Slaves now legal to own in PFS?


Pathfinder Society

301 to 350 of 368 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Dark Archive 2/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

This took longer to start insulting Americans than I was expecting.

In any case, I haven't seen anybody argue that slavery is "good" or "morally right" here in real life land. All that we've been saying is that at present, it is considered a legal option that will not shift your alignment to evil. That is it. I have not seen anyone actively condoning slavery, nor would I be able to stop myself from making some smartass remark to them if they did.

1/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:

One, no one is promoting slave ownership. Two, not everyone here is American.

Yes, they are promoting slavery. Indicating that you would have no issue allowing players to own slaves and suggesting it adds something to the game experience is promoting it.

Slavery and it's evils are not unique to the US. Great Britain played an integral part in the slave trade triangle.

This is in the hands of PFS. They need to take a long hard look at what message they want to send on something this and how this could blow up in their face if some teenager with a Mwangi slave is overheard by the wrong parent.

Sovereign Court 5/5 RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

TriOmegaZero wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
Considering that slaves provide little or no substantive benefit to characters, the fact that so many of you are trying to promote slave ownerships is disturbing. But then I suppose a large part of America had little issue with slavery when it was occurring, so I can't be too surprised with the opinions expressed here.
One, no one is promoting slave ownership. Two, not everyone here is American.

Three, it's a game. I'm not a plane touched mob enforcer, nor a hellspawn lawyer, nor *shocker* a female. I like playing all aspects. (TOZ has met me, he can attest I am nothing like my characters) :-)

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne

N N 959 wrote:
trollbill wrote:

Do you think it's possible you may be over sensitive on this subject?

Considering I have no issue with the slavery being legal in some parts of Golarion, no, I don't think I'm overly sensitive on the topic. What I am exhibiting is sensitivity.

Considering that slaves provide little or no substantive benefit to characters, the fact that so many of you are trying to promote slave ownerships is disturbing. But then I suppose a large part of America had little issue with slavery when it was occurring, so I can't be too surprised with the opinions expressed here.

Thank you for vaguely comparing me with a slave owner simply because I think you are making a mountain out of a mole hill. It goes a long way towards informing everyone of how reasonable you intend to be on this topic.


TriOmegaZero wrote:


One, no one is promoting slave ownership. Two, not everyone here is American.

EDIT: My three got ninjaed.

Four, it's a role-playing game and part of the fun of playing a role playing game is playing a role different from the one you play in real life. Was Lucy Lawless acting as apologist for slavery by playing a slave owner in Spartacus? How about the recently deceased Ralph Waite for his role in Roots? Are we all acting as apologists for grave robbers and murder hobos by playing fantasy RPGs that involve taking loot from tombs or from monster lairs?

Sovereign Court 5/5 RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

1 person marked this as a favorite.

So it's safe to say that N N 959 is fine with torture, poisoning, murdering peopel for their stuff and demon worship? I mean, by his standards, PFS is 'promoting' this, and he's not spoken up in protest.

(Amazing how he leaves the African slave traders out of the triangle.)

Anyway, back to PFS, it goes back to 'don't be a jerk'.

1/5

trollbill wrote:
Thank you for vaguely comparing me with a slave owner simply because I think you are making a mountain out of a mole hill. It goes a long way towards informing everyone of how reasonable you intend to be on this topic.

I'm not being "reasonable?" Redefining words again, are we?

Dark Archive 2/5

It doesn't matter if it "adds to play" or not. We are not the ones that made the ruling, but we do have to uphold it to the best of our abilities as players and GMs alike. Will slave owners start popping up at tables? If they haven't by now then I wouldn't expect to see a tremendous number of'em, but that is beside the point right now. There are an incredible number of venues out there through which slavery will be encountered, a few of which I touched on in one of my previous posts. Should gaming companies catch flack for having slavery in their games? Even a lot of newer ones, an example being the most recent Assassin's Creed, have slaves popping up in droves.

1/5

Matthew Morris wrote:

So it's safe to say that N N 959 is fine with torture, poisoning, murdering peopel for their stuff and demon worship? I mean, by his standards, PFS is 'promoting' this, and he's not spoken up in protest.

(Amazing how he leaves the African slave traders out of the triangle.)

Anyway, back to PFS, it goes back to 'don't be a jerk'.

I do have a problem with murder. I've already expressed that. But murder doesn't target an ethnic group. Do you comprehend that part of the argument?

Paizo is based in the US. I play the game in the US. Themes that are inappropriate for US consumption have been banned by PFS. Is this something you are confused on?

1/5

Historical side note:

Because it's interesting:
There were those who sold themselves into slavery in ancient Egypt. They became slaves of the temple, and their contracts did not indicate any duration. There is some speculation that this slavery was willfully entered to avoid providing further service to the pharaoh, but there's no proof of that (yet). It does seem to be a short-lived practice.

So, there's that.

-Ben.

Dark Archive 2/5

I was really hoping ethnic groups could've been kept out of this but eh. If you care to look back through human history, you will find that every race has been used for slave labor at one point or another. It isn't a matter pertaining purely to a single ethnic group; to believe as much is quite far off in left field. The inclusion of slavery in PFS, whether or not anyone happens to agree with it, is not a matter of race in any shape, way, form, or fashion.

Golarion is a massive place with an equally massive amount of sentient life, and I'd bet every single one of those sentient races have some of their number kept by others as slaves.

Grand Lodge 4/5

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
N N 959 wrote:
This is in the hands of PFS. They need to take a long hard look at what message they want to send on something this and how this could blow up in their face if some teenager with a Mwangi slave is overheard by the wrong parent.

And they have. And I'm pretty sure they expect to handle it the same way they would handle someone overhearing a teenager killing prostitutes in-game.

Oh wait, that's GTA and we've had this discussion before.

N N 959 wrote:
Yes, they are promoting slavery. Indicating that you would have no issue allowing players to own slaves and suggesting it adds something to the game experience is promoting it.

No, it's really not promoting the purchase and forced servitude of actual people. Any more than the myriad other entertainment forms are by depicting slavery in their stories.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne

1 person marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:
trollbill wrote:
Thank you for vaguely comparing me with a slave owner simply because I think you are making a mountain out of a mole hill. It goes a long way towards informing everyone of how reasonable you intend to be on this topic.
I'm not being "reasonable?" Redefining words again, are we?

If you think it is reasonable to compare me to a slave owner simply because I have the audacity to disagree with you, I am not the one redefining 'reasonable.'

Excessive political correctness is the antithesis of 'reasonable' and is the bane of our modern society.


Pathfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
N N 959 wrote:

I do have a problem with murder. I've already expressed that. But murder doesn't target an ethnic group. Do you comprehend that part of the argument?

Paizo is based in the US. I play the game in the US. Themes that are inappropriate for US consumption have been banned by PFS. Is this something you are confused on?

You are the only one who brought ethnicity into the conversation. You have, on several occasions brought in mwangi. I notice that you haven't mentioned or touched the fact that halflings are often the slave of choice in Cheliax (if memory isn't failing me).

I have also noticed that you have only focused on the kidnap, enslave, sell type of slave. You have avoided all of the other ways people have become slaves (both real world and in game). Is there any particular reason for that?

Silver Crusade 2/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Okay. This is getting a bit crazy. I'm not suggesting that anyone here is *actually condoning slavery*. They are quite clearly commenting on the state of slavery in Golarion: a fictional place with fictional slaves.

I have been discussing my fictional characters' different responses to other fictional characters' possession of said fictional slaves. People have expressed reasonable concern over these theoretical responses.

1/5

Let me address a lot the repetitive rationales that are put forth

1. It's irrelevant what themes are allowed in other games.

2. It's irrelevant what themes are appropriate for the genre.

3. It's irrelevant that other cultures and other countries participated in slavery.

4. Just because you don't find it offensive doesn't mean something isn't offensive in the context of US culture.

5. Allowing slavery is condoning it because PFS makes the rules.

6. Broadcasting that slave owners are welcome in your game is tantamount to promoting it.

7. Arguing that there's nothing wrong with slave ownership in PFS ...is not the moral high ground.

1/5

trollbill wrote:
... simply because I have the audacity to disagree with you, I am not the one redefining 'reasonable.'

Funny, I could say the same thing about you.

Quote:
Stubborn social insensitivity is the antithesis of 'reasonable' and is the bane of our modern society.

See how that works both ways?

Dark Archive 5/5 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

This is going nowhere. Can we lock this down please?

Scarab Sages 5/5 *** Venture-Captain, Oregon—Portland

You still haven't addressed murder, torture, theft, etc. in PFS. They has the same moral objectives to them as slavery in the US. If you take out slavery and replace that word with murder, torture, prostitution, theft, etc, it still says the same. Why single out slavery, and not, say... Transgender prostitution? I know of one series that has a transgendered prostitute, who often times became the players most memorable NPC. Obviously by allowing it, Paizo is condoning prostitution by your reasoning.

Liberty's Edge 3/5

The Beard wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
If the local media in Seattle finds out that Paizo runs an organized play environment where players can choose to purchase and own slaves, how do you think that's going to go over? How do you think this would go over in Atlanta? Or D.C?

I have serious doubts that it would even register. PFS, nay, Pathfinder as a whole is looked at as being the equivalent of a video game with dice by a lot of the populace at large. Would you be having this same reaction to video games with slavery? Skyrim had slavery, several MMOs have had slavery, the Star Wars franchise is full of slavery that is recognized as legal by the galactic powers in any given era, and even Star Trek has some civilizations where slavery is legal. Due to this legality and their own rule structure, the Federation is unable to intervene in the least. Slavery is a very commonly touched upon subject in many games, movies, and settings; some more than others.

As someone who gamed during 1st Edition D&D and lived through the 'this game involves devil worshipping!' hysteria that was taken seriously by a lot of people, I can't agree. Roleplaying games are a bit more mainstream than they were back then, but no where as near as mainstream as video and computer gaming have become.

And as far as people looking at Pathfinder as a video game with dice ... boy,I wish they WOULDN'T! IMO, tabletop RPG's offer flexibility, comradery, and story-telling that no computer game can ever equal. If you have know of one that does come close, PLEASE inform me of its name.

1/5

Gornil wrote:
You still haven't addressed murder, torture, theft, etc. in PFS. They has the same moral objectives to them as slavery in the US. If you take out slavery and replace that word with murder, torture, prostitution, theft, etc, it still says the same. Why single out slavery, and not, say... Transgender prostitution? I know of one series that has a transgendered prostitute, who often times became the players most memorable NPC. Obviously by allowing it, Paizo is condoning prostitution by your reasoning.

10. Evil acts that do not or did not historically target ethnic groups are irrelevant.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

N N 959 wrote:
Matthew Morris wrote:

So it's safe to say that N N 959 is fine with torture, poisoning, murdering peopel for their stuff and demon worship? I mean, by his standards, PFS is 'promoting' this, and he's not spoken up in protest.

(Amazing how he leaves the African slave traders out of the triangle.)

Anyway, back to PFS, it goes back to 'don't be a jerk'.

I do have a problem with murder. I've already expressed that. But murder doesn't target an ethnic group. Do you comprehend that part of the argument?

Paizo is based in the US. I play the game in the US. Themes that are inappropriate for US consumption have been banned by PFS. Is this something you are confused on?

You do realize that the vast majority of historical slavery was not specific in regards to race or ethnicity, right?

Dark Archive 2/5

N N 959 wrote:

Let me address a lot the repetitive rationales that are put forth

1. It's irrelevant what themes are allowed in other games.

I would be inclined to disagree with that. If those aren't offensive, PFS shouldn't be either. Matters such as these are not subjective; they should be looked at broad spectrum.

Quote:
2. It's irrelevant what themes are appropriate for the genre.

See my above statement.

Quote:
3. It's irrelevant that other cultures and other countries participated in slavery.

Slavery is far from unique to the US. I would say that if we are going to compare this to real life, as it seems some people want to do, then we do need to take other regions into consideration.

Quote:
4. Just because you don't find it offensive doesn't mean something isn't offensive in the context of US culture.

I am an American, born and bred. I do not know anyone, literally anyone, that would be offended by slavery in PFS. I even asked around in the interest of gauging opinions.

Quote:
5. Allowing slavery is condoning it because PFS makes the rules.

Slavery is thematically appropriate for the setting. It's going on in multiple countries across Golarion. It's basically the equivalent of helping to tell a story with some mention of slavery. There is only minimal focus on it most of the time.

Quote:
6. Broadcasting that slave owners are welcome in your game is tantamount to promoting it.

Saying that someone with a legal option is welcome at your table is not promoting anything; it's following the rules.

Quote:
7. Arguing that there's nothing wrong with slave ownership in PFS ...is not the moral high ground.

Nobody has said it is the moral high ground. What we've said is that it is legal, it has been legal, and it isn't considered evil within the context of the setting. That is all.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne

N N 959 wrote:
trollbill wrote:
... simply because I have the audacity to disagree with you, I am not the one redefining 'reasonable.'

Funny, I could say the same thing about you.

Odd. I don't recall comparing you to a slave owner?

Dark Archive 2/5

You know, I have to agree with one of the above posters that this thread may as well be put on the chopping block. It's spiraling faster and faster around that opening in the bottom of the porcelain throne.

Liberty's Edge 2/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

+1 for Lock Request

1/5

trollbill wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
trollbill wrote:
... simply because I have the audacity to disagree with you, I am not the one redefining 'reasonable.'

Funny, I could say the same thing about you.

Odd. I don't recall comparing you to a slave owner?

Worse. You're trying to accuse me of being "politically correct" because advocating that PFS not allow PC's to own slaves. This is essentially you attacking me on personal level rather than contend with the issues I've presented. You haven't spent one sentence proving that there is a net positive to allowing slave ownership by the players. Instead, you've tried to invent new definitions so that a criminal can be considered a slave and then use some convoluted logic to argue slavery isn't evil.

I didn't say slavery should be removed from Golarion, I said it should not be allowed as an option for PCs....you know how PC's can't be evil alignment, nevermind that PF's are sometimes called upon to to work with others who are evil. Like Auntie B...

Not a single person has provided a reason why slave ownership is needed by PC's.


N N 959 wrote:


10. Evil acts that do not or did not historically target ethnic groups are irrelevant.

They may be irrelevant to the soapbox you're on, but they're hardly irrelevant when pointing out certain blind spots in your analysis that inclusion of a example of historical oppression in insufficiently condemnatory fashion is tantamount to promoting it. Paizo and PFS are not saying "Slavery is Good! We endorse it!" by not banning it as an option for PFS characters any more than they are saying "We favor murder hobos! Murder and rob your neighbors today!" by including missions that involve rooting out monsters and taking their stuff.

Silver Crusade 2/5

+1 to lock at this point. People are making this too personal.

Grand Lodge 4/5

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
N N 959 wrote:
Not a single person has provided a reason why slave ownership is needed by PC's.

Because it's not.

Dark Archive 2/5

Not needed and not legal are two very different things. We've all spoken of our willingness to abide by the campaign staff's decision on its legality, not making points as to why it is "needed."

Anywho yeah, being as this thread will probably go kaput soon, I leave off on my original note:

Brb buying Zarta Dralneen, not that she'd object to begin with.

Liberty's Edge 4/5

The Beard wrote:
Brb buying Zarta Dralneen, not that she'd object to begin with.

You'll find her price under 'prostitute', not slave.

Liberty's Edge 3/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Look, this is a racially charged issue in current day America, where most of PFS takes place. It's all well and good to play the intellectual and talk about how 'all races have been subject to slavery at one time or another' or 'this is Golarion we're talking about', but the fact is our gaming is taking place (often in public places) in a society where this subject makes a significant amount of people uncomfortable.

In an effort to try and get through to some of you, I'm going to go somewhere that I'm not real comfortable in going. Sexual assault. Members of every gender have been victims of sexual assault. However, who do you think would be most sensitive to this being played out or discussed during a tabletop roleplaying game? I *think* one of the reasons most of us do NOT include that as part of our role-playing is that we're pretty sure that it would make people uncomfortable at the table. Because of the social context of where many (I will say most) of us live, roleplaying slavery at a table is likely to make some people uncomfortable, as well.

As far as arguments about excessive political correctness ... well, twenty five years ago there were A LOT LESS females involved in this hobby, and the behavior around the table was a lot less 'politically correct' (not that it wins any prizes for sensitivy now. XD). We've modified what we roleplay and how we behave to help welcome a new subset of people into the hobby. Maybe we need to work on doing this more.

2/5

Says some stuff.

Reconsiders.

+1 to locking the thread. This isn't going anywhere healthy.

1/5

Bill Dunn wrote:
N N 959 wrote:


10. Evil acts that do not or did not historically target ethnic groups are irrelevant.
They may be irrelevant to the soapbox you're on, but they're hardly irrelevant when pointing out certain blind spots in your analysis that inclusion of a example of historical oppression in insufficiently condemnatory fashion is tantamount to promoting it. Paizo and PFS are not saying "Slavery is Good! We endorse it!" by not banning it as an option for PFS characters any more than they are saying "We favor murder hobos! Murder and rob your neighbors today!" by including missions that involve rooting out monsters and taking their stuff.

You're not fathoming the issue. Slavery is a politically inflammatory topic in our society. Why? Because of the racial undertones and the horrible atrocities associated with it. None of this other stuff that is arguably immoral was conducted on a racial basis as was slavery ...here...in the US.

There are no blind spots in my analysis, only failure on your part to understand the basis under which I object. This is evident by the repeated postings of "what about murder!!!?"

PFS makes the rules for the game. Deciding that anything is appropriate for the social setting in which the game takes place, is tantamount to believing that the owning of slaves is not offensive to a large percentage of US citizens.

If the role of "Murder hobo" was associated with annihilation of a certain ethnic group, I'd bet my life it would be banned from PFS.

3/5

N N 959 wrote:

Let me address a lot the repetitive rationales that are put forth

4. Just because you don't find it offensive doesn't mean something isn't offensive in the context of US culture.

5. Allowing slavery is condoning it because PFS makes the rules.

6. Broadcasting that slave owners are welcome in your game is tantamount to promoting it.

7. Arguing that there's nothing wrong with slave ownership in PFS ...is not the moral high ground.

Okay. None of these are intelligent, reasonable assertions (they are not arguments because there is no structure supporting them).

While there is (mostly) universal agreement in the developed world that slavery is bad (meaning morally wrong), when viewed in an actual historical context, slavery is usually the engine that drives the economy. Knowing nothing of slavery other than its history in the United States will cause one to fully misunderstand how slavery works in a (very loosely) medieval inspired fantasy setting.

Furthermore, as slavery has been built into the setting of Golarion, it would be quite odd if it vanished from the OP campaign supported by Paizo. If, on the other hand, the argument is simply one that slavery should still exist but players should be forbidden from engaging in it, there may be room for discussion. Still, for character concepts built around the background of slaveholding on Golarion (which could be as varied as escaped slave to slave merchant) would be excised by fiat. More than that, the campaign would then be actively supporting Andoran and condemning Cheliax based solely on views in regards to slavery.

The modern objection to slavery bears more out of the concept of "individual human dignity" than anything else. This is something that is very important in the actual play of PFS (because it is the basis of respecting all other players at the table and in the campaign), but not something that needs to be extended into the fantasy roleplay as a matter of rules.

Speaking only for myself, I have one character which owns a slave out of eleven active. That character owns one slave. And that slave became owned so that the character has someone maintaining 'home' while out adventuring. And if the Andoran PC had made any effort to care at all about freeing slaves in that scenario, it is likely that there would be no slaves owned. Now, I honestly don't care whether the rules allow for that slave to owned or not by the PC. Money was spent and, aside from giving me a better sense that the character's home is maintained while away, there is no benefit (or penalty?) to having the slave. Do I think this is in any way, shape, or form an act of condoning slavery in real life or the real world? No. It hasn't led me to encourage other characters to own in-game slaves. As a matter of fact, I think the fact that said character purchased (and then kept) a slave came up less than five times after it happened (at level 4; said character is now 13th level).

Finally, there is no real moral consequence to whether or not slavery is permitted in PFS. There may be some supposed moral consequence (such as a person making judgments about the moral character of others based upon in-game, in-character play), but it is ephemeral. Now, it is extremely frustrating to listen to (or read posts from) people not trained as ethicists construct flawed arguments on a variety of subjects. It always will be for me. But N N 959's ongoing crusade to make everyone fall in line with him/her is worse than that.

Dark Archive 2/5

... Slavery is not offensive to the majority anymore. Most people have chosen to let it go.

1/5

Jason Hanlon wrote:
While I wholeheartedly agree that slavery is a very deep subject that must be treated with caution and maturity by players, I disagree with a number of things that N N 959 has said. Chief among them is the idea that crimes are somehow worse because the victim is part of an ethnic group.

i didn't say that, nor did I intended to say that.


whether or not the mere ownership of slaves constitutes "evil" is tough.

i think it's probably neutral. if you treated your slaves fairly and justly up until the point of actually freeing them, i'm not sure if i would consider that to be evil.

if a person takes the position that thier slaves are children and not fit to make decisions for themselves and chooses to treat his slaves like children,make all there descions for them, but does not mistreat them or cause them harm, save for the loss autonomy, again i'm not sure that would constitute evil.

so i can see a full range of good characters owning slaves. i think it would be the treatment of those slaves that answer to whether one was good or evil.

So while i agree that owning slaves is unjust i don't think it is neccassarily evil.

Liberty's Edge 3/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Beard wrote:
... Slavery is not offensive to the majority anymore. Most people have chosen to let it go.

And how big does the minority have to be before it matters? Or should we just be subject to 'the tyranny of the mob'?

Dark Archive 2/5

talbanus wrote:
The Beard wrote:
... Slavery is not offensive to the majority anymore. Most people have chosen to let it go.
And how big does the minority have to be before it matters? Or should we just be subject to 'the tyranny of the mob'?

I think you just completely pissed the point. I was making note of the fact that it is no longer offensive to the majority; a no point was it implied that the minority doesn't matter.

Anywho, hopefully the staff will lock this thread soon. It's just continuing to circle the drain.

5/5

N N 959 wrote:
Jason Hanlon wrote:
While I wholeheartedly agree that slavery is a very deep subject that must be treated with caution and maturity by players, I disagree with a number of things that N N 959 has said. Chief among them is the idea that crimes are somehow worse because the victim is part of an ethnic group.
i didn't say that, nor did I intended to say that.

<jaw drops>

N N 959 wrote:
10. Evil acts that do not or did not historically target ethnic groups are irrelevant.


Pathfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
talbanus wrote:
Look, this is a racially charged issue in current day America, where most of PFS takes place. It's all well and good to play the intellectual and talk about how 'all races have been subject to slavery at one time or another' or 'this is Golarion we're talking about', but the fact is our gaming is taking place (often in public places) in a society where this subject makes a significant amount of people uncomfortable.

Now this is a valid argument to make to PFS management to ask that slaves not be legal for PFS PCs.

Liberty's Edge 3/5

The Beard wrote:
talbanus wrote:
The Beard wrote:
... Slavery is not offensive to the majority anymore. Most people have chosen to let it go.
And how big does the minority have to be before it matters? Or should we just be subject to 'the tyranny of the mob'?

I think you just completely pissed the point. I was making note of the fact that it is no longer offensive to the majority; a no point was it implied that the minority doesn't matter.

Anywho, hopefully the staff will lock this thread soon. It's just continuing to circle the drain.

Then what was your point? Please explain.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne

talbanus wrote:
The Beard wrote:
... Slavery is not offensive to the majority anymore. Most people have chosen to let it go.
And how big does the minority have to be before it matters? Or should we just be subject to 'the tyranny of the mob'?

And being subject to the tyranny of the minority is better how?


Pathfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
N N 959 wrote:
You're not fathoming the issue. Slavery is a politically inflammatory topic in our society. Why? Because of the racial undertones and the horrible atrocities associated with it. None of this other stuff that is arguably immoral was conducted on a racial basis as was slavery ...here...in the US.

This is an approach that irritates the rest of the world - you are only taking a very narrow US based point of view. To some, that will smack of racism - if you aren't American, you are not important.

Could you point out where anyone else has brought race into this discussion, besides yourself that is?

1/5

Timothy McNeil wrote:
N N 959 wrote:

Let me address a lot the repetitive rationales that are put forth

4. Just because you don't find it offensive doesn't mean something isn't offensive in the context of US culture.

5. Allowing slavery is condoning it because PFS makes the rules.

6. Broadcasting that slave owners are welcome in your game is tantamount to promoting it.

7. Arguing that there's nothing wrong with slave ownership in PFS ...is not the moral high ground.

Okay. None of these are intelligent, reasonable assertions (they are not arguments because there is no structure supporting them).

While there is (mostly) universal agreement in the developed world that slavery is bad (meaning morally wrong), when viewed in an actual historical context, slavery is usually the engine that drives the economy. Knowing nothing of slavery other than its history in the United States will cause one to fully misunderstand how slavery works in a (very loosely) medieval inspired fantasy setting.

Furthermore, as slavery has been built into the setting of Golarion, it would be quite odd if it vanished from the OP campaign supported by Paizo. If, on the other hand, the argument is simply one that slavery should still exist but players should be forbidden from engaging in it, there may be room for discussion. Still, for character concepts built around the background of slaveholding on Golarion (which could be as varied as escaped slave to slave merchant) would be excised by fiat. More than that, the campaign would then be actively supporting Andoran and condemning Cheliax based solely on views in regards to slavery.

The modern objection to slavery bears more out of the concept of "individual human dignity" than anything else. This is something that is very important in the actual play of PFS (because it is the basis of respecting all other players at the table and in the campaign), but not something that needs to be extended into the fantasy roleplay as a matter of rules.

Speaking only for...

You're entitled to your opinion. The fact that you own a slave in game casts serious doubts on your objectivity. Why not just pay a butler or a house made?

Let's address some of your own assertions. I'll leave out the personal insults that you seem to include.

Quote:
Okay. None of these are intelligent, reasonable assertions

While you're expressing your opinion, it is a fact society may find something offensive that you do not as an individual. Every year tons of people lose their jobs when they express personal opinion which society finds offensive.

So if your assertion that none of statements are intelligent and reasonable is demonstrably false, that doesn't bode well for the rest of your arguments. Let's have a a looks.

Quote:
More than that, the campaign would then be actively supporting Andoran and condemning Cheliax based solely on views in regards to slavery.

By that logic, PFS already does do that by disallowing Evil characters.

Quote:
...but not something that needs to be extended into the fantasy roleplay as a matter of rules.

You, like many others, fail to understand the basis of my objection. It has nothing to do with what is appropriate for the "fantasy" game, it has to do with what is socially appropriate. Slave ownership represents a theme that, IMO, is not appropriate for PFS. It is not appropriate, imo, for young kids in US culture to believe it is morally acceptable to own another human being.

Quote:
If, on the other hand, the argument is simply one that slavery should still exist but players should be forbidden from engaging in it, there may be room for discussion

Well, you did get that one correct.

Liberty's Edge 3/5

trollbill wrote:
talbanus wrote:
The Beard wrote:
... Slavery is not offensive to the majority anymore. Most people have chosen to let it go.
And how big does the minority have to be before it matters? Or should we just be subject to 'the tyranny of the mob'?
And being subject to the tyranny of the minority is better how?

Here we go. So, if you have to be sensitive and watch what you say around a table, that perhaps includes someone whose great-grand parent was a slave, this is you being oppressed? Would that that was the greatest form of oppression any of us ever faced.

301 to 350 of 368 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Slaves now legal to own in PFS? All Messageboards