Slavery in D&D Campaign Settings

[Mark CMG]

In a discussion with a fellow DM, the subject began of the PCs being potentially captured and forced to work in a mining operation. This had been a possibility from when the DM originally laid out his setting, if the PCs went in a certain direction. In the meantime, a new player has joined the group for whom this DM believes slavery might be a sensitive aspect to include in the game, particularly should the PCs be in the position of being the actual slaves. The DM is unsure if he should adjust the setting to remove that aspect altogether, if he should limit the possibilities of actual capture, or if he should trust there will be enough of a detachment that it will not matter. He is concerned that if he discusses it with the group it might be considered insensitive, that if he discusses it with just the one player it might be rude (if it isn't an issue in that player's mind anyway), or he might be in the wrong if he just proceeds as originally planned without taking some steps to ensure it won't be problematic. The DM is seeing a lot of potential pitfalls and no easy way to handle the situation.

When is the treatment of slavery in D&D campaign settings inappropriate, if at all?

 

[Rhun]

In most D&D campaign settings, slavery is quite common. Hell, look at the "Against the Slave Lords" series of modules...it is a whole campaign arc designed around the basis of slavers.

I've never had any issues with the slavery in my campaign. It is a common aspect of both fantasy and science-fiction settings.

 

[painandgreed]

When is the treatment of slavery in D&D campaign settings inappropriate, if at all?

That's for the DM and the group to decide. There are things worse than death, and slavery and many other things that could happen to a character without their permission. All players and DMs will handle the subjects differently. If I was DM, I'd simply explain that failure in this adventure could mean slavery. See if the charaters feet grow cold. If they wanted a different adventure, that would be fine. Adventuring has its risks and hopefully suitable rewards. but, honestly, I don't really see PC types being taken as slaves unless really low level and non-combative (and what PC is going to be complacent when taken as a slave?) and being captured would probably just equate to death anyway.

 

[Oryan77]

The issue of killing people and looting their bodies should be a sensitive subject.

The rogue lying, stealing, and stabbing people in the back should also be a sensitive subject.

If a player is offended by slavery in a D&D game, he needs another hobby.

Think of it this way, if it is a sensitive subject to the new player, doesn't that highten the campaign even more? If he starts off in game as a slave, there's going to be some really good roleplaying going on. He should be the character that tries more than anyone to get free and get revenge (or whatever the DM wants the PC's to do).

It should piss him off so much that there's slavery going on that he should be 100% dedicated to his character. He'll be the most passionate roleplayer

In a way, the DM is telling him, "Now is your chance to give slavers what they deserve".

 

[Griffith Dragonlake]

When is the treatment of slavery in D&D campaign settings inappropriate, if at all?

In my mind, this begs the larger question of ‘will acts of Evil in the campaign be explicit or implied?’ Will the campaign be rated X, R, PG-13, PG, or G?

Personally, I think there is a benefit to players having their characters enslaved as it really drives home the point of how slavery is much more Evil than many thought. And it can inspire the characters to become abolishionists — which is a brave and heroic thing in a world full of slavery.

Heck for that matter, start off the campaign with the PCs enslaved. When they successfuly escape and are reasonably free of capture, then they have earned their second level. Hmn. Maybe I will do just that for my next campaign…. So many campaign ideas and so little time…!

 

[Griffith Dragonlake]

The issue of killing people and looting their bodies should be a sensitive subject.

The rogue lying, stealing, and stabbing people in the back should also be a sensitive subject.

If a player is offended by slavery in a D&D game, he needs another hobby.

Think of it this way, if it is a sensitive subject to the new player, doesn't that highten the campaign even more? If he starts off in game as a slave, there's going to be some really good roleplaying going on. He should be the character that tries more than anyone to get free and get revenge (or whatever the DM wants the PC's to do).

It should piss him off so much that there's slavery going on that he should be 100% dedicated to his character. He'll be the most passionate roleplayer

In a way, the DM is telling him, "Now is your chance to give slavers what they deserve".

Yeah, what he said.

 

[Umbran]

Frankly, if the DM cannot ask a tactfully phrased question without offending the player, he probably either needs a tact transplant, or a new player.

You say the possibility was laid out in the setting from the start. Was this in any way communicated to the players at the start? If so, then the DM has the simple gambit to open the discussion, "I had mentioned this to the other players at the start, so I should also see if it is okay with you...".

 

[S'mon]

You could always call it "imprisoned and sentenced to forced labour". Some people react to terminology more than actuality.

 

[LordMelquiades]

Hi Mark

a new player has joined the group for whom this DM believes slavery might be a sensitive aspect to include in the game, particularly should the PCs be in the position of being the actual slaves.

To be honest, I think the DM needs to get more certainty as to whether this is in fact the case. As it is, he's in a bind, as either option seems to suggest difficulty.

When is the treatment of slavery in D&D campaign settings inappropriate, if at all?

Well, I'd say when one of your players finds the whole subject upsetting. In that case, either the player needs to leave or the slavery aspect in the game needs to be dropped. If the player is also a friend, then I would strongly advise the former! I'm a little surprised by comments such as "If a player is offended by slavery in a D&D game, he needs another hobby". The hobby is a part of life, and the whole of life is greater than the sum of its parts--and indeed one of those parts shouldn't dictate to the whole.

End of sermon...

 

[pawsplay]

In the meantime, a new player has joined the group for whom this DM believes slavery might be a sensitive aspect to include in the game, particularly should the PCs be in the position of being the actual slaves.

Because that player has expressed concerns? Because he's a former child laboror or kidnap victim? Because he's a Civil War history major? Or because he's, oh I don't know, black?

I think I'd need a little more to go on before I were willing to offer advice.