Value of Slaves

[roguerouge]

Also, I think the OP should realize that Freeport's antagonist nation was to be a slaver nation, according to Green Ronin, as slavery was against the CN ethos of the town.

 

[Turanil]

Considering the value of a light horse is around 75gp, I'm sure that even the lowliest slave is going to be worth a lot more than 25gp. At least 10 times this amount, though often a whole lot more.

Real world history: in the early middle ages, a horse was considered worth three serfs (in terms of price / economical value). So 25gp could be appropriate for a basic serf/slave worker. Now, despite adventurers usually wander around finding and carrying tons of gold in their pockets, for most normal people, 25 gp is an important sum of money.

 

[Clavis]

So, yeah, if I had a DM who made the most costly slave a "comely female elf" rather than, say, a wizard that could make magic items that could be sold for a 100% markup and came with no XP penalty to the owner, I would DEFINITELY think that it revealed something unpleasant about the DM and what his fantasies had unleashed in him. If I continued to play with him, I'd definitely give that aspect of his campaign a wide berth.

My mind boggles at the thought of enslaving wizards. How exactly could one do that? Not only do wizards need to not under duress in order to accomplish anything magical, I would think that trying to enslave one would get somebody declared the enemy of a group of people who can shoot fireballs out of their fingertips. Wizards are to be feared.

On the other hand, comely Elf girls (and boys, if you're so inclined), are for lovin'!

 

[Bardsandsages]

Moving away from what the OP may or may not dream about in the privacy of his own mind...

Pricing is going to be dependent on what the culture values. A culture that values beauty is going to charge a premium for beautiful slaves. Read any books about the drow and its obvious they don't have a lot of ugly slaves or servants. They don't even suffer their own ugly children.

A culture that values strength is going to charge a premium for strong and healthy slaves. A culture that depends on agriculture is going to charge a premium on slaves with high constitutions that can work 10-12 hours a day.

Regardless, slavery is an enormously expensive proposition. Historically, most slave cultures begin to die out not because people suddenly become enlightened, but because it gets too damn expensive to upkeep. Only the most wealthy own slaves, and it breeds contempt in those who can't afford slaves. People start to buy into the "slavery is evil" line of thinking not because they inherently believe the institution is evil, but because it is a good justification for their own hatred and jealousy of those that can afford slaves.

 

[Bardsandsages]

My mind boggles at the thought of enslaving wizards. How exactly could one do that? Not only do wizards need to not under duress in order to accomplish anything magical, I would think that trying to enslave one would get somebody declared the enemy of a group of people who can shoot fireballs out of their fingertips. Wizards are to be feared.

I suppose you could ask the Red Wizards of Thay. I can't imagine those apprentices in all of those enclaves are little more than slaves. I can imagine a lot of situations where a wizard could be enslaved. Mind control is an obvious method. Willing servitude is another. Remember, in some cultures people sold themselves into slavery to help their families. Getting your mother ressurected is expensive, you know.

 

[Alzrius]

In my profession (media studies), it's fairly widely-held that fiction rewards certain ways of thinking and feeling through pleasure (especially fictions that are interactive or immersive.) You get used to it, as Renoir said in The Rules of the Game. What's worse, we're not perfectly aware of our own motivations and what can start as an attempt at verisimilitude can start to shift over time.

Even if that's true, and I don't concede that it is, that's a problem with the player, not a problem with the game.

I've played plenty of interactive/immersive video games that involved violently killing people, and taken great pleasure in playing such games, but I don't believe that says anything about my personality. It might say something about my fantasies, but even then, so what? Everyone dreams about killing people, to some degree or another. Whether it's slaying your boss when he's piled extra work on your desk just before the end of the day, or wishing you were as suave and strong as James Bond when he's finishing off an assassin, people regularly have fantasies of doing things that they'd never do in reality.

Playing games that involve you doing illegal/immoral actions does not, in any way, encourage you to perform those actions. There are no credible studies that suggest that they do. Someone who plays a D&D character that purchases a comely female elf slave for the purposes of raping her might enjoy what his character is doing, but that's no indication of what that person would do in real life, nor any sort of yardstick for what kind of person that player is.

 

[roguerouge]

Playing games that involve you doing illegal/immoral actions does not, in any way, encourage you to perform those actions. There are no credible studies that suggest that they do.

I'm not going to respond to this one with studies, because it's too far removed from the game. Suffice it to say that while the copyright industry might want you to think that it's an open and shut case, it's not.

Basically, to hold that massive consumption of immersive fantasies can have no ill effects over time either requires one to believe that fiction has no effect on someone (making it a waste of time) or that massive consumption of fantasies can only have good effects on the consumer, which is, frankly, silly. And clearly, if immersive fantasies have no positive or negative effect on its consumers then the massive expenditures in time and money on interactive role-playing and the consumption of immersive fictions would itself be a net negative, as an opportunity cost. Since you and I clearly agree that we are not wasting our time in this past-time, then let's move on to a different issue.

Someone who plays a D&D character that purchases a comely female elf slave for the purposes of raping her might enjoy what his character is doing, but that's no indication of what that person would do in real life, nor any sort of yardstick for what kind of person that player is.

That's where we differ. I would think that there's something deeply troubled about a DM or a player who felt that imposing that kind of scenario on the other players in the game would be acceptable. The lack of empathy for the discomfort created in the other players is a yard stick of what kind of person that player or DM is.

If I liked the person, I would recommend therapy to a player or a DM who "enjoy[ed] what his character is doing" and thought that that was acceptable behavior outside of his or her bedroom.

edit: And the reason is because they are doing something in real life to the other people at the gaming table.

Like I said, I tend to agree with Elven Witch on this one: it's a problem if not handled properly.

 

[Alzrius]

I'm not going to respond to this one with studies, because it's too far removed from the game. Suffice it to say that while the copyright industry might want you to think that it's an open and shut case, it's not.

It's far more than just the copyright industry, but since you work in media studies, I'm going to assume you already know that.

Basically, to hold that massive consumption of immersive fantasies can have no ill effects over time either requires one to believe that fiction has no effect on someone (making it a waste of time) or that massive consumption of fantasies can only have good effects on the consumer, which is, frankly, silly.

The implication here is much too black-and-white. You're holding that consuming fiction will either build up over time until a person is emulating what they watch, or that it has absolutely no effect on a person watching it at all. There is a very, very large middle ground that you're ignoring. It's possible to watch a movie, have an emotional reaction, and then have that reaction dissipate afterwards with zero long-term effects.

By your standards, watching violence-filled movies will inevitably make a person act violently.

That's where we differ. I would think that there's something deeply troubled about a DM or a player who felt that imposing that kind of scenario on the other players in the game would be acceptable. The lack of empathy for the discomfort created in the other players is a yard stick of what kind of person that player or DM is.

Except that you've changed the scenario I was talking about. I was referring to simply how a player engaging in fiction can't be typified by what sort of fiction he engages in. The issue of making sure everyone else is comfortable with it is something else altogether. Yes, a person who brings up a situation he knows makes other people is rude and inconsiderate (though it doesn't necessarily have to be any worse than that), but if no one else has a problem with it, then it's fine.

If I liked the person, I would recommend therapy to a player or a DM who "enjoy[ed] what his character is doing" and thought that that was acceptable behavior outside of his or her bedroom.

That strikes me as horribly condescending and inappropriate. If the person knows the difference between fantasy and reality, and doesn't engage in such role-playing if he knows it makes other people uncomfortable, then there's nothing wrong with what he enjoys. Fiction isn't real.

 

[roguerouge]

The implication here is much too black-and-white. You're holding that consuming fiction will either build up over time until a person is emulating what they watch, or that it has absolutely no effect on a person watching it at all. There is a very, very large middle ground that you're ignoring. It's possible to watch a movie, have an emotional reaction, and then have that reaction dissipate afterwards with zero long-term effects.

By your standards, watching violence-filled movies will inevitably make a person act violently.

Which would be why I used the qualifier "can have" and did not write "must inevitably have."

Also, my argument is not about watching A movie or television program. I agree with you that it's virtually never about the effect of consuming a single work of fiction, outside of exceptional cases. It's about the effects of what I termed "massive" consumption, such as the average American's consumption of 28.8 hours of TV a week (according to TV Dimensions) or someone spending the equivalent amount of time on WoW or playing DnD.

Look, this particular thing is an issue on which reasonable people can disagree. If we want, we can take this up elsewhere.

 

[roguerouge]

Except that you've changed the scenario I was talking about. I was referring to simply how a player engaging in fiction can't be typified by what sort of fiction he engages in. The issue of making sure everyone else is comfortable with it is something else altogether. Yes, a person who brings up a situation he knows makes other people is rude and inconsiderate (though it doesn't necessarily have to be any worse than that), but if no one else has a problem with it, then it's fine.

That strikes me as horribly condescending and inappropriate. If the person knows the difference between fantasy and reality, and doesn't engage in such role-playing if he knows it makes other people uncomfortable, then there's nothing wrong with what he enjoys. Fiction isn't real.

So, your position here is that there's nothing wrong with a group of people who "enjoy" sitting around role playing the purchase of "a comely female elf slave for the purposes of raping her," in your words?