| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem I have of course is not about slavery or evil PC's. It's about what situation a GM is suddenly thrust into. As a GM, I'm told that player characters cannot be evil..but suddenly slavery (rape and kidapping and all the other things that go with slavery) and murder of innocents could suddenly officially sanctioned by Paizo and Pathfinder Society by players and the GM's can't do a dang thing about it.
Before people get up in arms about something here, consider: a slave is just as unable to refuse her "owner" as if he had a dagger to her neck.
|
I consider slavery to be an evil act...
Here is the problem. You're putting your own views of morality based on the society that you live in into a fantasy game that doesn't share that same society (and thus those views aren't the norm). It's the very same issue that many countries have with Americans in that we always try to force our views on other societies. There's a real simple solution here, though: just stop.
Here is the problem. You're putting your own views of morality based on the society that you live in into a fantasy game that doesn't share that same society (and thus those views aren't the norm). It's the very same issue that many countries have with Americans in that we always try to force our views on other societies. There's a real simple solution here, though: just stop.
I consider slavery to be an evil act...
Except ...
In a setting where there are Detect Good and Detect Evil spells, there is an implication that there really is an absolute definition of "Good" and "Evil."
So for character like Clerics and Paladins, determining what is considered "Good" and "Evil" is not an academic question.
Remember, characters who are Evil are not permitted as PCs in Pathfinder Society games.
So before a player has his/her character take an action, they need to know if it will result in an alignment change, and possbile removal from that Player's control.
Related to this, Game Masters also need an objective standard to determine when a player has taken such an action. Emirikol's concern is both very legitimate and important on this bases .
This is not a case of we "Yankies" trying to impose our views on others. There is a real need to know what is "Evil" and what is not from the context of the Pathfinder Society.
Except ...In a setting where there are Detect Good and Detect Evil spells, there is an implication that there really is an absolute definition of "Good" and "Evil."
So for character like Clerics and Paladins, determining what is considered "Good" and "Evil" is not an academic question.
Remember, characters who are Evil are not permitted as PCs in Pathfinder Society games.
So before a player has his/her character take an action, they need to know if it will result in an alignment change, and possbile removal from that Player's control.
Related to this, Game Masters also need an objective standard to determine when a player has taken such an action. Emirikol's concern is both very legitimate and important on this bases .
This is not a case of we "Yankies" trying to impose our views on others. There is a real need to know what is "Evil" and what is not from the context of the Pathfinder Society.
Purchasing slaves in and of itself is not evil in this fantasy world. People have mentioned modules where purchasing slaves in order to free them was part of the scenario. It isn't black and white. If one purchases slaves and then goes on to torture or starve them then of course that seems to be tending evil - but the purchase in and of itself was not.
If a PC purchases slaves with gold earned in the campaign I would think a good amount has to do with how they are being used and treated. If a PC purchases slaves and then proceeds to abuse them and push the issue at a game table then it sounds like it is covered under the section from the PFS Guide DougDoug already quoted from pp 17, that one player's idea of fun should not come at the expense of others. This should be all a GM needs to handle the issue at a PFS table if a player chooses to purchase slaves and then push an issue to the others dismay at a table.
It seems GMs have the tools at their disposal to handle any number of situations at a table that was hurting the fun of the game. Let's trust GMs to be thinking, competent individuals who can make subjective decisions as needed at tables being played across the world.
|
Agents provocateurs dispatched from the capital city of Almas actively seek to undermine the Inner Sea slave trade and those nations who actively support it: Absalom, Cheliax, Katapesh, Osirion, and Thuvia being among the worst offenders. The world thus views Andorens as trouble-makers
and unwanted ideological imperialists.
Absalom - Neutral
Cheliax - Lawful EvilKatapesh - Neutral
Osirion - Lawful Neutral
Thuvia - Lawful Neutral
Interestingly this snippet doesn't mention Qadira (Neutral). Various preceding text in this book paints the Kelish as big players in the slave trade as well. So yes, slaver is bad. However in the context of this game world slavery appears to be part of the social normal and isn't evil in itself. The act of buying or owning a slave isn't inherently evil, though subjectively tasteless.
|
|
Reposted from earlier:
Page 17:
We’re all friends here and we’re all playing a game together
with the singular purpose of (hopefully) having a wonderful
time... Extreme forms of dysfunctional play will not
be tolerated.
I think the Guide speaks for itself and there's a lot of hand-wringing going on over nothing. Play nice, don't be jerks, and have fun.
It is going to come down to people's subjective views about what is evil and what isn't. This topic keeps on coming up, ever since the introduction of Pathfinder Society. An "evil act" has never been defined in Pathfinder Society for a good reason, because it is not a heroic campaign. Many players like to have clear definitions so they can tell other players what can and can't be done. It takes the responsibility off of them to simply play nice and not be jerks. If the issue comes up at a table and it affects the enjoyment of the game by other players then it is the GM's job to take control of the situation. It's a simple two letter word: "No". If the player in question doesn't like it, then too bad. If that player can't understand that his or her actions are ruining the game for the rest of the players and does not curb his or her behavior, I call that dysfunctional.
|
|
I've already noted that it's seen as an issue about our local who gets off on this stuff. Officially, I can be banned as a judge for not allowing it? What the heck?
Where does this end and how much leeway as a GM do I have to disallow evil actions? What happened to the "no evil characters rule?" Or is that just lip-service?
If someone at your table is "getting off" on slavery and disrupting the game, then ask them to stop or leave. Chapter 5 of the Pathfinder Society rulebook covers that under the "Don't Bully Other Players" heading. Specifically:
"Extreme forms of dysfunctional play will not be tolerated."
and
"Playing your character is not an excuse for childish behavior. GMs will work with their coordinators to resolve any out-of-game conflicts. If you are both the GM and the coordinator, use your own discretion. Extreme or repetitive cases should be resolved by asking the offender to leave the table."
Why on earth would anyone at Paizo (or anywhere else, for that matter) ban a DM for kicking a disruptive player out of the scenario?
If you're going to open that can of worms and say that Paizo officially sanctions slavery as a non-evil act in Open Play gaming, then...
I don't even remotely see how Paizo is "officially sanctioning slavery as a non-evil act". That's just silly.
|
|
In a setting where there are Detect Good and Detect Evil spells, there is an implication that there really is an absolute definition of "Good" and "Evil."
So for character like Clerics and Paladins, determining what is considered "Good" and "Evil" is not an academic question.
This is all good stuff, but everything doesn't fall into a good or evil category. That's why we have a neutral classification.
Now don't get me wrong, I don't condone slavery on a moral scale in the least. However, there are many documented cases of American slaves often being treated better than free persons from poor backgrounds.
The act of owning a slave in and of itself doesn't make an individual evil. What would determine the alignment of a person is how they treated said slave.
Don't forget about indentured servitude. That should prove that slavery as an institution isn't "evil". I mean... people volunteered for it! Morally ambiguous? Sure. But not evil.
Reposted from earlier:
Page 17:
We’re all friends here and we’re all playing a game together
with the singular purpose of (hopefully) having a wonderful
time... Extreme forms of dysfunctional play will not
be tolerated.I think the Guide speaks for itself and there's a lot of hand-wringing going on over nothing. Play nice, don't be jerks, and have fun.
It is going to come down to people's subjective views about what is evil and what isn't. This topic keeps on coming up, ever since the introduction of Pathfinder Society. An "evil act" has never been defined in Pathfinder Society for a good reason, because it is not a heroic campaign. Many players like to have clear definitions so they can tell other players what can and can't be done. It takes the responsibility off of them to simply play nice and not be jerks. If the issue comes up at a table and it affects the enjoyment of the game by other players then it is the GM's job to take control of the situation. It's a simple two letter word: "No". If the player in question doesn't like it, then too bad. If that player can't understand that his or her actions are ruining the game for the rest of the players and does not curb his or her behavior, I call that dysfunctional.
That and Joshua specifically said that slaves are fluff and have no stat blocks. Thus, if someone's character comes to the game with one or more slaves, or buys them in game for reasons other than freeing them, they better keep them out of sight and not try to take them along on the adventure. Regardless of the alignment talk and all, anything without a stat block being brought along into fights could potentially be disruptive and cause issues at the table.
I think you could probably take them on the adventure to carry your things or serve you tea, but the slave certainly wouldn't be taking any important actions like combat or skill...That and Joshua specifically said that slaves are fluff and have no stat blocks. Thus, if someone's character comes to the game with one or more slaves, or buys them in game for reasons other than freeing them, they better keep them out of sight and not try to take them along on the adventure. Regardless of the alignment talk and all, anything without a stat block being brought along into fights could potentially be disruptive and cause issues at the table.Reposted from earlier:
Page 17:
We’re all friends here and we’re all playing a game together
with the singular purpose of (hopefully) having a wonderful
time... Extreme forms of dysfunctional play will not
be tolerated.I think the Guide speaks for itself and there's a lot of hand-wringing going on over nothing. Play nice, don't be jerks, and have fun.
It is going to come down to people's subjective views about what is evil and what isn't. This topic keeps on coming up, ever since the introduction of Pathfinder Society. An "evil act" has never been defined in Pathfinder Society for a good reason, because it is not a heroic campaign. Many players like to have clear definitions so they can tell other players what can and can't be done. It takes the responsibility off of them to simply play nice and not be jerks. If the issue comes up at a table and it affects the enjoyment of the game by other players then it is the GM's job to take control of the situation. It's a simple two letter word: "No". If the player in question doesn't like it, then too bad. If that player can't understand that his or her actions are ruining the game for the rest of the players and does not curb his or her behavior, I call that dysfunctional.
Then would the "slave" be treated as any other non-combat hireling or follower?
|
Here is the problem. You're putting your own views of morality based on the society that you live in into a fantasy game that doesn't share that same society (and thus those views aren't the norm). It's the very same issue that many countries have with Americans in that we always try to force our views on other societies. There's a real simple solution here, though: just stop.
I consider slavery to be an evil act...Except ...
In a setting where there are Detect Good and Detect Evil spells, there is an implication that there really is an absolute definition of "Good" and "Evil."
So for character like Clerics and Paladins, determining what is considered "Good" and "Evil" is not an academic question.
Remember, characters who are Evil are not permitted as PCs in Pathfinder Society games.
So before a player has his/her character take an action, they need to know if it will result in an alignment change, and possbile removal from that Player's control.
Related to this, Game Masters also need an objective standard to determine when a player has taken such an action. Emirikol's concern is both very legitimate and important on this bases .
This is not a case of we "Yankies" trying to impose our views on others. There is a real need to know what is "Evil" and what is not from the context of the Pathfinder Society.
I didn't really think anyone would need this pointed out to them, but its obvious that owning slaves is not an evil act. how you treat them, may be. Every complaint about slavery implies, beatings, rape, etc... none of which are necessary for a slave owner to do.
Folks, I'd like to introduce you to my friend Common Sense.
|
|
By extrapulation of what Josh has said it is evident that slave ownership doesn't equate to a character having to have an evil alignment, and I doubt that slave ownership has any effect on detect evil or good.
You could make the arguement that how a character treats a slave can affect alignment. But that sort of treatment is much like how a character would treat any person or creatue under thier control.
All in all, while there are rules against making trouble at the table vis a vis player vs. player. There really aren't any rules that state that a players character can't be creepy or odeous.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Since Evil characters are still not permitted in the PFS, would buying a slave be considered an evil act?
I don't buy/own slaves, I only rent them through a proxy. That way, when I want safety pins, I can avoid the tarnish of evil on my alignment and get a great price. Best of both worlds, really.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8570692.stm?ad=1
Okay, first of all I don't see the problem with the rules aspect. Who wants to buy slaves to use ingame? They are like the weakest kind of followers you can get with Leadership and completely useless.
Now to the morality aspect. Capturing slaves is evil because you are robbing people of their freedom. Slavery as an institution is evil because it's built on said robbery. Period. (Some forms more than others but that's not the point.)
However, neither owning nor buying slaves in lands where this institution exists is evil. If you don't buy slaves someone else will. You boycotting the slave trade will not magically set them free and teleport them home. Buying them and giving them a home isn't a good act but it's not evil either. Evil or good come with what you do after that. Abusing slaves is evil. Forcing slaves to work is evil. Punishing slaves who tried to escape is evil. Setting an injured or sick slave free because you don't want to pay a healer is evil. Now what is good? Setting them free in a way that they can live after that, meaning they can sustain themselves and aren't in constant danger to be recaptured or mistreated. Protecting and caring for them as family members and not just as an investment can also be a good act.
As always being evil is easy, and being good is hard. Especially since "good" depends a lot on the situation. Someone who buys a bunch of human slaves in a drow city, sets them free on the spot and leaves just killed them.
For all those who think that buying or owning slaves makes you automatically evil: Read "The Eagle of the Ninth" of Rosemary Sutcliff.
Now back to the rules part. Nothing of the morality above will have impact on the gameplay. You pay for a slave and he goes straight to the home of the character and will probably never again play a role in the game because it's Pathfinder, not The Sims Fantasy. Unless either the GM or the player has the need to address it.....
|
|
Now to the morality aspect. Capturing slaves is evil because you are robbing people of their freedom. Slavery as an institution is evil because it's built on said robbery. Period. (Some forms more than others but that's not the point.)
However, neither owning nor buying slaves in lands where this institution exists is evil. If you don't buy slaves someone else will. You boycotting the slave trade will not magically set them free and teleport them home. Buying them and giving them a home isn't a good act but it's not evil either. Evil or good come with what you do after that. Abusing slaves is evil. Forcing slaves to work is evil. Punishing slaves who tried to escape is evil. Setting an injured or sick slave free because you don't want to pay a healer is evil. Now what is good?
Setting them free in a way that they can live after that, meaning they can sustain themselves and aren't in constant danger to be recaptured or mistreated. Protecting and caring for them as family members and not just as an investment can also be a good act.
As always being evil is easy, and being good is hard. Especially since "good" depends a lot on the situation. Someone who buys a bunch of human slaves in a drow city, sets them free on the spot and leaves just killed them.
That is almost exactly how I see it. Depriving someone that was free of their freedom in the first place is evil (especially if they are just Joe Innocent that you waylay into slavery). Living with the conditions of your society and not making them worse is just neutral. Actively trying to do the hard thing and make them better is good.
I think you could probably take them on the adventure to carry your things or serve you tea, but the slave certainly wouldn't be taking any important actions like combat or skill checks.
They can't even carry anything since they don't have a Strength score.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Declaring that including the act of slavery in our FANTASY ROLEPLAYING GAME is in anyway an endorsement of slavery as a "good act" is preposterous and stretches my incredulity to levels I've not seen on these boards.
It would be like declaring that a textbook publisher endorsed slavery by realistically depicting it in its historical context.
While I can certainly appreciate that slavery is a sticky subject for some, often a source of embarrassment or uncomfortableness for Americans, and intolerably disgusting for others, none of those emotions have any bearing on our FANTASY ROLEPLAYING GAME. Paizo doesn't condone slavery just like it doesn't condone home invasion just like it doesn't condone murder/kidnapping/theft or any other things that happen every hour of every fantasy roleplaying game session.
Our players are, for the most part, rational thinking humans (most of them adults) and I leave it to those rational thinking humans to make correct choices that result in a level of comfort in their local play that they can live with. As others have mentioned, the rules stipulate how to deal with the unsavory type players you might encounter--I'm not going to micromanage the campaign by applying my world view to the concept of good and evil.
Back to the notion of using the word "retarded" to define our inclusion of slavery in our campaign setting. "Retarded" is a mental handicap, most often not through any fault of the individual who is handicapped, and using the word "retarded" to reflect something as negative is offensive. It's like using the word "gay" to mean something is bad or to say that someone is a "girl" to insult them--it's taking a description of someone and saying that because they're handicapped, or gay, or a girl that they're somehow less than the "norm." If you disagree with me on this, then why use the word "retarded" at all? Slavery is certainly a discussion we can have here (I'll likely not participate) but you better believe I'll jump in and decry your use of the word retarded to reflect anything as being negative. Far better to say, "I don't like it and here's why" then to denigrate people for their handicap, methinks.
As I said before (and I mean it this time): 'nuff said.
|
|
My character (Katharan) does own a slave (he's the old guy from the now-retired "Asmodeus' Mirage"). Vertig carries stuff and equipment I do not want to myself (read: I have Str 7). He does not take part in any fights and is really the rough equivalent of a mule, except he can go and buy stuff at the market.
He generates a lot of role-play as all of the Andorans want to snatch him from me (but he refuses because he has a crush on Katharan). Other Qadirans want to buy him off me (but don't offer "enough"). And others are just interested in why I have him. He is more of a conversation piece than a star of the action...
I agree with Josh that Jay's reaction to allowing slavery is over-the-top. But to each is own. If I were to sit at a table with a DM with such a position I would either not play or try not to trample his sensitivity. This kind of behavior does go both sides of the screen.
Let us not forget that most slavery in ancient times was done as the result of crime OR one's inability to pay his debts. No modern-day sane person would condone slavery (unless Mistress says so). :P
JP
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
Not sure I buy "most" being from crimes/debt. Slavery from war or raiding was certainly common in the ancient world.
Having slaves seems like a bad idea to me on many levels. Another source of in-table friction and another way for bad role-players to annoy people. A seriously hot button issue in general if people exercise bad taste (for example a Chelaxian with a bunch of Mwangi slaves). Plus we're barring Andorans from solving harsh slavekeepers the way they should, with a discrete murder/just killing out in the woods, so we're basically letting one faction flaunt what they can do, while keeping another from being able to address what their faction asks of them.
I'd worry about the reaction of outsiders to it, but I haven't heard people flipping out about PFS allowing devil-worship, so hopefully that lunatic fringe has found other game to hunt.
|
Not sure I buy "most" being from crimes/debt. Slavery from war or raiding was certainly common in the ancient world.
Having slaves seems like a bad idea to me on many levels. Another source of in-table friction and another way for bad role-players to annoy people. A seriously hot button issue in general if people exercise bad taste (for example a Chelaxian with a bunch of Mwangi slaves).
I sort of have the same concern for the variety of ways a player might take something and apply it in a disturbing way.
But one could think of it as allowing those players to identify themselves as being unable to play in organized play games. That way you can remove them quick rather find out several sessions in that they have "bad taste."
Plus we're barring Andorans from solving harsh slavekeepers the way they should, with a discrete murder/just killing out in the woods, so we're basically letting one faction flaunt what they can do, while keeping another from being able to address what their faction asks of them.
First, the harsh slavekeepers would likely be pushing it into evil, which is not allowed in the organized play.
Second, the faction asks them not to go out murdering, attacking, or stealing from other Pathfinders. If another character has a stolen Osirion relic, it doesn't mean that the an Osirion has leave to kill them and take their stuff, no matter how much they were bragging about it.
|
|
I feel compelled to add that with slaves or not, one shouldn't design one's character to make other people feel uncomfortable. Use one's common sense to figure out what one should avoid.
My suggestion/demand would be that the player treat them as people (or NPCs at least) they are. If the player is thinking about doing to, describing as, or demanding something from the slave that they wouldn't inflict on another NPC, then I don't think that they should do it.
Compared to a few weeks ago, I'm not as confident that purchasable slaves shouldn't be a problem, but I still advocate the GM's power to be used appropriately to maintain the peace.
Stop players from using purchasable slaves to make everyone at a table uncomfortable as well not letting other players from deciding, just because they saw slave under purchases on another character's chronicle, to destroy a table.
|
|
I feel compelled to add that with slaves or not, one shouldn't design one's character to make other people feel uncomfortable. Use one's common sense to figure out what one should avoid.
I will agree to that. I did not create the character for that reason, it turned out that way and everyone thought it was so in-character. Vertig is not there to annoy the party, and if he did, he would beat a hasty retreat with the horses outside the dungeon... (and he usually does).
Stop players from using purchasable slaves to make everyone at a table uncomfortable as well not letting other players from deciding, just because they saw slave under purchases on another character's chronicle, to destroy a table.
I think the DMs and the table are able to make that decision. Slave *ARE* available in Pathfinder some will want to buy them, most will not. Like someone showing up with a collection of critters or anything that blatantly breaks the table's fun, the DM has the right to rule against it. Let him do so.
If we stop people from buying slaves because it offends some people. We should prevent PCs from buying horses or dogs because it can offend PETA. Or from buying anything made of wood because it will annoy the tree-hugging hippies. And beer should be taken out because it promotes alcoholism. Or. Or. Okay, I'm being over the top here (as usual), but the point is made.If you, as a DM (or Jay, since it is more likely I get to sit at one of his tables), told me "no slaves here", I would not bring him to play. The slave is NOT who my character is. Being a slave owner is not the entire character concept. Just like anyone can buy slaves, a DM is free to tell me "don't bring him at this table" and I would be just fine. What I would hate is for a DM to go all-out and unfairly do something to my character because he dislikes the idea of slavery in the game.
JP
|
|
Not sure I buy "most" being from crimes/debt. Slavery from war or raiding was certainly common in the ancient world.
Having slaves seems like a bad idea to me on many levels. Another source of in-table friction and another way for bad role-players to annoy people. A seriously hot button issue in general if people exercise bad taste (for example a Chelaxian with a bunch of Mwangi slaves). Plus we're barring Andorans from solving harsh slavekeepers the way they should, with a discrete murder/just killing out in the woods, so we're basically letting one faction flaunt what they can do, while keeping another from being able to address what their faction asks of them.
I'd worry about the reaction of outsiders to it, but I haven't heard people flipping out about PFS allowing devil-worship, so hopefully that lunatic fringe has found other game to hunt.
Keep in mind that in PFS you are required to play a character that will work with other characters of vastly different alignments. Other characters aren't allowed to be evil, but they can be anything else. If you play a character that would kill a non-evil pathfinder society member that owns a slave then you probably aren't playing an appropriate PFS character. Your character doesn't need to like it, they just need to be willing to work for the organization with other people whose views they disagree with.
With that said people shouldn't me making other *players* uncomfortable with the things that they do at the table. But let's not mistake that with making *characters* uncomfortable.
|
|
I'm sureprised that this conversation is still going. The ruling has been made and a thread had been made for the The Ethics of Slavery in RPGs. Can't we let this go here and move the discussion over there?
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Yes, roguemoon, with the caveat that you shouldn't do so in a way that makes the other players go squick.
(There's a local husband and wife who have a sorceress and her manservant as their main PFS characters. I don't think they've ever used the term "slave", but the manservant isn't getting paid anything to be her most devoted bodyguard.)
Are slaves /really/ necessary for purchase in PFS? Do we really need to go there?
I'm just thinking about how much not-fun this is going to be to have to deal with this at my tables. I'll probably just spend 3 hours having the PC being chased by angry townsfolk and the table will be cancelled..you want zero xp and zero gold? Bring slaves to the table!
We've got a guy in our region, its rumored already, who gets-off a little too much on owning slaves. I think it's pretty sick.
This is retarded imo and should be removed from the game before it becomes a major issue.
jh
I find it amusing that you're so adamantly against slavery even being represented in a fantasy context, but still use the word "retarded" to reflect something as being negative. Bizarre.
As for this entire conversation, yes they can be purchased. Your character cannot use them in combat. They have no stat blocks. They are pure fluff for those who want that sort of fluff. Slavery exists in our campaign world just as it did/does in the real world. 'nuff said.
+5 HOLY AVENGER!
If anyone is against slavery in a game; make sure you're not buying anything from countries which have slave labor in real life...
|
|
The problem I have of course is not about slavery or evil PC's. It's about what situation a GM is suddenly thrust into. As a GM, I'm told that player characters cannot be evil..but suddenly slavery (rape and kidapping and all the other things that go with slavery) and murder of innocents could suddenly officially sanctioned by Paizo and Pathfinder Society by players and the GM's can't do a dang thing about it.Before people get up in arms about something here, consider: a slave is just as unable to refuse her "owner" as if he had a dagger to her neck.
By that reasoning, then owning a dagger should be considered evil. As you just pointed out it gives you the same power to abuse someone as owning them as a slave does.
Or maybe we can just judge alignments based on actual actions rather than the theoretical potential for those actions.
|
|
If my Andoran PC can't PvP the slave owning PC, I don't think should be allowed to own them in the first place. I've got a few PCs that love to burn down Cheliax, but are prohibited by PFS rules.
This is no more reasonable than stating, "My Paladin can't PvP law breaking PCs so I don't think non-lawful characters should be allowed in the first place."
The bottom line is that if the guy's not being cruel to his slaves, he's not evil. Were the characters in "Gone With The Wind" evil? Did they deserve to get attacked by an Andoran extremist?
If your character can't abide an otherwise good PC who owns a Chelaxian criminal to help him with his luggage, maybe the problem's not on the other PC's end.
The bottom line is to not be disruptive. So don't make a crazy fanatical Andoran, and don't make a Pathfinder who treats his slaves like Nodwick henchmen. PvP isn't allowed, so don't make a character who will resort to it.
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
See, and this is why necromancy gets such a bad rap. Does anyone ever choose to use necromancy on something happy to make to happier? Nope. It's always making sure that really annoying villain gets another chance to annoy us again. Where's an over zealous paladin when we need one?
(Get it? Because it's thread necromancy, but also because of necromancers in PFS? Oh wow, topical humor. See, here's the thing about airplane food...)
|
|
My two cents: I don't care how many slaves a PC owns (or claims to own) as long as they get left at home when the adventure starts. Because I don't want to deal with the hassle of coming up with stats for them (and possibly having to argue with the DM about it).
As a GM, I wouldn't want to have to keep track of them, either. What a nightmare.
"Incoming fireball--where exactly are your slaves standing? And what's the reflex save of each one?"
|
|
In a setting where there are Detect Good and Detect Evil spells, there is an implication that there really is an absolute definition of "Good" and "Evil."
So for character like Clerics and Paladins, determining what is considered "Good" and "Evil" is not an academic question.
This is all good stuff, but everything doesn't fall into a good or evil category. That's why we have a neutral classification.
Now don't get me wrong, I don't condone slavery on a moral scale in the least. However, there are many documented cases of American slaves often being treated better than free persons from poor backgrounds.
The act of owning a slave in and of itself doesn't make an individual evil. What would determine the alignment of a person is how they treated said slave.
Don't forget about indentured servitude. That should prove that slavery as an institution isn't "evil". I mean... people volunteered for it! Morally ambiguous? Sure. But not evil.
since turning dead people into skeletons and zombies doesn't make people evil in Pathfinder I find it hard to understand why buying a slave would make one evil. Part of the issue, as this person has pointed out - there are lots of forms of things that are called slavery. Serfdom of dark ages Europe was a pretty horrible slavery but our history books generally don't call it that.
From my reading - what is evil in Pathfinder is taking free people prisoners and making them slaves.
However - having slaves at a table would be very offensive to a wide swath of people (you know that there is slavery in the world currently (some of it legal)- for that matter in the US currently - (but not legal) and thus should generally be, in my opinion, made more difficult - perhaps a vanity to be purchased - one that you can often not use.
Yeah, Dhjika, you sure are teaching that dude a lesson.
*Looks at everyone else, gestures back to the guy arguing with a rotting corpse, and twirls finger around head*
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Psssst... Dhjika. 4 year old post.
Doesn't matter - if something is offensive, derogatory or inflammatory it should be noted, pointed out, and if possible removed - whenever it is found. In some communities that word is as negatively viewed in other places as other more well known slurs are regarded.
the post was raised, so others were reading it as well - such reinforcement is often needed.
However, perhaps I should have only flagged it and not commented because of the age - I admit not paying attention to post age. Thank you for pointing it out.
Doesn't matter - if something is offensive, derogatory or inflammatory it should be noted, pointed out, and if possible removed - whenever it is found.
I'd like to see what would happen if people applied this philosophy to 4chaoh look the internet just exploded.
I'm actually serious, Dhjika--don't go after someone just because they said something inflammatory. You aren't going to change their mind, and bringing it up is just going to cause even more drama. Give them attention and you give them power.
