Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="roguerouge" data-source="post: 4051092" data-attributes="member: 13855">First off, I'm not saying that your using slaves in your setting is badwrongfun, please see my sig in the first post on the thread. The only exception would be if you didn't talk about it with your players and they were very uncomfortable with this aspect of your DMing. Second, I made my first post in this thread because, like my POW thread, it's something that you have to introduce very carefully. The OP defining the value of a slave on the basis of their attractiveness, gender, and race—rather than the economic value of their generic labor and game stats, as in the helpful post on the Kalamar rules, or on the basis of their health—upset me. The implication, which I am going to assume was unintentional, was not pleasant. Third, I don't care what's realistic in history. We're playing a game and creating our own worlds: we don't have to replicate history if we don't want to do so. I am saying that slavery is one of those topics that demand explicit, honest, and sensitive conversation between the players and the DM, and the DM has to listen and allow players to veto this campaign element.  Fourth, responding to Elven Witch's post about my assuming various things about the institution of slavery. Yes, slavery could be a cultural-trait-neutral economic system, I suppose. Yes, slavery need not be based on racism and sexism and xenophobia. But that is the starting assumption you make given its history AND the likely cultural connotations MOST players are going to have entering the game. And when you introduce the topic of slavery with the most pricey slave being the most costly due to their gender, racial traits and physical attractiveness, you've confirmed that suspicion.Finally, guess what? This shouldn't be off-topic because the cost of poorly introducing slavery in your campaigns could very well be your players.</blockquote>

Verification