It still gives their views more screentime than they deserve. I mean, there's a reason we poke fun at a lot of our media outlets nowadays.
|
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."
Maybe, but I don't see why PFS needs to go down the slavery rabbit hole while other objecting PCs are physically helpless to do anything about it.
Also, just because I'm a reasonable person doesn't mean I have to roleplay a completely reasonable person. I imagine that a world that was people with direct lines to gods would have quite a few fanatics in it.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
A reminder that, according to Seekers of Secrets, page 37, there are slaves on the grounds of the Grand Lodge.
Within the Repository’s walls, 66 tongueless criminals purchased from Absalom’s courts labor constantly under powerful geases to transcribe and illuminate approved reports from Pathfinders to produce new editions of the Pathfinder Chronicles for distribution around the world.
So, if you're going to get all up in arms about slave-holding, and indeed, abuse of slaves, you don't have to look far.
|
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."Maybe, but I don't see why PFS needs to go down the slavery rabbit hole while other objecting PCs are physically helpless to do anything about it.
Also, just because I'm a reasonable person doesn't mean I have to roleplay a completely reasonable person. I imagine that a world that was people with direct lines to gods would have quite a few fanatics in it.
You have to role-play the character reasonably enough that such roleplaying does not cause excessive table disruption. Role-playing a fanatical slavery-hater does not give you any more right to disrupt the table than role-playing a fanatical Qadiran-hater, a fanatical elf-hater, or a fanatical woman-hater. Nor does it give you the right to expect slave owner pcs to be banned anymore than it gives you the right to expect PFS to ban Qadiran's, elves or women PCs just because that is how you decided to play your character. And neither would the fact that you may or may not personally consider fanatically hating slavery to be more morally acceptable than fanatically hating Qadirans, elves or women.
If you deliberately create a character that you know will cause table disruption, it doesn't matter how morally justified you feel you are in doing so. You are still violating the "Don't be a Jerk" clause.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, just because I'm a reasonable person doesn't mean I have to roleplay a completely reasonable person. I imagine that a world that was people with direct lines to gods would have quite a few fanatics in it.
Yes, and you should play those in games that allow PvP. Not PFS. In PFS, you make characters that play well with others.
Sit at the table with who? I assume you mean the players of slaveowning PCs, and that's correct, you aren't forced to sit there. You aren't forced to sit there with anyone. If it's the player that's bothering you, not the PC, that's an unrelated issue from "The PC I made refuses to work alongside slaveowners."
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
In a moderated forum of trust such as this, I disagree. The word is used far too often and it is a objectionable and a slur. if someone used the n-word, the k-word, the g-word, the w-word on this list, you would say, "let it go Dhjika, don't feed the trolls?"
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Enevhar,
I can see how abusing slaves would drop someone into evil, but simply owning one?
But we in North America have a slanted view of slavery, because American slavery, racist and inhumanly brutal as it was, was not the norm for medieval slave-holding cultures. The norse had thralls, typically enemies captued in battle, who were integrated into the Norse social structure, and their children were freemen by law. The Roman Empire relied on slave labor, but the lifestyle of servants wasn't significantly worse than that of the freed citizens they worked alongside. Medieval European agriculture was supported by serfs, who were owned as parcel of the land they tended.
Are you honestly saying that holding someone against their will and forcing them to work for you is not evil as long as you are nice while you do so?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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
Isn't there a vanity to specifically provide a porter? so buying a slave to carry things is a way to avoid using the provided in game method to get a carry buddy?
I disagree most slavery was as a result of a crime, unless the crime was not being of a people - most of them started out as being a group weaker than a stronger group and taken by force and made slaves - or their ancestors had that happen to them and they were born slaves.
Lots of modern people condone slavery and practice it and they are likely sane as a legal term. I've never heard of a person charged in the USA with slavery related crimes getting off because they were suffering a mental instability.
We are of course thinking of different things when the word slavery is used - some are thinking of it as something from the past and history books - others as something happening in the world ( even the USA) even today.
There is a huge potential PR issue lurking here as well - bad publicity with those outside of the gaming hobby - easily cut off by saying Pathfinder Society characters can't bring slaves on missions.
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.In a moderated forum of trust such as this, I disagree. The word is used far too often and it is a objectionable and a slur. if someone used the n-word, the k-word, the g-word, the w-word on this list, you would say, "let it go Dhjika, don't feed the trolls?"
1. Yes. People like that can't be reasoned with, and flaming them won't change their mind, either. Also, I hope I'm just being clueless and the g-word isn't "gay". Do we really have to censor that?
2. The guy had already been told off by Joshua Frost, among others. This may not be a totally liberal community, but when it comes to PCness, even people like me can end up looking like Limbaugh. ;D
3. Yes. "Retarded" isn't a good word, but its use is hardly comparable to the n-word. The difference is that "retarded" has essentially lost its meaning (similar to "moron" and "idiot"), while the n-word continues to mean solely "black person".
4. Don't feed the trolls.
5. It's four years old.
6. Don't feed the freaking trolls.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Are you honestly saying that holding someone against their will and forcing them to work for you is not evil as long as you are nice while you do so?
No. "Nice" doesn't factor into it. I'm surprised that you read a post about social economics and came away with nothing more than "being nice".
[EDIT: Historical and economic discussion cut.]
Earlier games, such as AD&D's"Against the Slavers" modules, were pretty vague. It seems that everybody hates the guys who capture slaves, because they take victims who start out with rights, such as freedom, and strip them of those rights. But owning slaves is a different story.
So it's worth asking: what sort of model does Paizo use for slavery in Golarion? The abhorrent American model? Or historical medieval models? Or Robert E. Howard fantasy novels?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Are you honestly saying that holding someone against their will and forcing them to work for you is not evil as long as you are nice while you do so?Enevhar,
I can see how abusing slaves would drop someone into evil, but simply owning one?
But we in North America have a slanted view of slavery, because American slavery, racist and inhumanly brutal as it was, was not the norm for medieval slave-holding cultures. The norse had thralls, typically enemies captued in battle, who were integrated into the Norse social structure, and their children were freemen by law. The Roman Empire relied on slave labor, but the lifestyle of servants wasn't significantly worse than that of the freed citizens they worked alongside. Medieval European agriculture was supported by serfs, who were owned as parcel of the land they tended.
The context is important. In this situation, in Golarion, slavery is not considered evil.
You real world sensibilities have absolutely no bearing on this.
If, in your home game, you want to make it evil, go for it. That's your choice, and not a bad one.
But pushing your real world sensibilities on a fantasy world and on every other person who plays in that world, in an organized play environment, is not right.
Be careful discussing this in public. You dont want to get dirty looks.
"I'm just saying, slavery isn't evil and should be legal!"
Right up there with, "I think we should kill the babies. They'll just grow up hating society anyways!" and "How do we sneak our weapons inside?"
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Really it's a matter of being adults, isn't it?
I mean my characters vary on slavery from Mayim (*shaprns sword* "You don't mind if I slice off a few choice bits to sell do you, Mister slaver?") to Ksenia ("Halflings are great. Everyone should own a few!") to Rey ("No, I'm not an Andoran, I just hate slavery") to Samiel ("Slavery? High expense for little practical return. Bad business. Plus I have to listen to the Andorans whine.")
The 'porter' and other vanities don't go into how they're compensated so an Andoran freeman porter has the exact same expenses and abilities as the Chelaxian porter who was sold into slavery becasue he was trying to free slaves himself.
just like I don't play Mayim or Shankur (both are way over the top vampy/sexual) with the 10 year old at the table, (or the 15 year old, if I ever sit with her again) If I'm playing with someone who gets twitchy about my fantasy character owning slaves, I won't make a big deal about it.*
And yes, if a player is being a jerk by going into detail about using/abusing his slaves/animals/familiars, the GM can tell him to leave the table for being disruptive.
That seems to cover it.
*
Are you honestly saying that holding someone against their will and forcing them to work for you is not evil as long as you are nice while you do so?
Clearly, you'd have hated the 2e-era Al-Qadim setting. Slavery was ubiquitous and "good" to the point that you were, in many cases, bringing heathens into the enlightened society of the Loregiver. Plus, anybody playing a Mamluk PC was a slave and probably content to be one given their role in society.
Part of the fun of playing in an RPG is immersing yourself in another, different time and place - a different culture - that may have different attitudes toward slavery that we have thanks to the development of western individual rights philosophies. Clearly both Galt and Andoran offer some inroads into those philosophies, but other parts of the setting rest on other philosophical outlooks. My suggestion is to play a character and try to incorporate those outlooks into your role playing rather than try to make a federal (or in this case alignment) case out of it.
|
|
Are you honestly saying that holding someone against their will and forcing them to work for you is not evil as long as you are nice while you do so?Enevhar,
I can see how abusing slaves would drop someone into evil, but simply owning one?
But we in North America have a slanted view of slavery, because American slavery, racist and inhumanly brutal as it was, was not the norm for medieval slave-holding cultures. The norse had thralls, typically enemies captued in battle, who were integrated into the Norse social structure, and their children were freemen by law. The Roman Empire relied on slave labor, but the lifestyle of servants wasn't significantly worse than that of the freed citizens they worked alongside. Medieval European agriculture was supported by serfs, who were owned as parcel of the land they tended.
You just described the modern justice system. Stop by any US prison work area and ask how many inmates feel they are being held against their will and are being forced to work.
Point = Context is everything.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Earlier games, such as AD&D's"Against the Slavers" modules, were pretty vague. It seems that everybody hates the guys who capture slaves, because they take victims who start out with rights, such as freedom, and strip them of those rights. But owning slaves is a different story.
How does one arrive at the conclusion that purchasing and retaining a slave as a slave separates a person form the immoral and evil act of enslaving an otherwise free individual?
Because the slave you own could be, like the 66 geased slaves in the Repository, condemned criminals. Or they could be indentured servants serving out their debts. Or they could be children, given to the PC by their parents in thanks for some heroic act that saved the family. That's three ideas I came up with, within 30 seconds. I'll bet you can come up with more.
(I recently ran "Broken Chains". The party bought some slaves in Katapesh, intending to examine and then free them. One or two slaves had been experimented on, and the party realized that releasing them into the public would likely result in many deaths. They sold the slaves to the temple of Abadar, where an NPC paladin had agreed to try to rehabilitate the slaves and save their lives, in return for their service to the temple for a year.)
The shtick with Andoran / River Kingdoms is that those people condemn all sorts of servitude, not just the abhorrent American model. They never ask, "Was this slave condemned for a crime? Maybe he's indentured?" They want the whole lot of them freed, and the Andorans probably want the owners run through for good measure. If everybody agreed that slavery were a universal evil, all the good-aligned kingdoms would condemn it, and that's not the case.
Remember that NG Sarenrae is the patron god of Qadira, one of the most active slave-trade centers in Golarion. Who are you to get more uppity than Sarenrae?
I hate to repeat myself, but the slavers that show up in D&D / Pathfinder adventures are the sorts of people / gnolls who kidnap otherwise free people and strip them of their rights. Everybody hates those guys, and they're universally legitimate targets for attack-on-sight, like hobgoblins and orcs.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
To equate the incarceration of someone who is a legitimate murder/rapist/kidnapper/child molester with that of a completely free individual is a failure to understand context.
What about people condemned for simple theft? What about people condemned for insurrection or other political crimes? What about natives "condemned" for taking up arms against conquerers or raiders?
Perhaps there is a gray area.
I think it's best to assume in PFS that the slaves you own committed some crime. Just keeps things simple and avoids any gray morality.
|
|
Context is everything and the context shows that your comparison is invalid. Criminals, by virtue of their committing crimes, voluntarily/intentionally give up their rights. So no, the penal system isn't "slavery" be because the individuals no longer have the right to freedom.
If that is the case, then no form of legal slavery is actually slavery, as slaves, by definition, no longer have the right to freedom if they have been legally declared a slave. It doesn't matter whether these people are slaves because they are criminals, because they owed big debts, or because they were taken captive in battle. If the legal system says they lose their right to freedom because of that, its all the same. The fact that our legal system incorporates some of those and doesn't incorporate others is irrelevant to whether of not it is slavery.
Not all slavery is the kind seen and practiced in the US before the US Civil War.
Some slaves were war prisoners: what do you do with the captured enemies? Kill them? Enslave them? Cut off their right hands (no wielding swords) and let them fend for themselves?
Some became slaves due to their own crimes. Prisons can be expensive to run, so do you kill the serious criminals? enslave them?
Some slaves are taken and made into elite military units. The best example that I can come up with are the Janissaries - non-muslims taken as slave when young boys and turned into elite soldiers, who often ended up ruling vast parts of the Ottoman empire. The Janissaries were around for hundreds of years.
Some slaves are able to earn their freedom.
The subject is not as black and white as some would like to believe.
In PFS there are all kinds of slavery, some good, some evil. There can be discussions of all kinds (like having your PC try and convince a slave owning PC to release their slaves), preferrable without anyone getting to worked up over an RPG game.
Edit: Grammar
So hang on, Bill, are you arguing that even owning a slave who's doing a sentence is evil?
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
Sorry. The Janissaries always make me giggle. You know, you would have thought somewhere along the way someone would have had the thought "sure, slave labor is cheap, but maybe staffing our standing army almost entirely with slave labor is a bad idea..."
I mean, they did figure that out, but you would have thought they would have thought of that *before* they did it. Not after the inevitable slave revolt.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
...It seems that everybody hates the guys who capture slaves, because they take victims who start out with rights, such as freedom, and strip them of those rights. But owning slaves is a different story.
How is it a different story? Are you saying there is no linkage between the one who captures and strips someone of inalienable rights and the one who buys the slave, who by extension condones and reinforces the unnatural status? Just because society gets acclimated to evil does not suddenly make it right and just for that society; it is evil that has gained acceptance (the status quo). What does that say about the people of that society that they would justify such practices? I'm quite certain they would be incensed if someone tried to strip them of their rights and sell them into slavery...
Sorry. The Janissaries always make me giggle. You know, you would have thought somewhere along the way someone would have had the thought "sure, slave labor is cheap, but maybe staffing our standing army almost entirely with slave labor is a bad idea..."
I mean, they did figure that out, but you would have thought they would have thought of that *before* they did it. Not after the inevitable slave revolt.
Did you notice that they were around for something like 500 years?
That when they were elite military, they didn't revolt?That when they tried to stop the modernization of the military and revolted, that is when they were disbanded (the fact that they were no longer elite military likely had something to do with them being defeated - along with a hate by the local people).
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Earlier games, such as AD&D's"Against the Slavers" modules, were pretty vague. It seems that everybody hates the guys who capture slaves, because they take victims who start out with rights, such as freedom, and strip them of those rights. But owning slaves is a different story.
How does one arrive at the conclusion that purchasing and retaining a slave as a slave separates a person form the immoral and evil act of enslaving an otherwise free individual?
I respond.
How is it a different story? Are you saying there is no linkage between the one who captures and strips someone of inalienable rights and the one who buys the slave, who by extension condones and reinforces the unnatural status? ...
I direct you to the response, just a little up-thread.
|
|
So hang on, Bill, are you arguing that even owning a slave who's doing a sentence is evil?
No, I am pointing out that enforced prisoner work is still slavery. I am making no moral judgment of this form of slavery. Just pointing out the fact that just because it is legal in the U.S. and most consider it socially acceptable does not mean it isn't slavery. People will want to argue it isn't because if it is, then it completely shoots down the whole, "All Slavery Is Evil," argument. But the truth of the matter is that these people have had their rights stripped from them and are forced to do manual labor. That's pretty much the definition of a slave. The fact that they have justifiably been made a slave does not change the fact they are slaves. Thus, even in today's society, there are forms of slavery that we do not consider evil. And thus it proves that the evilness of slavery is relative to the culture and not some absolute.
On the other hand, arguing that slave ownership isn't as bad as capturing slaves is like arguing that paying ivory hunters to bring you elephant tusks isn't as bad as hunting the elephants yourself.
|
|
Are you honestly saying that holding someone against their will and forcing them to work for you is not evil as long as you are nice while you do so?You just described the modern justice system. Stop by any US prison work area and ask how many inmates feel they are being held against their will and are being forced to work.
Point = Context is everything.
Context is everything and the context shows that your comparison is invalid. Criminals, by virtue of their committing crimes, voluntarily/intentionally give up their rights. So no, the penal system isn't "slavery" be because the individuals no longer have the right to freedom. In addition, the use of criminal workers is deemed as a method of allowing the slaves to pay back a debt to society.
To equate the incarceration of someone who is a legitimate murder/rapist/kidnapper/child molester with that of a completely free individual is a failure to understand context.
First of all you just moved the goalpost.I quoted and refuted your specific statement.
Second of all, you claim the incarcerated have no rights and are therefore not slaves. But why did they have no rights, who took those rights away? Society did. The people in either scenario unlikely gave away those right voluntarily. So if society can take away rights without being evil, how is one different than the other? Why is one removal of rights Evil and another not?
And you have obviously not been to a prison lately if you think the majority of the people are there for "murder/rapist/kidnapper/child molester" Nearly 2/3 of incarcerated criminals in our system are drug related crimes. Only 1/4 are Violent offenders.
As for Rape, only 14% of reported rapes in the US are prosecuted and only 18% of result in convictions. In the US you are far more likely to be imprisoned for smoking a joint than for rape.
Ah, okay. I misunderstood you.
And yeah, I think ownership is roughly as bad, though non-Pathfinder owners could at least claim some degree of innocence due to simple ignorance. Owners who adventure and know how the world works, though?
I say it's "roughly as bad", but how bad is the slavetaking itself? That depends on what the slave did to "deserve" slavery. Someone who owns a slave whose only crime was being drunk in the wrong alley is committing an evil act. Someone who owns a slave who robbed graves and sold the bodies to necromancers, on the other hand...
|
|
...It seems that everybody hates the guys who capture slaves, because they take victims who start out with rights, such as freedom, and strip them of those rights. But owning slaves is a different story.How is it a different story? Are you saying there is no linkage between the one who captures and strips someone of inalienable rights and the one who buys the slave, who by extension condones and reinforces the unnatural status? Just because society gets acclimated to evil does not suddenly make it right and just for that society; it is evil that has gained acceptance (the status quo). What does that say about the people of that society that they would justify such practices? I'm quite certain they would be incensed if someone tried to strip them of their rights and sell them into slavery...
You seem to be confused.
Just because the modern world has essentially abolished all forms of slavery as legal and declared freedom an inalienable right, most specifically in the USA, does not mean that in a non real world context that freedom is an inalienable right.
Stop imposing real world morality into this fantasy game and world.
There have been many cultures in our real world history where freedom was not inalienable. The feudal system essentially used the common folk or peasants as serfs. Born a serf, almost always remain a serf. Born into servitude to your lord. Tge lord had duties to protect his people. It was the social contract of that day and age. But that was no less slavery than tge reprehensible slavery of America in the 1800's. But feudalism wasn't evil.
Threads like this make me realize that the morality of the Pathfinder world is nothing like the morality of our world and trying to draw conclusions based on the morality of our world is a fool's errand. It seems that many operate under an orange/blue system of morality.
On that, I disagree. There are elements of real world morality all over Golarion but they tend to be more modernistic and ahistorical than closely wedded to the pseudo-medieval societies that form your typical fantasy RPG, including PF. So we do tend to feel a bit of friction between the RPG official (and our) morality and the elements of medieval morality that appear in the settings.
I think this is one area where Paizo's obvious social progressiveness with respect to sex and gender identity also leads to friction or at least difficulty accepting the various "medievalisms" that appear. It exacerbates the patchworkiness of the modern vs historical morality issue.
I think a lot of us as players/GMs can deal with this effectively by keeping a broad definition of good and evil and other aspects of morality and realize that a wart or two (Erastil's male chauvinism, the relationship of Sarenrae's cultural background and slavery) doesn't keep characters or deities from being good and that being a law-abiding member of a society that tolerates slavery doesn't undermine a character's good alignment. The idea that a wart or two must exclude goodness strikes me as an extremist knee jerk reaction to alignment, treating it as a virtual straight jacket, is an idea that I think needs to be put to rest.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
What about people condemned for simple theft? What about people condemned for insurrection or other political crimes? What about natives "condemned" for taking up arms against conquerers or raiders?
Perhaps there is a gray area.
Confusing the issue doesn't absolve the immorality. This is not about falsely imprisoned people nor is it a debate on whether the punishments fit the crime.
Equating the capture and enslavement of free persons to that of incarcerated criminals is invalid in the context of forced labor. If you're needing to go there, you've already conceded the discussion.
I don't believe I am confusing the issue. Rather, I believe I am pointing out that there is a middle ground between "murderers and rapists" on one side and "innocent people kidnapped" on the other.
Joko points out one clear middle ground: nonviolent criminals such as drug users. Another middle ground would be debtors. In fantasy lands like Golarion, there are also members of races which are tainted with evil.
So far as I know, nobody's saying that the two extremes (rapists and innocent people kidnapped in their homes) are equal. That's all you.
So far as I understand, suggesting that there is a gray area worth discussing, is not the same as saying that everything is in the gray area.
Perhaps by "confusing the issue" you mean "implying that there's something more sophisticated here than a black-and-white dichotomy". You are capable of better rhetoric.
No, it's not all the same. Losing one's liberties because you violate laws of the state/community is not tantamount to losing your liberty because someone takes it from you. Trying to equate the two is a non-starter.
That's incorrect. Our legal system is based on laws decided by the people. Incarceration is a penalty for crimes that has been instituted by a nation. No private individual can legally incarcerate another individual.
Your attempts to re-characterize imprisonment for crimes as tantamount to slavery are not valid. Just because there are similar elements, i.e. forced to do labor against one's will, does not mean one is the same as the other.
And if the slave is a slave because of crimes committed?
You only seem to be looking at the idea of slaves taken during slaving raids, but ignore all of the other ways people become slaves and how slaves were created around the world and over time.