Akin DT's page

30 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.



1 person marked this as a favorite.
gamer-printer wrote:

In many historical societies anyone who didn't own land were slaves. The peasant social class in European medieval period had less rights and more oppression than most slaves of the classical period of history. It was far better to be a Roman, Greek or Celtic slave than a 'free' peasant.

Strongly disagree about the medieval period being worse to live in than the classical period. Classical eras had massive cities, and thus slaves in such societies had to work much harder than the free peasantry had to work for their (much smaller in number) hierarchical lords... especially because farming tech improved over this time period.

The "dark ages" were only a worse period of history if one is more interested in things like "literacy" than subservience.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

For those asking for definitions, I'll use a quote from a book I just read: "Slavery is the ultimate form of being ripped from one's context, and thus from all the social relationships that make one a human being."
(of course, in fantasy settings, dwarves and elves are also supposed to be of equal personhood)

--
Just a few general facts:
*Revolts concerning relationships of pure hierarchy (slavery and caste systems) are historically less common than ones based on things like debt peonage where people are "supposed" to be equals, but due to shenanigans, aren't. And the big world religions seem much more concerned about debt bondage and usury than caste/slavery. (hence strong restrictions on usury, regular debt cancellations; but often little opposition to unarguably worse forms of subjugation) Presumably this says something about the way relationships of hierarchy are based on precedent, not logic or principle.
*When slave and caste revolts do occur, it is often about their treatment, not the principle in question.
*During times when chattel slavery was common, people viewed it the way most modern people do war "oh, it's terrible, but it's unrealistic to think of a world without it". Ironic, considering there's several times in history where is is abolished.
*IRL, widespread use of precious coin only occurs in eras of mass war and slavery. (in other times, money is based on personal or state credit) I just figured I'd throw that in there because most GMs assume everyone in the world is using gold and silver coins. Adventurers are shady people, who would let them run up a tab? ;P
*one often becomes a slave in situations where one would have otherwise died (for example, one would only be enslaved for not paying a debt if it was OK to kill an insolvent debtor in that culture). eras where mass slavery was common treat someone enslaved as legally dead.
*roman slavery was weird. 1. It wasn't based in any way on bigotry, anyone could be kidnapped, fall into debt that can't be repaid, lose a battle, and become a slave. And yet, once freed, a slave was a free citizen. 2. The master had absolute property rights over the slave. Unlike much of the ancient world, in one's household, you could do /anything/ with one, no matter how vicious. This results in weird things like: people intentionally selling themselves into slavery to become a citizen (with a friend holding the money to buy the freedom back), but during this time their Dominus could cut off fingers or murder them for no reason.
*"war captives" is always seen as the most socially acceptable reason for slavery. So much so, that slave-traders will often claim most of the people they are transporting were captured in war, even if most of them were really: sold by their parents to pay off debt, randomly kidnapped, made slaves as punishment for alleged minor crimes by local authorities, were actually someone else's pawn/servant before they were transported etc. Often times "war captives" becomes this big legal fiction people in Empires tell themselves to make them feel better.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Fact1: Deinonychus/velociraptor is available as an animal companion, and at level 7, would be appropriate for a small sized paladin. It would have at least Intelligence 6
Fact2: Deinonychus is a biped, and thus has arms available for strapping things on.
Fact3: Of the 5 natural weapons (without using any magical items) it can attack with, claw is the worst. It is however, still a primary natural weapon that can be used on a pounce.
Fact4: Mithril bucklers don't require proficiency in shields
Fact5: You only lose your (shield) AC bonus when attacking with an arm that has a buckler strapped to it

Question 1: Could a Deinonychus use a bucker?
Looking at the above facts, this seems to be the case. Unless Paizo's Deinonychus is much more feathery than the one in the Bestiary, I don't see why not.

Question 2: Could it strap on the buckler itself?
While the claws can hold things, (didn't animal archive list it's category as something that can use wands etc?) I don't think they had quite the dexterity to do that, but I'm uncertain.

Question 3: What magical properties would be best for such a buckler? It can't speak command words without an item or spell to allow speech, right?

Anyone have any thoughts?