D&D 5E Slaves - what they cost and why it matters

[CapnZapp]

There is no "but" there. We expressly are talking about slaves at all levels, from those that are as you agree cheaper than a warhorse. To those that are worth much more. As a matter of genuine curiousity, why is it important to you that slaves are cheap? What at heart makes you resist a tier-1 PC being worth several thousand gold at market? Why is it important to deny that a skilled laborer - capable of pulling in a few gp per day - is not worth at least a thousand gp? That's something I honestly don't understand. Why do people want to push down on the prices of slaves?

First off, if you are somehow personally offended the price of a slave isn't high (whatever that means), perhaps you should cool off? I have no stake in this.

Again, I'm not talking about "tier-1 PCs". A player character is off-the-charts, and I was clear about that (or at least, I thought I was).

When I'm talking goats and camels I'm talking about the utterly average.

If you have a skilled craftsman that can pull in gold per day, of course that slave is worth much more.

But a regular laborer doesn't even come close to that. I am fully assuming most people live a currency-light life, and that any services they render is only worth the printed monetary value in goods and services.

Also, D&D economies are notoriously fracked up and essentially useless.

So what do I know. Just don't make slaves so valuable that actually makes slaving a tempting alternative to more "honest" occupations. And yes, that includes plain old robbery

---

In short, Drows enslave because that's what they do. No reason to even attempt to provide an economical justification for it.

High slave prices easily make for an absurd economy where people rather enslave each other than tend the crops.

It simply isn't the D&D way. Much better to keep prices so low they don't catch the attention of adventurers!

TLDR:

You asked for opinions. I gave you mine. If you don't like it you don't have to argue about it - you just don't use it. That is all.

 

[Ristamar]

There is no "but" there. We expressly are talking about slaves at all levels, from those that are as you agree cheaper than a warhorse. To those that are worth much more. As a matter of genuine curiousity, why is it important to you that slaves are cheap? What at heart makes you resist a tier-1 PC being worth several thousand gold at market? Why is it important to deny that a skilled laborer - capable of pulling in a few gp per day - is not worth at least a thousand gp? That's something I honestly don't understand. Why do people want to push down on the prices of slaves?

A PC/adventurer slave carries a lot of risk with ownership. Unskilled commoners and most skilled labor pose very little threat and are easily subdued, but a small group of "elite" slaves are always a flight risk and have the potential to cause huge financial losses when they do attempt to escape. Additionally, it's far more likely that powerful outside interests will disrupt operations with attempts to locate and rescue their enslaved allies.

Most slavers dealing in high volume would likely prefer to offload what they'd consider hazardous goods as quickly as possible. I'd probably treat the market for a dangerous or expensive slave similar to the suggested market for magic items in the DMG (pg. 130). Finding a buyer willing to pay large sums for upper-tier slaves would likely be time consuming, and there's generally an impetus to be rid of any slaves that may cause or attract trouble as quickly as possible. If a suitable buyer can't be found in short order, the best lowball offer may suffice because it's not worth the risk to hold out for more money.

An exotic locale with a large, multifaceted slave market like Menzoberranzan may provide ample opportunity to sell upper-tier slaves at premium prices, but it's probably more of an exception than the norm. In that respect, I think Zapp's statement has some merit.

 

[CapnZapp]

It might help if we expanded the database on slaves, beyond early-era USA.

Anybody have documentation from Spanish Empire-era Latin America, or the Caribbean islands? Brazil?
Or other cultures / times where slavery was 'normal'? (Maybe something in the Code of Hammurabi?)

Actually my honest opinion is that it almost never helps to conflate realism with D&D...

 

[clearstream]

It might help if we expanded the database on slaves, beyond early-era USA.

Anybody have documentation from Spanish Empire-era Latin America, or the Caribbean islands? Brazil?
Or other cultures / times where slavery was 'normal'? (Maybe something in the Code of Hammurabi?)

The Conquistadors unfortunately wiped out the greater part of all inhabitants in what was to become Latin America. Populations plunged from perhaps a million to a few thousand. Ian Heath discusses it in his armies of the 16th Century. Possibly there weren't many slaves there until a few centuries later. In the English colonies the National Archive offers that

The price of slaves to plantation owners was high. A slave could cost anything from £5 to £80, depending on age, gender, state of health and skills - and also on the period. Since they were treated as commodities, their 'value' went up and down with the market.

By chance I worked on a book set in that period. A pound then is worth between $200 and $3000 today. So we have a range of $1000 to $240,000. A slave is a capital purchase so the higher figure will be more accurate in terms of how it would have felt to people at the time. It was a time of great inequality (that said, we're due to beat by mid-century) so few people could afford to buy one. If we say that an ordinary skilled income now is $30k as @Shadowdweller00 suggested then the full range is about a fortnight's to about 8 year's income. From PHB 159 an ordinary skilled income is 730gp. So we would estimate in the range 28gp to 5840gp. Those match quite well the range I propose, once we take into account that the lower figure is likely inappropriate for a capital purchase.

I assumed a state-change in the dynamic somewhere above tier-2. As @CapnZapp notes (and my table reflects as "priceless") at some point slaves will no longer be sold on a commodity basis. A captured noble isn't enslaved, but held for ransom, for example. I guessed that would be tier-3. Does it need to be pulled back to tier-2?

[Edited to add link to National Archives here, because it's a great source for this http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pathways/blackhistory/africa_caribbean/caribbean_trade.htm ]

 

[cmad1977]

Overthinking it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[clearstream]

Actually my honest opinion is that it almost never helps to conflate realism with D&D...

Without the aid of magic or wings, if I step of a cliff in the Spine of the World (far north of Faerun), do I fall?

Also, Capn, are you evading my previous question? Hmm?

 

[Sadras]

Whatever its worth, the aging knight Ser Jorah Mormont was sold for 20 Gold Honors.
The ex-slaver had the misfortune to become a slave

 

[clearstream]

A PC/adventurer slave carries a lot of risk with ownership. Unskilled commoners and most skilled labor pose very little threat and are easily subdued, but a small group of "elite" slaves are always a flight risk and have the potential to cause huge financial losses when they do attempt to escape. Additionally, it's far more likely that powerful outside interests will disrupt operations with attempts to locate and rescue their enslaved allies.

Absolutely, that's why I feel working on the basis of 2-years earnings is a safe assumption. In part it represents a discount for risks. Also, I believe it is correct to assume that at some tier, NPCs and PCs are typically not enslaved in a commodity sense.

Most slavers dealing in high volume would likely prefer to offload what they'd consider hazardous goods as quickly as possible. I'd probably treat the market for a dangerous or expensive slave similar to the suggested market for magic items in the DMG (pg. 130). Finding a buyer willing to pay large sums for upper-tier slaves would likely be time consuming, and there's generally an impetus to be rid of any slaves that may cause or attract trouble as quickly as possible. If a suitable buyer can't be found in short order, the best lowball offer may suffice because it's not worth the risk to hold out for more money.

As noted I agree that upper-tier creatures are unlikely to be enslaved in the commodity sense and my table reflects that with "priceless". Is the wording too ambiguous?

An exotic locale with a large, multifaceted slave market like Menzoberranzan may provide ample opportunity to sell upper-tier slaves at premium prices, but it's probably more of an exception than the norm. In that respect, I think Zapp's statement has some merit.

Looking at prices now from Rome, Colonial England, and Antebellum America, we see sources converge on higher pricing for slaves than many DMs appear to choose. For this type of estimate where we want simplicity and consistency, working on the basis 2-years income at PHB 159 levels matches the real world surprisingly well. @CapnZapp's assertion fails for me because it fails to represent what we see everywhere in history: slaves commanding prices in the range of years worth of income. I currently lack understanding of why some DMs appear resolved against this? What do you fear might happen if slaves command the sort of prices they did historically in the real world?

Or say we ignore realism completely and are simply picking numbers. What do we fear might happen if slaves command higher, rather than lower, prices? I ask because I can see benefits. Good-aligned PCs hoping to free slaves by simply buying them all up will hit a wall - how will they afford it? Ilvara, Priestess of Lolth in command of Velkynvelve, has good reason to Raise the PCs she likely wipes the floor with if the drow pursuit catches them earlier than 6th level. We can guess at the sort of ransom a powerful Noble might command, captured in some war between polities.

 

[Sadras]

So what do I know. Just don't make slaves so valuable that actually makes slaving a tempting alternative to more "honest" occupations. And yes, that includes plain old robbery

Hmmm, speaking of Jorah Mormont - he was tempted into the dishonest occupation.

It simply isn't the D&D way. Much better to keep prices so low they don't catch the attention of adventurers!

There is the other side of it though, it could be cheaper for adventurers to buy slaves than pay for hirelings. And if branding is allowed, well then...

 

[Jester David]

Okay, putting aside the price of unskilled slaves... why are skilled slaves 10x the price? Why not just buy five slaves for half the price?

And why are level 1-3 PCs 50x the price?! They can't do fifty times the work. They're not fifty times as effective.
Plus, keeping slaves of levels 5+ (Tier 2) just seems foolish. Really, unless you're a race that can mind control - like Mind Flayers - taking PCs as slaves seems like a needless risk.

Why this matters is that the price we put on slaves establishes a value for each sentient life.

Not... really. I don't see how that works. It just means they'd see people as property and wouldn't value them very much.

We're also dialling in our level of motivation for slave-taking. For the sake of argument, let's say we put a fixed price on slaves of 100gp. We're creating an economic puzzle because (again using the earnings from the core rules) taking skilled slaves becomes wildly profitable. So long as you hold on to them. Thus, no slave markets because how common could it be to sell slaves that are hugely more profitable to keep? Part of our economic puzzle is then also understanding why no one joins the dots and offers more than 100gp for a skilled slave? Ratcheting up the prices.

But we don't need the exact prices of slaves for that discussion. Really, getting into the exact value of slaves distracts away from every other aspect of the discussion, because we're going to debate the price up and down.

Or let's say we suspend disbelief and say there are slave markets anyway? In that case we are hinting toward a brutal campaign world because it's so cheap to acquire a new slave relative to the profits they'll produce. We'll happily get rid of slaves that are under-performing.

Well, the point of slave markets is that slavers acquire more slaves than they need or could use. Just keeping a valuable slave because they're valuable is pointless, because you can't eat potential value. They might keep a good slave just for themselves at the start, but after they have a nice staff of slaves everyone else goes on the market.

And we're very unlikely to raise a slave from the dead because it's much cheaper to go to the market and buy a replacement.

Reverting now to the prices I propose, what kinds of actions might drow take if they TPK my party? Well, a Raise Dead is justified because the cost of the diamond (500gp) will be recovered by getting the slaves to market.

I don't think resurrecting slaves is ever going to realistically be a thing. Especially since the spirit has to be willing to return...