Slavery in D&D Campaign Settings

[Nifft]

You're both right - prima donna players are a pain, but politeness costs nothing.

It costs sanity points (a.k.a. stress). Thus, the occasional need for a good rant.

Hmm, I sense a meta-game mechanic:

Cathartic Rant -- For every page of rant you write between sessions, your GM and fellow players will assign a numerical rating between 1 and 10. You gain half this value back in sanity points before the next session.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Oryan77]

And that's fair enough, but, it doesn't hurt to check. Let people know that certain things are going to be expected in the game is just good manners honestly.

I totally agree. When I meet potential new players, I try to mention what I do & don't want from a player. From my experience, most players also tell me what they do & don't want from the DM. So we're both usually on the same page.

But the OP's situation sounds like a major thing. A player that doesn't want to deal with slavery in D&D is as big of a deal as a player not wanting to deal with killing in D&D. So I'd expect him to be up front before joining the group and ask me not to run slavery scenarios. That way I can tell him he won't fit in with our group and I won't have to ask the other players & strangers on Enworld if I should avoid running a slavery scenario for a sensitive player.

 

[Desdichado]

Throughout recorded history, in almost every civilization that has existed, slavery has been the norm. I know that the "genre" of D&D fantasy is largely defined by pseudo-historical/mythological settings that are nonetheless politically correct according to modern sensibilities, but honestly; it still never once occured to me that someone might think it inappopriate for D&D settings to have slaves.

Perhaps it's a little bit more interesting to try and make a case that a protagonist, lawful good society doesn't necessarily need to abstain from slavery, but to claim that an entire setting can't have slavery anywhere in it for fear of offending someone is something that strikes me as fairly absurd.

 

[Desdichado]

Whoa these type of "shouldn't be playing comments really irk me.

That's a fair point. These guys are perfectly capable of playing, no doubt.

However, I have no problem saying that people who make these kinds of complaints shouldn't (and won't) be playing with me any time soon.

 

[Mark CMG]

(. . .) but to claim that an entire setting can't have slavery anywhere in it for fear of offending someone is something that strikes me as fairly absurd.

I think you have read something into the thread it that isn't there.

 

[Desdichado]

I think you have read something into the thread it that isn't there.

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

I was just responding to the direct question here. I know the situation you describe doesn't exactly talk about someone who won't even admit slavery into the game at all, but that's certainly the broader implication here, isn't it?

 

[Nifft]

As long as the slaves make sure to exhibit stereotypical traits and speech patterns of contemporary oppressed religious, ethnic and/or racial groups, what's the big deal?

Cheers, -- N

 

[Mark CMG]

I was just responding to the direct question here. I know the situation you describe doesn't exactly talk about someone who won't even admit slavery into the game at all, but that's certainly the broader implication here, isn't it?

I see. You were not saying someone in the thread had made the claim but were, rather, heading that possibility off at the pass. My bad.

 

[Imaro]

Throughout recorded history, in almost every civilization that has existed, slavery has been the norm. I know that the "genre" of D&D fantasy is largely defined by pseudo-historical/mythological settings that are nonetheless politically correct according to modern sensibilities, but honestly; it still never once occured to me that someone might think it inappopriate for D&D settings to have slaves.

Perhaps it's a little bit more interesting to try and make a case that a protagonist, lawful good society doesn't necessarily need to abstain from slavery, but to claim that an entire setting can't have slavery anywhere in it for fear of offending someone is something that strikes me as fairly absurd.

I think that the level of detail is important. I don't think it's unreasonable for a character not to want to play in a campaign where his PC is a slave( which is the route the DM is thinking about according to the original post). The level of detail invoked probably also has alot to do with this. Slavery included beatings, mutilations, rape, degradation, etc. I can't fault someone for not wanting to play through every detail of being a slave( this just ain't some peoples idea of fun, and I can totally understand that). I don't think I would want to endure more than one session of this type of play, and would probably prefer for the "worst aspects" of slavery to be downplayed if I did participate.

Another thing to consider is where is this player from. We often automatically assume that an american way of life is the typical for everyone and this is incorrect. In some countries slavery(though illegal) does still exist and can be a very personal thing. I've run into college students from all over the world, so this may also be an issue.

In the end, as I said before, talk to him/her. I don't really see why people have this "no one should be offended" attitude. People are individuals and just because something isn't the case for you does'nt mean the same applies to everyone. IMHO communication is a simple way to show courteousy and respect, while avoiding embarassing or awkward mistakes. Don't assume cause we all know what that does.

 

[Desdichado]

No, I agree--playing a game in which my character is enslaved is a far cry from claiming that slavery in D&D is inappropriate altogether.

Sorry--I think we were talking at cross purposes here, I wasn't refering to the situation described per se, more to the general question at the end of the OP.