Slavery in D&D Campaign Settings

[Mark CMG]

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.

I do not know, as he did not say, and he didn't actually ask me for advice, so I didn't ask. The discussion was short and a bit one-sided. I think he just wanted to vent.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I don't understand why PCs would be put to work in mines. Even at 1st level they're far too talented to be used as mere labour.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Or because he's, oh I don't know, black?

That was my guess too.

 

[Asmor]

Let me preface this by saying that I'm making the following assumptions: The new player is black, and the DM in question is white. The DM is afraid that the new player will be consider the slavery in the game to be "racially insensitive" or whatever the current PC term is.

Ok, so, big assumptions. I'm probably wrong. But I'm already posting, so here goes. Here's my advice to the DM in this situation:

Don't make it an issue unless he does. Imagine how you'd feel if you went over to his house for lunch and he said "Oh, by the way, I picked up some mayonnaisse because I heard you guys like that stuff." That's essentially what you'd be doing by changing some of your campaign to better fit your expectations of what he'd want.

 

[jefgorbach]

one of role-playing's side-benefits is the freedom to examine issues normally unavailable in real-life - consequently I would expect both the DM and players to approach the opportunity (should it arise) to embrace and learn from the experience.

Is slavery a horrible concept? Of course! But might it not also help -ALL- the players deal with the issue and reprecussions not only in-game, but also gain valuable insight applicable to real-life as to why certain aspects of our culture feel as they do?
As a side point, perhaps the individual in question might prove a valuable resource on the subtle racial nuances the predominatly human players might experience in a predominatly pro-elven community the DM might be unaware of for instance.

 

[S'mon]

I'm mildly curious as to whether slavery in this GM's game is racial, which seems out of place in a medieval or classical type setting. I suppose the Spartans regarded themselves as a different race from the Helots, but they'd be all Greek to us. Racism and racial slavery as we understand it is really a post-Enlightenment phenomenon, but I suppose all the different 'species' races in D&D combined with its absolutist approach to morality might lead to something more like post-17th century Earth than the medieval tech level would imply.

Edit: The 'Dwurfolk' Dwarves in my B/X campaign keep slaves, but by their law no dwarf may own another dwarf. I guess you could take that as a comment on racism if you like.

 

[Mark CMG]

I gathered from what he was saying that he was concerned about how brutal he could describe the enslavement. It seemed he felt describing a certain level of brutality was required to achieve a particular tone and feel to the game and set up their eventual striving for freedom and the retribution the PCs would take upon the captors. I think he also felt he was in touch enough with his original group/audience to know how far he could take the descriptions without treading on anyone's sensibilities but with the new player he no longer feels he knows his audience well enough to make the call. However, he also is unsure if directly approaching the new player would do more harm than good.


I'm not sure that "race" has exactly the same meaning in D&D as it does in a real-world general sense. We might want to avoid having the discussion turn in that direction.

 

[Numion]

I see no potential problems.

 

[Imaro]

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".

Whoa these type of "shouldn't be playing comments really irk me. I look at it like this...nothing in you earlier posts point to this player being a "bad" player and we all have issues that are uncomfortable for us as individuals to deal with. I would personally think a DM was a bit of an ass if he kicked me out for having issues with certain things(within reason). Is child abuse, rape, sexism, etc. okay as well or should you just kick a player out for having issues with those as well? Do these issues when infllicted on someones character heighten their enjoyment of the campaign? I think we play rpg's to escape alot of the real world issues that we have to deal with in life, bringing in and exploring these issues is cool if everybody is on the same page.

I am a black gamer and my response would be as follows. The DM should talk to him...even if he is black that isn't the only reason someone may have issues with playing out the role of a slave, thus I don't think it's a good analogy with the mayo comment above.

Discussing it is actually treating him like a mature adult, instead of a child and I think your player is going to respect you more for it. I mean just something along the lines of...

"look my campaign deals with mature issues such as...now I've talked to my other players to get a feel of the type of things they do and don't feel comfortable with, since your new I just wanted to give you the opportunity to let me know how you feel."

At this point you've opened a dialog, now you may have to compromise(yeah I'm cool with it as long as the actual specifics can be a sort of implied thing), he may opt out the campaign(Yeah that's not for me.) or he may be totally fine with it(Naw I don't have a problem with that it's just a game.). But I think opening the dialog and treating him like a mature player is the most important thing. Just my .02

 

[el-remmen]

Discussing it is actually treating him like a mature adult, instead of a child and I think your player is going to respect you more for it. I mean just something along the lines of...

"look my campaign deals with mature issues such as...now I've talked to my other players to get a feel of the type of things they do and don't feel comfortable with, since your new I just wanted to give you the opportunity to let me know how you feel."

At this point you've opened a dialog, now you may have to compromise(yeah I'm cool with it as long as the actual specifics can be a sort of implied thing), he may opt out the campaign(Yeah that's not for me.) or he may be totally fine with it(Naw I don't have a problem with that it's just a game.). But I think opening the dialog and treating him like a mature player is the most important thing. Just my .02

Great post, Imaro!

Just about what I was going to say. . . and as for race (racism) not playing a part in D&D (as some folks have said) - it really depends on the setting - I know it definitely plays a part in my games. But the actual meta-game issue with the player isn't necessarily about that.