Indentured servitude & equitable slavery in D&D

[Ambrus]

I don't personally endorse slavery, but I'm trying to hammer out a feasible system for indentured servitude & slavery in a fantastic urban city-state environment for a D&D campaign setting. Such concepts, although unpalatable to us nowadays, used to be fairly common in various societies and I'd like to try representing that mindset in the campaign; either as background color or as something for the PCs to crusade against if they so choose. I'd just like to hear, from people more knowledgeable about the topic than I am, what kind of laws are likely in place in a fantasy trade-city with many races and alignments represented within its citizenry.

Assuming that race alone isn't sufficient to determine who can be a slave and who can't, and that one can't simply enslave one's neighbors on a whim, what should legally be in and out of bounds? Indentured servitude makes some sense for those unable to pay their debts or legal fines, but should that be the only means of entering slavery? Could/should an individual be able to sell themselves into slavery, perhaps as a desperate means to avoid destitution? Can parents without the means or the desire to care for a child have the option of selling them into slavery? Are a slave's children automatically considered the property of their parent's owner? Should slaves be a commodity to be bought and sold in foreign markets?

Also, what rights if any should an indentured servant or slave possess? Should they have an inherent right to life? How could an indentured servant or slave legally acquire their freedom? I'm curious to hear your thoughts on the matter.

 

[Piratecat]

...considering that I just closed a thread on satyr rape, please be EXCEPTIONALLY cautious on this. Keep it focused on the game.

Thank you.

 

[Michael Dean]

Well, if it is an indentured slave that is modeled on real life indentured servitude, there is generally a set time period for the servitude (7 years iirc?). It was common in colonial America as a means to allow poor citizens in Europe to come to America and ensure that their (expensive) passage is paid for. The servant learns a trade and can set up on their own after the servitude is over. That doesn't mean they were treated all that well, but maybe not so much different as what they could expect in the old country.

Slavery, on the other hand, would most likely come from conquered peoples. You kind of pointed out that it is difficult to just arbitrarily establish slavery among citizens of your own country unless there is some kind of strong caste system in place. I would think it more likely that parents would sell their children into some kind of indentured servitude rather than slavery. Also, children of slaves would generally be property of the owner.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I would start by reading Wikipedia about indentured servants, debtors prisons and the like.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

A few thoughts, based on some historical examples...

Citizens of the state (city state or otherwise) are not "allowed" to be enslaved. Indentured Servitude is different in that context, since it usually ends when the debts are paid off through an equal amount of unpaid work, and the citizen in question is not subject to slave treatment....different rights at work there, usually. Potential slaves usually come from conquered races/nations and are non-citizens. Prisoners can be sentenced to slavery, if the crime wasn't something that would warrant execution/exile, but usually it is not a habit to put anybody with a legal citizenship into slavery. Bad precedence and all that.

Slaves ca buy their freedom by saving up enough money to pay their buying price...or their current market value, whichever you prefer. And yes, slaves actually get paid a little money, too, at least in more civilized cultures. Call it pocket money, or allowance, or a reward for exceptional service. Likewise, somebody can buy their freedom for them.

On that note, social stuff like engagements or marriages between slaves have to be approved by the owner, and in the case of more than one owner, can lead to transfer of ownership if they are both approving, or in prohibiting of those social contracts. Children of two slaves automatically fall into the ownership of the salves' owners. Children can, and will, be traded as soon as they are able to do work. All depends on the individual owner and his attitude towards slaves.

Mistreatment of slaves is not a wise move. If it's your own slave, you are kicking your own investment with feet. Nobody will really object, but you're shooting yourself in the foot in the long run. Mistreating, or worse, killing somebody else's slave is seen as destruction of foreign property, and depending on the slave, valuable property. Punishment can be decreed from restitution of the monetary value, to replacement of the slave.

The general alignment of a slave-based society can be along the lines of lawful neutral, tending towards lawful evil if you want to underline the fact that slavery limits the personal freedom of people, puts them into ownership of somebody else, and generally treats them as a (admittedly valuable) natural resource instead of intelligent beings. Take into account that the alignment system of D&D is a fairly modern construct, and would be viewed with amused philosophical interest or consternated disbelief in classical cultures that we know used slavery in a more "civilized" manner, and as such will have some difficulties not portraying a slave-based civilization as anything but evil.

 

[Numion]

I'd only use it as a plot device (save slaves) or background noise (country X is eeeevil since they use slaves). The economic impact from adventurers POV would be minor - they're so rich they could just hire help instead of buying slaves, taking into account the comparably great wealth adventurers have and their short life expectancy.

 

[Baron Opal]

I would research Roman Empire institutions and customs regarding slavery. I think that's what you would be most interested in. They do change as time went on, but for the most part you have a useful system.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

This was a thread on the Living Enworld forums where I introduced an adventure setting with an indentured servitude form of slavery. Slaves often sold themselves on behalf of their families for a set period of time, with the option to buy back their freedom later. Those pressed into slavery as prisoners of war or criminals were more closely monitored but still had rights.

 

[exile]

I have been contemplating a campaign setting wherein dwarves and gnomes are native to a particular continent. However, because their numbers have been faltering they have invited human (and halfling) mercenaries to the continent to aid in ongoing war against various humanoids. Several years after inviting said mercenaries, things were looking up form a combat standpoint, but the number of noncombatants was still dwindling, so still more humans and halflings were brought to the continent, this time as indentured servants.

 

[Altamont Ravenard]

The Malazan Book of the Fallen series (S. Erickson) has an Empire (Letheras) with Indebted, basically people who become slaves because of financial debt. Debts can befall entire families and make Indebted of them all, including future generations.

That serie is a terrific read, btw.

AR