About the roman slavery, I just have to say, what did that uppity Spartacus think he was trying.
Roman slavery was evil too, just not as bad as some others.
Someone mentioned that the game world should be a bit better than the actual medieval world. It shouldn't be a bit better, it should be wildly better. When you can actually summon beings of pure goodness into the world, how can there be any confusion as to what is truly good and evil. Is slavery evil, summon an angel and ask.
Why? Why should someone listen to what an angel has to say when there are tons of neutral and evil gods around who will grant you most of what the good gods do (well, except a decent paradise in case of the evil gods)? Why should people actually care what's good when it's not convenient?
Do you think Christianity became a world religion because of it's great "love each other" and "turn the other cheek"-messages? No, it became great because a Roman emperor won a battle with the cross as his flag. And after that there was all that intolerance with "if you don't have our religion we burn you at a stake". Now why should good religions have much influence on the day-to-day life of a fantasy world? If fantasy worlds were that Utopian they wouldn't need heroes.And unfortunately angels aren't completely pure. They can still fall.
Slavery is a complicated matter and should be treated that way. I guess many people just overlook that even RPG-characters not necessarily have the wealth to buy all slaves on the market and set them free or the power to change the political system of a country.
Buying a slave doesn't make you automatically evil. In fact one could argue that if buying greatly improves the situation of the slave it's a good act. Don't forget: Boycotting won't do the slaves any good. Either they will be bought by other people (who don't share your scruples) or killed off by the slave traders who don't have any interest in feeding them. However it is very easy to become evil as a slave-owner. You have way too much power over other sentient beings, and as they say, power corrupts.
Slavery is a complicated matter and should be treated that way. I guess many people just overlook that even RPG-characters not necessarily have the wealth to buy all slaves on the market and set them free or the power to change the political system of a country.
Really, this is on topic . . .
Spoilers for Star Wars: Dark Times comic from Dark Horse:
In the story, a Jedi can't free slaves for fear of loosing track on the daughter of a friend of his, and then later tries to free those same slaves. Essentially, since the Jedi are outlaws and slavery is legal now, the Jedi is more or less making things worse the more he tries to help.
Why? Why should someone listen to what an angel has to say when there are tons of neutral and evil gods around who will grant you most of what the good gods do (well, except a decent paradise in case of the evil gods)? Why should people actually care what's good when it's not convenient?
Well I imagine that good characters would care what a being composed of goodness made manifest would say. You are correct that people that are not good wouldn't really care what a good being might felt. An evil character who is told by an angel that slavery is evil, would probably think, "Awesome, that's my bag baby."
But in a setting where you can physically travel to the outer planes, where spells can tell without a doubt many details of alignment, where beings exist that are composed of the various alignments made solid, there would be a lot clearer lines.
This has such a simple, ethical solution. Have a White Necromancer animate a bunch of undead slaves! WOO-HOO!
<contentious history>
I recommend learning a little bit more about the history of Christianity before repeating these canards.
About the roman slavery, I just have to say, what did that uppity Spartacus think he was trying.
Someone mentioned that the game world should be a bit better than the actual medieval world. It shouldn't be a bit better, it should be wildly better. When you can actually summon beings of pure goodness into the world, how can there be any confusion as to what is truly good and evil. Is slavery evil, summon an angel and ask.
I was thinking the same thing as I was skimming over the idea of slavery in Roman times being so not-so-bad. I remember reading that there were multiple revolutions and rebellions and slave uprising by people who did not want to be slaves.
In fact, one book said that the motivation for starting an empire in the first place was that the Roman slaves successfully rebelled at the idea of being slaves, forcing the Romans to force other people to be slaves.
On the other hand, the same book series talked about the Ottoman Jannisaries, who were also enslaved in the traditional way, by forcing people from conquered territories to do what you tell them to do. But some guy got the idea of telling them to carry swords and weapons and be the army. As a result, they soon figured out how to control the sultan himself.
Orson Scott Card's novel Wyrms has a well-written setting where the heroine is a slave and the daughter of a slave who has significant power in the empire.
Buying a slave doesn't make you automatically evil. In fact one could argue that if buying greatly improves the situation of the slave it's a good act. Don't forget: Boycotting won't do the slaves any good. Either they will be bought by other people (who don't share your scruples) or killed off by the slave traders who don't have any...
That sounds like the kind of argument that a chaotic good or chaotic neutral character would make: But a lawful good character would have to consider whether her religion or ethics permitted this.
I recommend learning a little bit more about the history of Christianity before repeating these canards.
I recommend learning a bit more about history in general yourself before calling anything a canard....
That sounds like the kind of argument that a chaotic good or chaotic neutral character would make: But a lawful good character would have to consider whether her religion or ethics permitted this.
Funny, I see it exactly the other way around. Lawful and neutral good characters would use that reasoning while for chaotic good characters the thought of possessing another sentient being is abhorrent. Always interesting to see how different people see different alignments. :D
@ Mikaze
And that's again a matter of power. Not everybody has the money to buy a bunch of slaves, the skill to steal from the slaver afterwards and the power to become a god. :D
Slaves were captured and could be resold - Serfs were born to it and could not be sold.
*g* In the RPG The Dark Eye there was once an adventure where people tried to get around that by having their serfs "kidnapped" and brought to a country where slavery was legal while secretly receiving money for them. And the children of slaves usually were slaves too, so both systems aren't that different as long as nobody enforces the rules.
|
Slaves were captured and could be resold - Serfs were born to it and could not be sold.*g* In the RPG The Dark Eye there was once an adventure where people tried to get around that by having their serfs "kidnapped" and brought to a country where slavery was legal while secretly receiving money for them. And the children of slaves usually were slaves too, so both systems aren't that different as long as nobody enforces the rules.
Shows you how important it is that the people at the top be accountable to the rules...and that not being accountable carries a death sentance no matter who you are.
I recommend learning a little bit more about the history of Christianity before repeating these canards.I recommend learning a bit more about history in general yourself before calling anything a canard....
I agree the history of Christianity is very interesting. Dr. Double Honors, Ph.D. I recommend that you take a good look at the history of the early church.
The Catholic church was happy to enslave non believers....
In the early thirteenth century, official support for slavery and the slave trade was incorporated into Canon Law (Corpus Iuris Canonici), by Pope Gregory IX,. Canon law provided for four just titles for holding slaves: slaves captured in war, persons condemned to slavery for a crime; persons selling themselves into slavery, including a father selling his child; children of a mother who is a slave.
Pope Martin V authorized a crusade against Africa in 1418 and this coupled with a later bull (1441) sanctioned the Portuguese trade in African slaves. In March 1425 a bull was issued that threatened excommunication for any Christian slave dealers and ordered Jews to wear a "badge of infamy" to deter, in part, the buying of Christians. In June 1425 Martin anathematized those who sold Christian slaves to Muslims. Traffic in Christian slaves was not banned, purely the sale to non-Christian owners.
The Portuguese sought confirmation that they could enslave infidels in a crusade. In 1452 Nicholas V issued the papal bull Dum Diversas to King Alfonso V of Portugal which included the following words: "we grant to you...full and free permission to invade, search out, capture and subjugate the Saracens and pagans and any other unbelievers and enemies of Christ...to reduce their persons into perpetual slavery".
The papal pronouncements against slavery in the 15th and 16th centuries sought to regulate particular abuses, but they did not deny Spain and Portugal the right to engage in the trade itself. Thus, although the Church mitigated the effects of slavery in Latin America, it also legitimized it both at the beginning and for hundreds of years afterwards.
Unlike the chattel slavery in the antebellum southern United States, where slaves were often considered less than human, the law in Latin American countries gave slaves legal rights. The Church also treated them as fully human with respect to the sacraments; for example, they could marry and even receive holy orders.
In 1462 Pope Pius II declared slavery to be a "great crime" (magnum scelus). In 1488, Pope Innocent VIII accepted the gift of 100 slaves from Ferdinand II of Aragon, and distributed those slaves to his cardinals and the Roman nobility.
In 1820, the Jesuits had nearly 400 slaves on their Maryland plantations. The Society of Jesus owned a large number of slaves who worked on the community's farms. Realizing that their properties were more profitable if rented out to tenant farmers rather that worked by slaves, the Jesuits began selling off their slaves in 1837.
What I am saying is that people who fall under the label of "good" and are law abiding will conform to the societal norms. If slavery is legal they will make use of slaves. Especially if it disadvantages them not to. It takes special and brave people to stand against the flow and fight for change. There were many in the church that did and they helped to change things. But there were a majority who were either comfortable with the situation or did not want to cause a fuss that did not move to change the situation.
How is this relevant to the OP - if your game is ready to deal with such issues allowing players to own slaves if it is relevant to your campaign can provoke an a very good discussion on the nature of slavery and its effects on the owner and the slave. I have no problems with this as the people I play the game with are mature enough to deal with this in an adult fashion. I also don't like being censored, I find suppression of discussion not far from thought policing.
I agree the history of Christianity is very interesting. Dr. Double Honors, Ph.D. I recommend that you take a good look at the history of the early church.The Catholic church was happy to enslave non believers....
In the early thirteenth century, official support for slavery and the slave trade was incorporated into Canon Law (Corpus Iuris Canonici), by Pope Gregory IX,. Canon law provided for four just titles for holding slaves: slaves captured in war, persons condemned to slavery for a crime; persons selling themselves into slavery, including a father selling his child; children of a mother who is a slave.
Pope Martin V authorized a crusade against Africa in 1418 and this coupled with a later bull (1441) sanctioned the Portuguese trade in African slaves. In March 1425 a bull was issued that threatened excommunication for any Christian slave dealers and ordered Jews to wear a "badge of infamy" to deter, in part, the buying of Christians. In June 1425 Martin anathematized those who sold Christian slaves to Muslims. Traffic in Christian slaves was not banned, purely the sale to non-Christian owners.
The Portuguese sought confirmation that they could enslave infidels in a crusade. In 1452 Nicholas V issued the papal bull Dum Diversas to King Alfonso V of Portugal which included the following words: "we grant to you...full and free permission to invade, search out, capture and subjugate the Saracens and pagans and any other unbelievers and enemies of Christ...to reduce their persons into perpetual slavery".
The papal pronouncements against slavery in the 15th and 16th centuries sought to regulate particular abuses, but they did not deny Spain and Portugal the right to engage in the trade itself. Thus, although...
NB: the early history of the Church was long over by the early 13th century.
I recommend learning a little bit more about the history of Christianity before repeating these canards.I recommend learning a bit more about history in general yourself before calling anything a canard....
I agree the history of Christianity is very interesting. Dr. Double Honors, Ph.D. I recommend that you take a good look at the history of the early church.
The Catholic church was happy to enslave non believers....
In the early thirteenth century, official support for slavery and the slave trade was incorporated into Canon Law (Corpus Iuris Canonici), by Pope Gregory IX,. Canon law provided for four just titles for holding slaves: slaves captured in war, persons condemned to slavery for a crime; persons selling themselves into slavery, including a father selling his child; children of a mother who is a slave.
Pope Martin V authorized a crusade against Africa in 1418 and this coupled with a later bull (1441) sanctioned the Portuguese trade in African slaves. In March 1425 a bull was issued that threatened excommunication for any Christian slave dealers and ordered Jews to wear a "badge of infamy" to deter, in part, the buying of Christians. In June 1425 Martin anathematized those who sold Christian slaves to Muslims. Traffic in Christian slaves was not banned, purely the sale to non-Christian owners.
The Portuguese sought confirmation that they could enslave infidels in a crusade. In 1452 Nicholas V issued the papal bull Dum Diversas to King Alfonso V of Portugal which included the following words: "we grant to you...full and free permission to invade, search out, capture and subjugate the Saracens and pagans and any other unbelievers and enemies of Christ...to reduce their persons into perpetual slavery".
The papal pronouncements against slavery in the 15th and 16th centuries sought to regulate particular abuses, but they did not deny Spain and Portugal the right to engage in the trade itself. Thus, although...
Since the church made the law back then, it would definitely be considered Lawful. As far as Good goes, I leave that up to the players and GMs.
How is this relevant to the OP - if your game is ready to deal with such issues allowing players to own slaves if it is relevant to your campaign can provoke an a very good discussion on the nature of slavery and its effects on the owner and the slave. I have no problems with this as the people I play the game with are mature enough to deal with this in an adult fashion. I also don't like being censored, I find suppression of discussion not far from thought policing.
Here here!
I think they included it for just this reason. Facilitating discussion gets you thinking, and slavery did happen worldwide not too long ago. It's something to think about and discuss. After all, today's prison systems are a lot like slavery. Usually we have good reasons for putting people in there, but you're still taking away someone's basic rights. More recently they began getting paid for working in prison, but that still makes you wonder if it's akin to indentured servitude, which is a stone's throw away from slavery.
That's my bit to throw in to the discussion pot.
In my setting, only one nation, a human one, has made slavery illegal. Barbarian tribes still have it as a common practice, The Tengu clans hold slaves often taken during wartime, and many of them have numerous laws protecting the slaves. The other human kingdom only allows indentured servitude, requested from the debtor and the creditor, and has numerous laws in place to protec the relationship and the servant. The orcs pretty much do whatever they want with slaves, often press-ganging goblins into service during the war as front-liners. And the Drow, little seen, of course have slaves. A player playing a goblin in my game bought a bunch of goblin slaves and freed them, and is trying to start a revolution. The guy also invented firearms. He's basically going to go down in history already, but there are just so many more things he wants to do.
The industrial revolution kobolds also do not advocate slavery, but then again they're socialists, so a slave would have full rights and be getting paid... Huh.
Racism aside, what about taking all choice away from a person, or from a group of people? After all, you're taking people and making them "other" and lesser than you, whether that is done because of their ethnicity, country of origin, or economic status.
As I understand it, there really are no repercussions on a slave-owner for mistreatment of slaves. You get angry, you come home and beat one of your slaves about the head and shoulders with a stick. The only drawback you'll be likely to receive is a slave that can't function as well as you'd like (It's hard to see if you've properly polished the silver with your eyes swollen shut...). If a person is property, you have the legal right to treat them like property. Sell them, molest them, break them...
I find it hard to not label slavery as an evil when there is so much potential for evil there. If a good person owned slaves and liked them and treated them fair and equitably, then why not free them and have them as paid servants instead? If you can afford to purchase slaves, feed and house them, then surely you can afford to pay a pittance to free servants?
NB: the early history of the Church was long over by the early 13th century.
I agree the history of Christianity is very interesting. Dr. Double Honors, Ph.D. I recommend that you take a good look at the history of the early church.
Sorry I was going to talk about the Church in Rome and The Church in Constantinople and how, money power and political favour determined if your little sect was heretical or not.
Then again Julian the Apostate is one of my favourite tragic heroes.
I wrote my argument addressing slavery backward and forgot to go into detail on the early church.
|
If a good person owned slaves and liked them and treated them fair and equitably, then why not free them and have them as paid servants instead? If you can afford to purchase slaves, feed and house them, then surely you can afford to pay a pittance to free servants?
A society might not allow that, for various reasons.
If a person has sold themselves into slavery, or been reduced to slavery as a result of debt, or as punishment for some crime, the purchaser who then frees them is *violating the law.*
In other cultures, one might not fully 'own,' a slave, but like those cool islands in various lakes and bays, merely be 'leasing them for 99 years,' meaning that any attempt to free a slave only reverts them back to the overall owning authority (the local church of Asmodeus, that branded them all as chattel, the local ruler, who officially owns all slaves and garners revenue from their 'rental,' etc.).
Nidal and Cheliax, in particular, seem unlikely to honor the 'freeing' of slaves sold within their borders. (Although, if you buy them and take them home to Andoran, and free them there, nobody is goin to come hunting for them, as they aren't worth that much, and, if this sort of thing is known to happen, probably include some spies anyway...)
Osirion and Qadira could have the 'ruler as real owner' thing goin on, or just shrug and ignore it, allowing anyone to purchase a slave and free them at their discretion.
Katapesh likely doesn't care, but the Pactmasters might have their own reasons to keep slaves as slaves.
In the Lands of the Linnorm Kings, a thrall is less of a slave and more of a 'non-citizen.' Freeing a thrall might be a nonsensical concept, as allowing a thrall to do whatever the hell he wants doesn't automatically make him a citizen. Perhaps not, but I'm seeing their society as being kinda Norse / Viking-esque, and someone who was not born to their people would always remain a second-class person, thrall or no thrall.
Others might care less. I'm sure if you purchases slaves in The Shackles, and then promptly go free them, the pirates will spend your coin all the same, and, if they run into those freed slaves again, happily clap them back in irons for resale.
|
|
In my setting, only one nation, a human one, has made slavery illegal. Barbarian tribes still have it as a common practice, The Tengu clans hold slaves often taken during wartime, and many of them have numerous laws protecting the slaves. The other human kingdom only allows indentured servitude, requested from the debtor and the creditor, and has numerous laws in place to protec the relationship and the servant. The orcs pretty much do whatever they want with slaves, often press-ganging goblins into service during the war as front-liners. And the Drow, little seen, of course have slaves. A player playing a goblin in my game bought a bunch of goblin slaves and freed them, and is trying to start a revolution. The guy also invented firearms. He's basically going to go down in history already, but there are just so many more things he wants to do.
The industrial revolution kobolds also do not advocate slavery, but then again they're socialists, so a slave would have full rights and be getting paid... Huh.
Yay for the Peoples Republic of Kobolt! Too bad they are all going to be attacked by religious fundamentalists and returned to the slavery of God worship...
Others might care less. I'm sure if you purchases slaves in The Shackles, and then promptly go free them, the pirates will spend your coin all the same, and, if they run into those freed slaves again, happily clap them back in irons for resale.
I solved that one - My Wizard had been collecting Arms and Armor from his adventures and gave them to a bunch who he purchased from Slavery. Took them across a border and then Armed them on the Other side - in full view of the Borderguards - turning them into first level NPC Adventurers. It did cause an incident...
|
|
On the opposite end, why couldn't a slave-owner be LG? It's definitely a Lawful act in a number of places on Golarion, and the slave-owner can still be a Good guy. He might not be a paragon of good because he owns slaves, but he could still treat them well, provide for them, and if they were really passionate about it maybe even set them free later on. But so long as the slaves were 'willing', they're more indentured servants than slaves, even though the owner is still, technically, a 'slave owner'.
Acquisition and treatment is certainly important.
My most recent character spent a stint as the local executioner where the law was harsh. If he didn't want to kill someone, as executioner, he had the legal option of making them his slaves. He did this a *lot* with convicts he didn't think warranted the death penalty, especially if they happened to be women.
He was creating slaves, sure, but he was also saving lives. He didn't mistreat any of them, he taught them how to fight, and eventually freed them all when he quit the executioner job.
He was Neutral Good, not Lawful, but still.
I recommend learning a little bit more about the history of Christianity before repeating these canards.I recommend learning a bit more about history in general yourself before calling anything a canard....
That sounds like the kind of argument that a chaotic good or chaotic neutral character would make: But a lawful good character would have to consider whether her religion or ethics permitted this.
Funny, I see it exactly the other way around. Lawful and neutral good characters would use that reasoning while for chaotic good characters the thought of possessing another sentient being is abhorrent. Always interesting to see how different people see different alignments. :D
@ Mikaze
And that's again a matter of power. Not everybody has the money to buy a bunch of slaves, the skill to steal from the slaver afterwards and the power to become a god. :D
I agree, the lawful character would be likely that a Chaotic one to try to find a solution that falls within the laws and customs of society.
|
@ Mikaze
And that's again a matter of power. Not everybody has the money to buy a bunch of slaves, the skill to steal from the slaver afterwards and the power to become a god. :D
It's not really a universal solution to slavery, but just an example of how just the act of buying a slave is not necessarily an evil act. As always, there's a lot a factors to consider before labelling the act always and without question evil.
Not that players asking themselves WWCCD is a bad idea...
Then again, that could wind up wrecking a lot of campaigns... ;)
Depending on the setting, I would state slavery as being either neutral or evil. It's not always evil. But I don't think I'd classify it as good.
That said, certainly a good character can own slaves. Good alignment does not mean "Never ever ever does anything bad, ever, oh my god he snubbed someone asking for change chaotic evil now!" If a man owns slaves but treats them with respect, educates them, feeds them, etc, etc, he isn't lawful evil. He could be LN to even LG. Owning the slaves doesn't make him good, mind you, nor does his treatment of them - rather, he's a good person who happens to own others. In that same light, a man who owns indentured servants, or a king with many serfs, can be lawful good. The peasantry weren't known for their high level of legal protection, you know.
So why is serfdom ok?
Because it plays to our cliches. Serfdom isn't bad because we have so many fantasy tropes of "Good King Whatever the Third," and my god do we love polarizing things in black and white, so if he's good (look it's right there on the name), and he has serfs, clearly that can't be evil, because one evil act and BAM you're evil forever.
Likewise, we don't think of Jefferson or of the Ottoman Empire and janissaries when we think of slavery (Fun fact: "slaves" literally ran the Ottoman Empire. It wasn't uncommon for them to have a higher status then freed men). We think of Roots.
Racism aside, what about taking all choice away from a person, or from a group of people? After all, you're taking people and making them "other" and lesser than you, whether that is done because of their ethnicity, country of origin, or economic status.
As I understand it, there really are no repercussions on a slave-owner for mistreatment of slaves. You get angry, you come home and beat one of your slaves about the head and shoulders with a stick. The only drawback you'll be likely to receive is a slave that can't function as well as you'd like (It's hard to see if you've properly polished the silver with your eyes swollen shut...). If a person is property, you have the legal right to treat them like property. Sell them, molest them, break them...
I find it hard to not label slavery as an evil when there is so much potential for evil there. If a good person owned slaves and liked them and treated them fair and equitably, then why not free them and have them as paid servants instead? If you can afford to purchase slaves, feed and house them, then surely you can afford to pay a pittance to free servants?
From what I have read from the accounts of actual slaves during the time of the war of northern aggression MOST slaves were well treated.
When a slave costs twice what a horse does you don't beat them so they can't work that's senseless.It's been proven time and time again most slave owners in the south worked right along side their slaves and treated them as family. The very large plantation owners and misinformation as well as popular media made it seem otherwise.
One of the most telling accounts I have read was when shermans army was doing it's infoumous march they came through Fayettville,N.C. Naturally there was much mass panic and many people were terrified but the most telling account was from a slave that after they ahd looted all posseions from his masters home thye demanded more. The owner didn't have any more to give thye had already taken everything but didn't believe him. They hung his slave up several times to get the information out of him. When the ordeal was over the slave looked up from the ground and said"in my 40 years of living my master has never beaten me nor treated me in the manner that you have, If this is the promise of freedom that you yankees bring you can keep it"
Slavery is a very complex issue to simply say "all" slave owners are bad and everyone who opposes it is good. Motives must always be examined.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Incidentally,regarding Norse thralls, the Campaign Setting has this to say:
Ulfen traditionally keep thralls—slaves whose period of service ends in a set amount of time. Children born to thralls are always born free, and thralls can file a complaint against a harsh or unfair master (which shames the master, certainly, but also runs the risk of a master’s fury). Thralls are either captured in battle or condemned to service by a thingmar, a court of justice of the Ulfen by their peers, overseen by an elder jarl or chief. Even a chief or jarl can be condemned as a thrall if he has foresworn an oath, killed a child, or betrayed his shield-brothers.
|
The peasantry weren't known for their high level of legal protection, you know.So why is serfdom ok?
...
Likewise, we don't think of Jefferson or of the Ottoman Empire and janissaries when we think of slavery (Fun fact: "slaves" literally ran the Ottoman Empire. It wasn't uncommon for them to have a higher status then freed men). We think of Roots.
+ 1. Good post; True too in the Roman Empire in some periods.
You really can't judge the world in black and white, especially when it applies to earlier centuries.
Let's just all be thankful (on that matter) to be alive in the XXI century and in democracies (for most of us on these boards).
|
|
Which of these conditions is evil?
1. Criminals and Debtors are taken abroad as slaves to toil on Plantations.
2. Defeated Soldiers of a foreign State are taken as Slaves.
3. Abducted person is taken as Slave.
4. Poor citizens are considered Slaves.
5. Halflings are born Slaves.
IMO : 1 and 2 can be, but not necessarily depending on context. After all some cultures would skin you for this, depending on societal norm.
"better dead than slave ?"3,4,5 : Always evil, IMO.
Please remember : I do NOT endorse slavery by any means. I just do not like putting automatic labels on earlier eons. There were good people on every epoch, and they rarely enjoyed the much cherished freedoms that we have nowadays.
my gaming group is racially mixed. my wife and children are racially mixed.
my campaign is not set in golarion, but there is slavery in my world, and in fact several of my players (with good pc's) have owned slaves. Most of the time the slaves were behind the scenes, literally keeping the pc's castle/plantation going, but sometimes they were used as retainers to carry stuff in the dungeon.
And we had a lot of fun when one of the darker skinned players decided to play a darker skinned race that had been enslaved by the pseudo-egyptians of my campaign world. He decided to start a rebellion (which was not supposed to be the central focus of the campaign, and several large pyramids were) and free the slaves. He was successful, but unfortunately this pc was killed in the climactic battle.
The slaves and the pc's (with a new ex-slave pc, lol) went on to destroy the pseudo-egyptians hold over the darker skinned races, and won some territory, and made a permanent fixture in my campaign world.
Edit: HAH HAH OH PAIZO FORUMS.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Depending on the setting, I would state slavery as being either neutral or evil. It's not always evil. But I don't think I'd classify it as good.
That said, certainly a good character can own slaves. Good alignment does not mean "Never ever ever does anything bad, ever, oh my god he snubbed someone asking for change chaotic evil now!" If a man owns slaves but treats them with respect, educates them, feeds them, etc, etc, he isn't lawful evil. He could be LN to even LG. Owning the slaves doesn't make him good, mind you, nor does his treatment of them - rather, he's a good person who happens to own others. In that same light, a man who owns indentured servants, or a king with many serfs, can be lawful good. The peasantry weren't known for their high level of legal protection, you know.
So why is serfdom ok?
Because it plays to our cliches. Serfdom isn't bad because we have so many fantasy tropes of "Good King Whatever the Third," and my god do we love polarizing things in black and white, so if he's good (look it's right there on the name), and he has serfs, clearly that can't be evil, because one evil act and BAM you're evil forever.
Funny this, I'm a fan of Taldor, but my Western/Conservative/Libertarian sensabilities keep running into how the nobility keep/justify the social system. I keep coming back to, "Well we're educated/experienced/well bred/divinely gifted, so we know what's best for them. And, occasionally, one of them does rise to the ranks of the nobility, so it's not like they can't join the aristocracy, just that most won't."
It's been an interesting thought for a Taldor noble to leave his well kept city, and the farther he travels, the less things are upkept. Even better if this noble realzies that his family isn't as high in status because they're pouring so much of their wealth in keeping the land from getting even worse.
Edit: fixed html tags
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
*blinks*
Did I really just see someone post that the south was just fine and dandy for keeping slaves, and they were all happy and singing on the plantations?
P.S. if you want to label the other side the aggressors, you probably shouldn't be dumb enough to fire the first shot.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
Incidentally,regarding Norse thralls, the Campaign Setting has this to say:
Ulfen traditionally keep thralls—slaves whose period of service ends in a set amount of time. Children born to thralls are always born free, and thralls can file a complaint against a harsh or unfair master (which shames the master, certainly, but also runs the risk of a master’s fury). Thralls are either captured in battle or condemned to service by a thingmar, a court of justice of the Ulfen by their peers, overseen by an elder jarl or chief. Even a chief or jarl can be condemned as a thrall if he has foresworn an oath, killed a child, or betrayed his shield-brothers.
Which sounds to me closer to a fantasy interpetation of thralldom than how the real world verion worked. Kind of befits a fantasy setting :)
*blinks*
Did I really just see someone post that the south was just fine and dandy for keeping slaves, and they were all happy and singing on the plantations?
P.S. if you want to label the other side the aggressors, you probably shouldn't be dumb enough to fire the first shot.
I never said that they were just fine and dandy for keeping slaves. Nor after carefully reviewing my post did I ever mention that the slaves were all "happy and singing" I simply pointed out that they were not treated in an inhuman manner as a matter of course.
I was trying to point out that because slavery was a institution of that time and region didn't make the people automaticlly "evil" in terms of D&D.
I did point out that the majority of slave owners were in the feilds working along side their slaves and the slaves were kept in better conditions than the popular literature Uncle Toms Cabin would lead you to believe.
I am in no way defending slavery as an institution nor do I consider one human being inferior to another based on skin tone, However slavery is a important part of our human history and ignoring it, not discussing it or wishing it had never happened will only allow it to rear it's ugly head again.
|
If a good person owned slaves and liked them and treated them fair and equitably, then why not free them and have them as paid servants instead? If you can afford to purchase slaves, feed and house them, then surely you can afford to pay a pittance to free servants?A society might not allow that, for various reasons.
Just finished catching up on this thread. I did want to reply that a few books actually have information on 'freeing slaves' in various regions.
Qadira: Gateway to the East says:"Owners have the option of freeing their slaves, but this is a long, arduous process, and requires the placement of a special mark on the slave by the church of Sarenrae, to ensure that the freed person cannot be enslaved again."
I also *know* that there is a book which says that freeing a slave in Katapesh costs 25-100 GP or some such and some forms filled with the Abadar church, but I can not find that text now for the life of me.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
I can't interpret "worked right along side their slaves and treated them as family" as any other than justifying Southern slavery as nice rather than bad. Probably a limitation of my own myopic world views.
Also, the transparently fabricated Sherman anecdote was annoying.
139 posts and no mention of the Soviet Gulags, Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge, Mao's China or [Deleted Godwin Infraction]?
Dude, don't taunt the dragon. :P
I can't interpret "worked right along side their slaves and treated them as family" as any other than justifying Southern slavery as nice rather than bad. Probably a limitation of my own myopic world views.
Also, the transparently fabricated Sherman anecdote was annoying.
The sherman refrence wasn't meant to be annoying I was trying to use it as an illustrating point. I apparently have failed. I will however go back to the source I tried to borrow from and post it if you should care to read it yourself. I assure you it is from a history book on the local history of Fayettville N.C.
The local high school was doing a piece on the cities symbol called the market house. It was the only building left standing after shermans march and was a major source of income for the town, yes slaves were sold there but so was everything else in the early days.Out of curiosity I wonder how you as a RPG player deal with slavery when it comes to the major slave holding races of the game such as the drow, the neogi, or even a dryad capturing a human male and useing her power to "enslave" him with her magic.
The drow enslave everybody even their own kind, the neogi society is built on the slave trade as well as every neogi haveing a umber hulk body guard because the unber hulks have been raised since birth that that is the natural order of things and so they have no desire for freedom. The dryad uses magic to create a slave of a handsome human male for nothing more than sex, they can only reproduce with satyrs but they enjoy handsome young men and keep them in their tree for up to a year.
These are "classic" slave races and I am wondering if you incorporate them into your fantasy RPG or not?
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Steven,
Russ has said repeatedly in these threads that he's all for evil drow holding slaves, evil neogi being slavers, and missions to rescue humans enraptured by dryads. All of those portray the practice in a thoroughly negative way.
If it's acceptable for PCs to own other people, then it would presumably be okay for PCs to engage more actively in the slave trade itself, capturing children, selling them to gnolls, and making a tidy profit off it, yes?
Steven,
Russ has said repeatedly in these threads that he's all for evil drow holding slaves, evil neogi being slavers, and missions to rescue humans enraptured by dryads. All of those portray the practice in a thoroughly negative way.
If it's acceptable for PCs to own other people, then it would presumably be okay for PCs to engage more actively in the slave trade itself, capturing children, selling them to gnolls, and making a tidy profit off it, yes?
Short answer to the last question is, Yes it would be.
I have played enough charecters that when I needed a sacrafice to my evil god I bought a slave or if I captured a bunch of bandits off to the slave pens with them. My group does a good deed by stopping the bandits, helps the local economy and makes a tidy profit.|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I want to point out, in defense of my hero, his opinion on slavery as outlined here
You ask of me your negroes. and I will immediately ascertain if they be under my Military Control and I will moreover see that they are one and all told what is true of all– Boys if you want to go to your master, Go– You are free to choose, You must now think for yourselves. Your Master has seceded from his Parent Government and you have seceded from him–both wrong by law–but bothe exercising an undoubted natural Right to rebel, If your boys want to go, I will enable them to go, but I wont advise, persuade or force them–
General Sherman, who was legally trained and from a family of lawyers argued that slavery was permitted by the constitution, and, though he loathed the institution, would not violate his oath. Southerners, by their rebellion, forfitted their property, including their slaves. He also ordered seized property to be divided for the freed slaves to settle.
Was he a saint? No? But that tasteless anecdote would likely have had the troops disciplined (if not shot) who committed it, had it happened.
I'd also point out that just as we had copperheads in the north, we had loyal southerners as well.
Indeed, (much to gnashing of teeth) one might argue he was Lawful Neutral when it came to slavery. :-)
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
Doesn't really matter if the incident appeared in a history book or not. Lots of false stuff does.
It's the spontaneous declaration of the evils of those northern ways that make it obviously a fabrication.
Did Sherman's army loot? Yes. Were there households that had members beaten up as a part of that looting? Probably. Were some of them slaves? Probably. Did one of them declaim the north in politcal sound bite style within earshot of someone who wrote it down? Not bloody likely. The history book equivalent of those "George Carlin said this" emails.
I'd say most likely the typical household slave was over the hill with the family silver well before the army got there. Shockingly how little loyalty owning someone (and probably selling their kids) "buys" you.
If it's acceptable for PCs to own other people, then it would presumably be okay for PCs to engage more actively in the slave trade itself, capturing children, selling them to gnolls, and making a tidy profit off it, yes?
This feels a bit like saying, "if it's acceptable for PCs to own kill people who attack you, then it would be presumably be ok to PCs to expand their killing to other members of that group, killing their families and looting their households for a tidy profit."
Just because I might consider PCs doing one bad thing to be acceptable doesn't mean I find the PCs doing a worse action to be equally acceptable.
I have no desire to paint slavery as a good (or neutral) thing in my games ever, but I similarly don't feel that portraying every slave owner as needing a bullet/crossbow bolt in the head is my favored outcome either.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
If it's acceptable for PCs to own other people, then it would presumably be okay for PCs to engage more actively in the slave trade itself, capturing children, selling them to gnolls, and making a tidy profit off it, yes?
This feels a bit like saying, "if it's acceptable for PCs to own kill people who attack you, then it would be presumably be ok to PCs to expand their killing to other members of that group, killing their families and looting their households for a tidy profit."
I can see how it might feel analogous, Blazej, but that's a different matter.
My post says: If it's morally acceptable for the PCs to benefit from a practice, is it okay for them to participate?
Your situation: If it's morally acceptable for the PCs to engage in an activity under justifiable circumstances, is it okay for them to engage in that activity under any circumstances at all?
The answer to your situation is, obviously not.
The answer to mine isn't as clear-cut, but I think most people would answer yes. If it's okay to eat meat, then it should be okay to butcher your cattle. And the contra-positive: if it's not okay to rob someone, then it shouldn't be okay to knowingly receive stolen goods.
If slavery is acceptable as a criminal punishment, I wonder how many players will explain that their slave is a convicted felon.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
If it's acceptable for PCs to own other people, then it would presumably be okay for PCs to engage more actively in the slave trade itself, capturing children, selling them to gnolls, and making a tidy profit off it, yes?
This feels a bit like saying, "if it's acceptable for PCs to own kill people who attack you, then it would be presumably be ok to PCs to expand their killing to other members of that group, killing their families and looting their households for a tidy profit."
I can see how those might feel the same, Blazej, but they're really not analogous.
I'm asking: if it's morally acceptable for the characters to benefit from an activity, should it be alright for them to participate in the activity.
You're asking: if it's morally acceptable for the characters to engage in an activity under justifiable circumstances, is it allowable for them to participate under any circumstances?
The answer to your question is "obviously not".
The answer to my question isn't as clear-cut, but I think most people would say "yes". If it's morally all right for me to eat a hamburger, it should be acceptable for me to participate in the cattle slaughter. Contra-positively, if it's not okay for me to participate in a burglary, it should not be acceptable for me to knowingly benefit from the burglary.
If we accept slavery, only as a criminal punishment, I wonder how many PCs will explain that their slave is a convicted felon.