Slavery in D&D Campaign Settings

[mmadsen]

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.

Race is not the only way of defining your "in group" for such purposes, of course. For centuries Europeans feared being seized by Muslim slavers and sold into hard labor. (Cervantes, author of Don Quixote, was captured by slavers and ransomed, for instance.) In fact, in order to maintain a steady supply of slaves, Muslim nations more or less needed continuous conflict with non-Muslims. (It's also forbidden for a Muslim to maim or mutilate another Muslim, so eunuch slaves doubly needed to come from non-Muslim lands.)

For the Romans, anyone non-Roman seemed to qualify for slavery -- not so much by their nature as non-Romans, but because they lost a war with Rome.

For the Egyptians, I suspect it was similar.

Any of these styles of slavery would fit nicely into a fantasy world, and the threat of slavery is a staple in adventure fictions. It means that the enemy always has a huge incentive to capture, rather than kill, our heroes -- and their romantic interests.

 

[megamania]

I see no issue. I would suggest that the Dm watches the group carefully. Run the game. If there is growing tension or uneasiness then tone it down. The entire campaign won't be this (I assume). If it is a problem move along quickly.

 

[Torm]

Slavery, in and of itself, should not be a racially sensitive issue - almost every people on the planet has been enslaved at some point, and on the flp-side, almost no one alive in the countries you're probably playing D&D in has actually been a slave.

But the memory is still strong of American slavery (and other slaveries - I don't know the makeup of your gaming group), and if it is going to bother a player or players because of that, give it a pass. But I'd say an intelligent and mature conversation might get around all of that - just because a player is from a particular background doesn't mean they are particularly sensitive to an issue. Heck, they might be more offended to know that you think they are!

 

[S'mon]

I'm not sure that "race" has exactly the same meaning in D&D as it does in a real-world general sense.

Fairly obviously it does not.

 

[S'mon]

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 agree with this. I certainly seek to modify my GMing style to the needs & desires of my players, as well as what I'm comfortable with personally. Occasionally no good compromise is possible, as with the female player who wanted me to eliminate all traces of sexism from my setting, but that's unusual, and there are often other issues - in her case I think her problem was more with the way one of the male players shaped her perception of the game-world, than with the world itself, since she was fine with a Conan/Hyborea game where her PC was a mercenary escorting slave girls to market!

 

[I'm A Banana]

The DM isn't sure the player will have an issue...

The DM is being hyper-sensitive.

Go for it. It's a fantasy game of make-believe role-play. If it becomes an issue, it can be removed, apologies can be made, and a round of drinks can be bought, and maybe everyone will learn something. If it doesn't become an issue, there's no reason to remove a plot point out of some paranoid fear of what MIGHT happen.

 

[MonkeyDragon]

It may also be helpful to define what slavery is like in the gameworld. When we in the US think of slavery, I think most of us automatically assume that it's the slavery of the American south. That slavery was in fact a lot MORE brutal than other slaveries that occurred in history, where in many cultures being a slave was a legal status and there were laws and customs on the proper treatment of slaves, how a person becomes a slave, etc. Not that it's ever GOOD, of course, but it's a varied and complicated thing.

I know that what I did for my homebrew was set two classifications for slave-like labor. Slavery is the Evil, cruel and brutal thing where sentient beings are sold as chattel, have no rights at all, and their masters do whatever they please to their slaves with no reprisal.

The other term I use is indentured servitude. This would be things that have laws governing them and standards are applied. Stuff like forced labor for a criminal, a person selling their service for a given length of time to repay a debt, certain instances of war captives, etc. Abuse could still occur in these situations, but in general, the people have certain rights and must be well-treated. It's the labor that's owned, not the person.

I know that historically this is not correct nomenclature. I use it because, as we have seen, slavery is a very Heavy Word, and many folks, myself included, have a hard time thinking beyond our gut reaction to it. Rather than having cultures were slavery is common but not necessarily an Evil thing and trying to express that, I use a term that's not so charged.


As far as dealing with the player, I agree with others' suggestions to casually, tactfully ask what level of maturity and heavy themes he's ok with. There are a lot of things in fantasy settings that make for very good story but not necessarily good roleplay, and every group is different. You can't know for sure what's going to offend someone, but all you can do is ask. Try not to MAKE it into a big deal, and it won't be. I'd say just pop off an e-mail briefly outlining any of the Big Things that might crop up in the campaign and ask if he's cool with it. If he is, cool. If not...that should be cool, too. I, for instance, am ok with issues of slavery in games, but if the DM has an idea for a game that deals with the total subjugation of women or a lot of sexual themes, I wouldn't find that fun, and would not want to be booted from the table because of it. To me that's like saying "I don't care that this makes you uncomfortable, if you don't like it, leave." It puts pressure on someone to supress thier uneasiness in order to play.

Wow. This is long. I look forward to rereading it in the morning and seeing if I still feel as erudite then as I do now after a late night and too much espresso.

 

[silentspace]

Does the player have an issue? We don't know.

Does the DM? Yes. So I would advise that he stays clear. I think most people are focusing on how to deal with the player, or what is 'reasonable' for a player. But the DM is a factor here too. If he sees pitfalls in every possible scenario, then don't do it. I'm not calling him a bad DM, but I believe he's playing the wrong game. Luckily, he's the DM. He can change the game.

 

[robertsconley]

My games had its roots in City State of the Invincible Overlord and Wilderlands of High Fantasy by Judges Guild and had slavery has always been part of the background . Even had one major campaign started out where the player was captain/owner of a boat that was slave raiding. I can't really remember a time during the 80's where any of my players, regardless of real life origin, objective. However by the late 90's and this decade I know players encountering this were nearly always surprised by the existence of slavery on such a widespread scale in my campaign.

More than handful has said "I am going to dedicate my character to wiping out slavery because it evil." Then when they played for a while and see how it really works in my campaign they realize that that goal something that not going to be attained for a while.

Note: for the explanation race is used in context of D&D Races.

I based my model of slavery on the ancient world. Slavery is sort of culture based but indiscriminate as well. The most important thing to be excepted by a culture is really to act and live according to the mores of the culture. Act and talk like a Roman and your are 75% of the way there, etc, etc. Don't get me wrong birth is important and it is likely only your children will be considered full members.

There is a history behind the existence of slavery in my campaign. City State raids Skandians (Vikings) and takes slaves, Skandians raid City-State and take slaves. This is usually what make players realize that slavery isn't viewed as 100% evil in the campaign world. There are cultures that don't generally keep a large amount of slaves (or any) that exist but it because of geography or historical reasons.

Like any other "difficult" topics that could role-played if slavery is used in context and given a reason for its existance that players shouldn't have a problem with it. If it just used as cliche or a mean of power gaming then I think players will have a problem with it.

 

[diaglo]

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.

the other direction could potentially be religion too.
slavery isn't always looked upon as evil by some settings. old testament use in the rpg testament. ten commandments. one of which includes honoring the sabbath. and letting your slaves have time off too.

unlike those we know in the real world.