they're going to make the entire country hate them.

That's a PR issue. One worth spending some time on. The 'entire county' loves and sympathizes with slavers? As I said before, targeting run of the mill Slave OWNERS isn't a really good idea (unless they're obvious abusers), but slave takers and merchants ought to be widely despised or hated - and thus fair targets in a war of liberation.

A'Mal