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

[John Morrow]

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).

What's fun can vary substantially from player to player. I've seen the elimination of game-ending consequences destroy a game just as surely as a TPK could have.

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

Sure. But those catastrophes will never be game-ending and thus not really catastrophes.

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.

I think it has a great deal of value in and of itself. In fact, the primary reason why I role-play is to have the in character experience of being someone else someplace else. If that someone else or someplace else turns to cardboard because versimilitude has collapsed, I'm honestly left playing a boardgame. And, no, the story aspect of role-playing doesn't interest me all that much.

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...

Frankly, that's how I feel about putting narrative concerns first and versimilitude last.

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.

And the players, if they are paying attention to the game, can tell when the GM is manipulating events just as surely as they can recognize a Deus ex Machina in a poorly written story or movie.

Writer's Digest had an interesting article about coincidences in stories a few years ago. The gist of the article was that readers will accept coincidences that complicate a plot but have very little tolerence for coincidences that save the characters from plot twists. Used sparingly, it can work OK. Used frequently, it becomes a cliche in the same class as the red shirt in Star Trek, another technique that works fine once or twice but became a cliche from overuse.

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...

What is or isn't a good GM will vary from group to group. In fact there is another thread active right now that illustrates a what happens when the sensibilities of a GM are mismatched with the sensibilities of their players.

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

If one is not having fun playing the game anymore, then it's preferable to not play it. There are at least two currently active threads (the one mentioned above and the one about the GM changing the character's personality on the player) that illustrate forms of this problem. In my particular case, if the game world doesn't make sense in character, then the setting and character fall apart on me and continuing to play is just so much moving a counter around on a map and rolling dice.

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...

And that's emulating the Star Trek stories. That's not the only way to run a game in the Star Trek universe. The story and universe are different.

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

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

If you haven't noticed, Deep Space Nine takes place in the Star Trek universe. You can also take a look at GURPS Prime Directive for a different take.

 

[John Morrow]

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.

I disagree. What makes terrorists particularly loathsome is that they purposely target and kill innocent civilians to hurt the real target of their agression. While one could argue that the slavers are legally "innocent", it's not as if they are contemplating murdering the families of the slavers, which is the sort of thing that a real terrorist might do.

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.

Have you seen the movie Patriot Games? If you have, I'm curious if you feel queasy about the scene where Special Forces perform a night raid on a terrorist camp and kill everyone there. I think there are a lot of parallels here.

 

[reddist]

Were all 40 of the slavers in on abusing the young girl? If it was just a handful of brutes, sneak in and murder them in their sleep, rescue a couple influential slaves, and help the newly freed slaves lead a revolt to free the rest/abolish slavery...etc. etc. etc.

 

[Darkness]

Were all 40 of the slavers in on abusing the young girl?

I think there initially were only 12 and the rest are reinforcements.

 

[Kemrain]

Darkness is pretty sharp. Those numbers are correct. 40 Slavers to 24 slaves is rediculous without a good reason. Kicking the arses of Diamondback's toughs is a good reason. Pity Melissa doesn't know all this...

- Kemrain the, Again, Totally Screwed.

The thing that puts an end to the Slave Revolt ideas is the fact that the oldest of these slaves is 15, and the rest are from 7 to 13. They're children, for crying out loud. I thought I'd stated that earlier, but I must have been difficult to follow. Sorry. I'm expecting the slaves to scream and make a rucus at the first sight of danger more than I expect them to take up arms. This is yet another complication that we're expected to deal with on the fly.

- Kemrain the Reconnaissance Fiend.

 

[RandomUsernamehmimo71]

Of course there are other slaves, in other farms/slave camps, but that would require a larger advance than on this one encounter.

That said, I'm certaintly of the impression that the PCs may be choosing to effectively "punt", or and ignore the less "Here is a girl asking for your help" general case, and focus solely on this one encounter.
That's their choice, of course, but it's the less interesting one.

-C

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

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.

OK, but that's not really germaine to my point of view. 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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Amal Shukup]

Darkness is pretty sharp. Those numbers are correct. 40 Slavers to 24 slaves is rediculous without a good reason. Kicking the arses of Diamondback's toughs is a good reason. Pity Melissa doesn't know all this...

Armed combattants aiding and abbetting child abusing Slavers?

Kill them all. There are no innocents here.

Also, they're reinforcing. They KNOW they're at war.

The thing that puts an end to the Slave Revolt ideas is the fact that the oldest of these slaves is 15, and the rest are from 7 to 13. They're children, for crying out loud..

And there's an ongoing DEBATE over whether murdering these slavers is a 'good thing' or not? Come ON! Any Neutral or Lawful Good character ought to gleefully accept the possibility of death in this cause. Any Paladin that didn't immediately step up and DO something ought to be stripped of their class abilities and forced to atone...

Er, let's not open up THAT debate right now.

But really. Slavery might be legal, but how hard is it to get help rescuing children from demonstratably abusive Slavers? Pick ANY lower class tavern (ex slaves, laborers etc). Get on a table, orate like ya mean it, ask for volunteers. Offer weapons and a share in the loot (and, you know, everlasting glory...)

I thought I'd stated that earlier, but I must have been difficult to follow. Sorry. I'm expecting the slaves to scream and make a rucus at the first sight of danger more than I expect them to take up arms.

Sleep Spell. Silence Spell. Sneak in, wake up the eldest kids and have them keep their juniors quiet and out from underfoot. Let 'em scream and run around, even. You have difficult problems here, but keeping a bunch of zero level commoners quiet isn't really one of them.

Also, 15 year olds have carried weapons into war (and died at the ends of them) since the dawn of time. It sucks (like everything else in war) but that's just the way it is. My own grandfather was only 16 when he first signed up and went to war.

But no, these slaves might not be the core of a slave revolt, but it's not like bigger, tougher slaves can't be found elsewhere if need be.

Ya got something more important to do besides rescuing these kids? A measley old Dragon or something? Is it a money thing?

A'Mal - who would be gleefully garrotting slaver #36 right now...

 

[VirgilCaine]

I've got a problem in my game.. The PCs are coming up against an encounter in which they plan to murder up to 40 people in their sleep.. It's not a good act by any means, but I can't give them an alternative.

The problem is, they came across Belle, a young girl who escaped from a Slaver's farm. She'd been beaten, and abused her whole time there, and obviously wants them all to die and rot in hell. There are up to 25 other slaves still there.

Problem is, Slavery is Legal in this part of the world.

That means that the PCs can't get the place shut down. Even if they freed all the slaves, the slavers there would just go and buy more slaves, and other people would suffer. They could try capturing the slavers and moving them to a part of the world where slavery IS illegial, but the government there couldn't try them, without risking a war.
There are also several other "farms", where slavers gather, and none of them are going to be affected directly.

The problem basically stems from the fact that Slavery is entirely legal, taxed, and government supported in one area, and not in another.


The best solution the PCs have come up with is sneaking in, and killing all the slavers in their sleep. Not a very Good act. Or, if they wanted to be less effective, they could challenge the slavers, and let them wake up and fight fair..
But either way, the slavers are just business men. They're people that are doing something legal where they live, and don't want a fight.

There are a number of businessmen, but also their families in this area. It's not an easy call what to do.

As a GM, I wish I could offer the PCs a better solution. But I'm not coming up with much... I could really use some advice on other ways they can handle it.

A few of my PCs frequent ENworld, so if either they have any thoughts, feel free. This isn't a secret disucssion. We all need help on this one.

Killing people in their sleep is evil?
Reread the definitions of "good" and "evil" in the Core books. Killing people in their sleep isn't evil. Probably not even chaotic. As long as these are slavers, the PCs are A-okay IMO.

And just becuase something is legal, that doesn't make it right. Insert your favorite real world example here.

The real problem here is you haven't read your Alignment section lately, I would guess.

 

[Amal Shukup]

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.

AMEN, brother!

"Neutral Chicken" - Bwah! Goes well with Lawful Stupid and Chaotic Nuts...

A'Mal