Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm running Legacy of Fire adventure path. I have a player who always plays something a little bit odd...usually evil. We gave him a hard time about it and challenged him to play something good. He played a paladin and wanted to run around Katapesh putting an end to slavery. That's not where the party wanted to go (or me...they have more important matters), and it got into a big argument over what a paladin would/could not do.
So the paladin died, and his next character idea was a magic user that played with dead things...had a few zombies and skeletons following him around all the time. Some people had a problem with that.
So now his new idea is a slaver magic user...he wants to have one of the slaves to follow him around being a body guard.
What's the rules for a player who wants to have a slave follow him around as a body guard?
And they're not going to have a problem with this?
I think your guy is looking for buttons to push.
The slave in the Adventurer's Armory is not meant to be anything other than a personal servant, reflavored. Think of it like an unseen servant that is actually visible and must be fed. The idea of making it a bodyguard is impossible, and you should put a stop to that or you will be dealing with many an instance where, "The slave goes in first. Does he find any traps?" It will derail a lot of your fun.
On the flip-side, if he *does* take the leadership feat, that slave can become anything the leadership feat allows. Now the "slave" can be a gladiator (fighter) and be quite the bodyguard, I would think.
[Edit]By the way, I just have to say this to get it out of my system: it is so bizarrely offensive to see slavery discussed like this. I know, I know - it's a fantasy game and this is a concept that is part of a fantasy world. I get that. It's just weird to see slavery discussed on the message boards in such a casual way.
|
Well in a place like Katapesh, where slavery is legal and commonplace, buying the slave isn't an issue. In game terms though, the PC has no more control over the slave than any other NPC - he'd have legal rights over the poor chap, but the player wouldn't get to dictate the NPC slave's actions, or anything like that. Slaves are people too! That means the slave is run by the DM, and his actions will be based on his own personality and the situation - so how well is the slave's 'master' treating the chap?
How well did he choose him in the first place? Did he just buy the biggest, meanest looking, mo-fo in the place (in which case he could have purchased a guy who's just waiting for a chance to slit his throat and steal all his stuff), or did he take the time to pick out a guy who may actually prove to be loyal... if treated with respect and fairness. Remember that adventurers are usually in weird situations far from the protection of the law... which is, at the end of the day, the main thing keeping a slave in line. Legal ownership isn't going to mean squat in the back-of-beyond when the player character 'master' is trying to boss his slave around.
Of course if the player character is a wizardly type, then maybe he casts a lot of Charm Person spells on his bodyguard... which is fine, as it's eating up his adventuring resources just to keep the guy in line.
But basically, I'd suggest that it's a great opportunity for some nice role-playing encounters between 'master' and 'slave'... and a chance for the DM to develop an NPC who's in a unique situation to screw over the PC party... or not... depending on how he's treated.
Oh... and the costs of slaves are in the Adventurer's Armory.
it depends on how much power you, the DM, want the slave to have.
If the group is say level 10 and he's gonna have some level 1-2 dude following him around.. make it a hireling, pay them a hireling.
If he is expecting something close'ish to his level to come wandering around then yeah, he needs Leadership. Leadership with the "slaves tend to try to escape" clause tacked onto the end. (aka taking leadership to get a slave doesn't stop it from being a slave ;p )
How he got the guy ingame really isn't the issue: the issue is the relative power of the slave compared to the group.
-S
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
People try to think of slaves in the most modern sense, ie african slaves in the americas.
But as long as these certain monsters existed (orcs, drow, ogres etc etc)they have all been known to take slaves.
In fact the second darkness AP goes pretty in depth with drow slaves at a certain part of the path.
So casual? It's been casual, longer than there was been pathfinder!
There is also multiple references to halflings being slaves in certain countries of golarion.
What is a slave? Generally a prisoner not kept in prison. More often than not they are captured during war. Sometimes they can be multi generational.
But that what a slave is, a prisoner. But better. See in the purest sense of the word, a prisoner is kept confined in prison, where as a slave is granted, in some form, freedom in exchange for service.
Keeping people is an expensive proposition, any parents with a few kids can tell you that. Upkeep, food, clothes, etc etc.
Prisons cost tons of money to run. Most nations have found someway to make that payback in the past through judicious use of slavery (israelites captive in egypt for example).
So from that prospective, what is worse? Languishing away in prison? Or working as a slave.
MOST slave populations still had relationships, families etc.
Yes there is some history with american continental slaves being sold outside of their family, splitting the families up, but it's still better than being in prison.
In most cases, the victor feels the defeated are indebted to them some how. War is expensive, who is going to pay for it now? Should we just kill off all these people, now that we have captured them? They will be very expensive to feed!
What do most adventuring parties do with the sentient foes they defeat? Keep them as pets? Or just kill them off.
If slavery is bad, what is slaughter?
Some societies see slavery as a more merciful option than genocide.
Then there is the individual life of the slave. Some slaves are quite favored, well treated have quite a bit of liberty, and are essentially a 'butler'.
Others carry rocks on their back and build pyramids.
Some are sex slaves.
Others cooks.
Most of the Roman Gladiators were slaves.
Lots of different kinds of slaves, lots of different life styles.
Being a slave means some level of restriction on your choices and freedom, it does not mean spat upon worm.
In the case of the African slaves in the Americas. Many were well treated and 'comfortable'. When 'freed' ( i use that term loosely) after the civil war in the US, they were actually in a much worse situation than they were as slaves.
They had no 'rights' as citizens, everyone looked down on them, they no longer had the political protection their master provided for them, they did not have the home they were living in, and 99 percent of them were farmers, who were now 'out of work'. Sure some of the plantation owners hired their trusted former slaves back as labor, but in most cases you had masses of out of work former slaves who no one wanted to do anything with and certainly did not want to hire them.
It took until post 1960's (over 100 years later) to get any kind of equal footing as far as getting jobs and education.
In modern times, which people sunk in credit card debt, and essentially working at lesser jobs than they would ordinarily qualify for due to the poor economy, they work, only to pay off interest and never touch the principal of their debt, so they work to get someone else rich and it's all basically taken from.... how is this debt ( a function of predatory lending) different from slavery, if I work to get you rich and I'm stuck doing it forever and I can't ever buy my way out?
It seems silly, but if you treat a slave good, he will treat you good. Plain and simple it's just a hireling with a different kind of contract.
And not ALL lands in golarion recognize slavery, so the "legal" right to the slave will only be enforcible in lands that have slavery law.
a slave servant wouldn't be much of an issue. Level one commoner sort of thing.
If this guy wants to give a slave fighter levels and a weapon...
Good luck keeping him from slitting your throat in your sleep.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
Oh, I understand all of that, Pendagast. They are in my games, and I treat them horribly with said monsters. It can be a very dynamic part of the game, as ProfPots pointed out for the OP.
My only reason for the comment was to point out the weirdness of discussing slave ownership on the message boards of an internet site. Every time I see it, it's jarring. I can discuss it around the game table with no difficulty, but when I see it on the computer screen, there's a different "feel" to it, and I had to say something.
People try to think of slaves in the most modern sense, ie african slaves in the americas.
But as long as these certain monsters existed (orcs, drow, ogres etc etc)they have all been known to take slaves.
And those monsters and races are all recognised to be evil, and slavery is part of what makes them so, especially since slaves in those societies are doomed to short miserable lives and frequently cruel barbaric (or nastily sophisticated in the case of drow) deaths.
Then there is the individual life of the slave. Some slaves are quite favored, well treated have quite a bit...
"No matter how gilded the cage....."
Perhaps you have no problem with the idea of living from day to day with the idea that your destiny lies with the whim of your masters, that your children, your spouse can at any moment be ripped from you, sold elsewhere to slavery, prostitution, or perhaps some other form of cruel demise. Or traded off to another owner to be bred as cattle. No matter what the conditions are the reality that it boils down to is ...your life is not your own when you're a slave. If you're murdered by a member of the owning race... the worse that they can be charged with is property damage.
It permeates into how other people treat you as well. Slavery is a dehumanising paradigm in which people are turned into objects. Maybe we are more sensitive about it now, but that's also because our ethics have developed as well in the belief of the basic humanity of all people. And yes, D+D makes no bones about the fact that it draws on modern concepts for the ethical and moral standards that D+D societies are measured by.
The OP stated the character generally plays evil characters ( a magic user that plays with dead things?).
Necromancy is generally seen as evil as well.In our society (modern real life) people are put into jail, for various reasons, many times, things we just don't like. Let's say polygamy, or tax evasion.
Their freedom is not theirs, their life not their own (depending on how long they spend in prison)
We are not talking about murders, rapists or robbers. But in this case the example are political crimes. (yes having more than one wife is politics)
Slavery is just one possible punishment for being caught/captured.
How that person came to be captured could be as different as the races of the universe. Maybe even the captors are righteous.
what if the captors are Lawful Good? Killing the person for surrendering? Probably out. Letting them go? Not a good choice for national (or personal security seeing as they were just trying to kill you) Life imprisonment? Leaving them tied to a tree for the wolves?
None of them are good choices.
Slave populations IRL grew from this dilemma (we can keep them close and keep an eye on them, but give them some freedom, and they are earning their keep so they aren't costing us anything).
Katapesh trades halfling slaves, they are all over chelax. Katapesh isnt necessarily evil, and it's not orcs or drow doing all the trading.
While Chelax is seen as evil as far as government, doesn't mean all slave owners are, just as IRL.
The general consensus is "I don't like being a slave", yup, there are certainly things that are better. But there is worse as well (stuck in a 10x10 cell for years on end or being dead).
Not all slaves are/were treated harshly, or abused for that matter.
Chewbacca was a slave (all wookies of the empire are slaves as a conquered race) Han Solo freed Chewbacca, and as a result, Chewbacca (according to wookie custom) pledged his life to Solo, so essentially, chewbacca is still a 'slave', Just that how Han Solo treats him is completely different than one would expect from that relationship, however someone completely different could have saved Chewies Life and, chewie (according to his own beliefs) would still be that man's "property" , but their relationship would be much different than that of the wookie and solo, depending on how that guy treated his 'slave'.
Solo treats Chewbacca well, there for the two have a good relationship.
But the core of the relationship is still one of indebtedness (ie slavery/ownership). One can resent his master, or relish in his service... every relationship is different.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Chewbacca was a slave (all wookies of the empire are slaves as a conquered race) Han Solo freed Chewbacca, and as a result, Chewbacca (according to wookie custom) pledged his life to Solo
Sounds like a perfect example of a leadership/cohort relationship to me. Someone freely gives his loyalties to someone and is willing to fight to the death for said person.
Leadership is the difference between loyalty and no loyalty. Someone who is so invested in the life of the leader that even given the chance to kill him and get away with it, would NEVER do such a thing. The cohort is the one that weeps over your bloodied corpse when the rest of the slaves rise and kill you.
IMO, taking leadership is a perfectly good mechanical take on the Good-aligned slavery. You are personally invested in the well being of your slaves (feat) and their respect for you is genuine.
And if you want an extra dude to follow you around, a single feat is NOT asking much.
Otherwise, make it an NPC with his own agenda, take a share of XP and likely demand upgrades in gear.
Chewbacca was a slave (all wookies of the empire are slaves as a conquered race) Han Solo freed Chewbacca, and as a result, Chewbacca (according to wookie custom) pledged his life to SoloSounds like a perfect example of a leadership/cohort relationship to me. Someone freely gives his loyalties to someone and is willing to fight to the death for said person.
+1 agree. Sounds like Leadership feat to me. (or at least a feat slot of some kind).
Rather than get into a fight, i decided to come up with another character. A mage who would use zombies as power sources for water wells in the deserst.
But that appears to be too disruptive.
So i wanted to play a wizard that is a slave-trader.
I have not read that Katapesh (sp) has had slave revolts, so i figured that they have trained them to be complient. I wanted a gaurd for my character in case it got to bad.
I had read a discusion in this board about buying slaves so i thought i would inquire.
I find slavery one of the most abhorent things possible, and i to find it odd to discuss it, but we are playing a module where it exists. I deny the charge of wanting to push anybodies buttons. I want to play a character that is a benefit to the party.
Slavery does exist, but it is still an inherently evil thing. While the book does not come flat out and say so, if you look at the gods, their alignments and their causes, you will see what I mean. The followers of goodly gods fight slavery, and a goodly god has "Freedom" as a portfolio. Asmodeus is THE Lawful Evil deity, the ruler of hell, and one of HIS portfolios are slavery. While LN Abadar is OK with it as long as it is within laws, and trade is fair. With him being the predominant god of Katapesh, that seems to be what goes.
If the group is mostly non-good, there should be little problem. You could even make it a saving grace to try to buy up slaves that are held by terrible masters, and make some strange Schindler character, and stay away from the evil alignment if the rest move in good circles.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
I am the player that Gina is referring to.
I find slavery one of the most abhorent things possible, and i to find it odd to discuss it, but we are playing a module where it exists. I deny the charge of wanting to push anybodies buttons. I want to play a character that is a benefit to the party.
Fair enough. Call the "button pushing" a strong desire to do some serious role playing, then. That's admirable.
Pendagast and ProfPots posed some very interesting possibilities for exploring this desire of yours. Run with them. They're good.
The big thing to remember with a slave in the PFRPG, I think, is to realize that they are people. They will have interactions, emotions, desires, etc, and you should explore all those. In terms of the mechanics, the slave you can acquire out of the Adventurer's Armory is a physical embodiment of the "Unseen Servant" spell. It sounds like you're aware of that, and have no intention of just tossing them into each room looking for traps and monsters, so have at it. If you want more than an "Unseen Servant," you should come up with reasons for it, and apply the rules as best you can (leadership feat, higher expense, Chewbacca's freedom, etc).
Have fun.
And, seriously, my comment had nothing to do with anyone's like or dislike of the rule/option/existence of slaves in PFRPG. It had only to do with the weirdness of seeing the "rules" for them discussed on the internet. In this context, it's odd. That's all.
It might be quite possible to have sold himself into slavery, depending on background, also in different times it wasnt perceived as bad perse, often there was hardly a difference between the life of a slave and a peasant, infact I dare say slaves were often treated much better.
From a mechanical point of view you might have to rule for the player to take leadership, that also means that the slave should somehow be loyal to the player, having your own 'Feat' slitting your throat in the middle of the night is probably not considered fun.
Talking about slavery casually is not a problem for me, neither is talking about slaughter of innocents, summoning of demons, forced breeding and prostitution. If you play an evil bastard slavery is probably the least you can do. I recognize many people have trouble with such 'mature' subjects in their game and it just isn't fun for them, and they should avoid it, as a GM I like to aim for the soft spot between momentary disgust and repulsion to play up thoroughly evil individuals/creatures and helps making individuals a memorable part of the game.
It might be quite possible to have sold himself into slavery, depending on background, also in different times it wasnt perceived as bad per se, often there was hardly a difference between the life of a slave and a peasant, in fact I dare say slaves were often treated much better.
If you've watched Spartacus Blood and Sand, you've seen a story of a man who sold himself into slavery to pay off gambling debts.
It'd be a great show for you to watch, Robodruida, to help spur ideas for your character.
Hmm... Based on the OP's description of the player's character choices, and based on the player in question posting his own character choices, I have to say that it appears that the player in question is repeatedly choosing to play disruptive characters, and even when one character choice is eventually nixed by the group, the player then chooses another disruptive character.
I suppose this could all be some sort of bizarre coincidence and the player is not being intentionally disruptive.
I suppose.
I would not allow a slave for a PC, even an evil one. In the event that I ever did allow such a thing, the slave would not remotely be a "bodyguard" who would be available to save the owning PC's butt when things got "too bad." I would run the slave as a GM controlled NPC and the first chance I got, the slave would either flee, or coup de grace the owner and then flee.
As a GM I would sit down with this player and have a long conversation about the fundamental concept of Patfhinder as a cooperative group activity as opposed to a game designed to allow that one player to repeatedly ignore the wishes of the group and pursue character concepts that are repeatedly disruptive to the cooperative goal of the game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Anyone can buy slaves. You don't need Leadership for this.
However, to get particularly loyal slaves, I would recommend taking Leadership.
I've actually come to expect more of this for a variety of reasons. Among them being perhaps a cultural reaction to the dawning realisation that White folks are no longer the dominant determinant of the American paradigm and it's a major cultural shock. (The "Birther" movements are probably the most dramatic example) Ownnership of a slave is a power rush of domination. Perhaps in a world of shifting paradigms and uncertain futures such fantasies are more appealing now.
I think the power rush of domination has always been there and people have always been greedy. Some people find it an interesting fantasy and others don't. I don't think it has much to do with shifting paradigms though.
As for the OP, sure he can have a bodyguard. However a slave bought for the purpose of being a bodyguard is still only going to be a level 1 or 2 warrior. So at most he may be good for taking a single hit. I don't think it'd require leadership at all, honestly I think it'd be a waste of gold in most cases.
LazarX, a lot of the stuff you say you find objectionable about slavery is not universal to slavery. In many ancient cultures, including the ones Katapesh is inspired by, there were rules that prevented separating slave families, killing slaves, and other attrocities. I'm not advocating slavery, and I'm not saying it is a Good institution. But I would say in a lawful society, there are going to be rules.
On another note, I have a character who has a slave of sorts bought with the leadership feat. We were set upon by dark gnome bandits, and my character, who is sort of a cross between the hulk and the abominable snowman from Bugs Bunny cartoons, killed them all pretty quickly. When the battle was over, I happened to have one of the gnomes grappled but not dead, so I decided to keep him. He acts as my servant, cooking and cleaning, using healing wands when necessary. He sometimes acts as a guide, mostly in the Darklands. Before we met, he had been a slave before and escaped. I took revenge on the Duergar who enslaved him, killing their leader and flooding their village. For the most part, we have a congenial relationship, and I defend him with astounding violence when he is threatened. All that said, my character is lawful evil, and their is no doubt in his mind that the magical gnome belongs to him. At the same time, the cohort is Neutral Evil, and his ultimate plan is to wait for a TPK, take all of the party's stuff, and retire to nice cave in the Darklands. If it were necessary to help the TPK along at the end, say there was one person alive who he could take out, he would do that to be free and rich.
In my Serpent Skull campaign it's an evil party and one of the PC has slaves. One is run as a second PC, the other was as a henchman/hirling (since died in a fall). So I did some research and thinking about the issue and here are some ideas:
The Wealth by Level chart more or less roughly tracks the cost of constructs, so can be a good guide for guestimating the value of a slave with PC class levels (with NPC classes being level -1)
Prices in the Armory should be only for 1st level slaves, and they break it down into differnt expense categories, and it works to equate those with the slave's starting stats and class - commoner class for most, most expensive is the more useful NPC classes.
Generally PC classes are supposed to be special - characters in the story rather than mooks, and a spell bot would be a mook. Best I'd say you could get for a mook slave spellbot would be an NPC with only NPC classes, which would be an adept, not a wizard. I'd only make an exception if it's really a second PC, or if there's a lot more, story wise, you plan to do with the slave.
Diplomacy can be used to determine how he's controlled, same as handle animal for a mount or animal companion. Establish the slave's attitude based on the master's diplomacy, intimidate, and such, and use the rules for 'making a request' for anything that might be an issue (such as practically anything having to do with combat). That gives you the mechanics you need to find out if the slave will get so fed up it will want to run, or if it becomes a 'loyal slave', or if it will do something risky, or balk and have to be intimidated into it -- and if that works...
|
And those monsters and races are all recognised to be evil, and slavery is part of what makes them so, especially since slaves in those societies are doomed to short miserable lives and frequently cruel barbaric (or nastily sophisticated in the case of drow) deaths.
I wouldn't dream of disputing this. And I'd like to start out by notng that I don't think slavery is anything other than an Evil institution, both in reality and in the game. It removes the right to choose about, well, a lot of things, from it's victims and is just generally not good. However...
"No matter how gilded the cage....."
Perhaps you have no problem with the idea of living from day to day with the idea that your destiny lies with the whim of your masters, that your children, your spouse can at any moment be ripped from you, sold elsewhere to slavery, prostitution, or perhaps some other form of cruel demise. Or traded off to another owner to be bred as cattle. No matter what the conditions are the reality that it boils down to is ...your life is not your own when you're a slave. If you're murdered by a member of the owning race... the worse that they can be charged with is property damage.
It permeates into how other people treat you as well. Slavery is a dehumanising paradigm in which people are turned into objects. Maybe we are more sensitive about it now, but that's also because our ethics have developed as well in the belief of the basic humanity of all people. And yes, D+D makes no bones about the fact that it draws on modern concepts for the ethical and moral standards that D+D societies are measured by.
Okay, full on pedantry mode activated: This is not remotely true of historical slavery. Almost anywhere. It was true in the American South and...basically nowhere else ever.
Slavery in Roman times made someone owned, yes, but in no way removed many of their rights as a person. Killing them (for anyone but their master, anyway) was no legally different from killing a free man, for example. And masters were usually under several legal obligations regarding their treatment.
Nor were they 'bred', because slavery was very rarely a transferable condition to children. The idea of slavery being genetic was...not quite unique to the American South, but very rare elsewhere.
Nor were slaves necessarily seen as 'animals', 'property', or 'inhuman'. They were of a lower social class, yes, but no more so than peasants in medieval Europe (and often quite a bit above that, depending).
In most Muslim areas (where Katapesh is clearly based on) being a slave was to be seen as unlucky. Much how you might look at someone who got their identity stolen and had their credit ruined today. Y'know "Oh, that's a shame." And something you definitely worried about happening to you and strove to avoid, but it wasn't seen as making you less of a person per se.
And in many of these societies, freeing slaves was common practice if they served well, and in Rome they were even paid salaries (which they could save up and buy their way free, and many did so). So a relatively benign master might get a lot of loyalty from a slave in hopes they'll be freed. Of course, if they saved his life a few times and weren't they might easily grow bitter...
Slavery in the American South was different for a variety of reasons I won't go into here, but it was only able to be as awful and repressive as it was for a simple reason I will go into: Black people looked different.
In every other slave culture, slaves were not universally of one race, and masters another. This meant a slave could run, claim to be free, and it was very difficult to prove otherwise. This was dangerous and illegal, but it could be done. This was much harder for a slave to do in the American South, which greatly added to the amount of abuse they had to endure.
This fact also allowed the racist ideology that tried to justify slavery by seeing the slaves as less than human (an idea most other slave cultures would've found silly) to evolve. Okay, I lied, I'm gonna go into it a little:
It's almost certainly at least partially because the South was part of America (a country founded on principles of equality and feedom) that the South took the dehumanization so far, because they were, as stated, trying to justify keeping slaves. Most cultures that kept slaves, didn't feel the need to justify treating people badly. They were just cool with treating people badly. But the Southern Slaveowners were hypocrites. They beieved in freedom and the equality of all men, so the slaves couldn't be men, not really. They must be some form of animal. Or at least objectively inferior. Yeah. That's a large part of how that went. Not all of it, but all of it is way too complex to go into here.
Anyway, back on topic, in Golarion, I'll note, there is a direct parallel here between slavery in the American South and the endemic slavery of Halflings in Cheliax. But not with slavery anywhere else in the world. So Halflings in Cheliax being treated this way (and having their own underground railroad in the Bellflower Network) makes perfect sense. Something similar happening anywhere else does not. Slave revolts were common enough (and a nation stepping in and stopping the slave trade ala Andoran certainly happened as time progressed), but an underground railroad isn't necessary anywhere where they can't tell you're a slave by looking at you.
.
.
.
Now, to clarify, sex with slaves was pretty much never considered rape, males in Muslim areas were sometimes castrated, people could indeed be sold away from loved ones, and slaves were in many ways treated quite badly...but the degree to which they were dehumanized in the American South was pretty much unique. They were still considered people just about everywhere. Abusing actual people (to some degree, slaves usually had something in the way of rights) was just not considered that big a deal a lot of those places.
.
.
.
What this means for a game, well, that's up to you. I'd have a slave purchased with Leadership be personally loyal for one reason or another, and no more likely to betray you than any other Cohort. If simply purchased with coin, they're an NPC, and will do what the GM thinks they should based on Alignment, your treatment of them, and other relevant factors.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wouldn't use leadership to describe a slave. generally speaking, since the concept with leadership is the sidekick and fan/follower - people serving out of love and devotion and admiration. While this could be a slave story-wise, it'd be the totally loyal 'slavishly devoited' kind of slave, not the serving under duress kind.
+1
Very good discussion how not all slaves are alike. We in the US have a particular history with makes the term mean a specific thing, which isn't what it's always mean or could meant for all cultures in all times. However, because we got this history, might be better to use a differnt word to talk about a differnt kind of condition. There are "serfs", "endentured servants", "thralls" and lots of other terms describing people who are to lesser or greater degrees not free and can have their services bought and sold by a master who owns them.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wouldn't use leadership to describe a slave. generally speaking, since the concept with leadership is the sidekick and fan/follower - people serving out of love and devotion and admiration. While this could be a slave story-wise, it'd be the totally loyal 'slavishly devoited' kind of slave, not the serving under duress kind.
+1
Very good discussion how not all slaves are alike. We in the US have a particular history with makes the term mean a specific thing, which isn't what it's always mean or could meant for all cultures in all times. However, because we got this history, might be better to use a differnt word to talk about a differnt kind of condition. There are "serfs", "endentured servants", "thralls" and lots of other terms describing people who are to lesser or greater degrees not free and can have their services bought and sold by a master who owns them.
I was going to use almost this same example about the serf/slave/servant/thrall thing, but you beat me to it, so
+1!
On the other hand...
I would use leadership for the serf, but possibly work in a starting penalty depending on how the serf was acquired. This would give some mechanics to play with (that both the GM and player knows would be consistent), and would encourage the character to treat the serf well. Adventuring offers many chances for someone who is treated badly to get away, or in the worst case, either actively or passively kill their owner. You really want someone you trust as a bodyguard, otherwise there is nothing stopping them from just not doing their job while out in the wilds. After all, if you do not live, who is to tell on them?
I think that part of the problem is that when people hear "slave", they think about the American South. But that is only one type of slavery.
Dictionary I will use the World English Dictionary meanings, about half way down the page.
1. a person legally owned by another and having no freedom of action or right to property
2. a person who is forced to work for another against his will
3. a person under the domination of another person or some habit or influence: a slave to television
4. a person who works in harsh conditions for low pay
1 Sounds like most peoples definition of slave.
2 - Our (American) prisoners, or at least some of them, are used for road cleanup. And some crimes are punished by forcing the criminal to perform community service. Sounds like "a person who is forced to work for another against his will" to me.3 - Again, prisoners. They are required to do what their officers are telling them to do. May not be a great example, but I can see this.
4 - Thats right. Not all slaves were forced to work for nothing. Some even got payed, it seems.
I believe someone else has already mentioned it, but the treatment of medieval peasents and serfs fits the definition of slavery as well, but most people don't think it does. Too many focus on American Southern version of slavery.
|
|
With regards to Katapesh (the setting for the Legacy of Fire AP in case anyone didn't know) slavery is the number two industry of the country, only beaten by pesh production (i.e. narcotics manufacturing and distribution). Every town has a slave market - slaves are everywhere, and it's an accepted part of society that such a class of people exists. Sure there are some 'foreign insurgents' who try to disrupt the perfectly legal operations of slavers, but for the most part such individuals and groups are seen as dangerous radicals. You want to free slaves? No problem... but pay for them with your own coin, and make sure to set them up in their new life - don't steal from honest merchants then dump the poor 'liberated' slave in the gutter to starve...
It's a weird culture for us modern folks to get our heads round, but for those in the game setting, at least those local to Katapesh, owning a slave is hardly a head-turning event. Most folks probably don't think too much about it - it's just the way things are, and the way they've always been. It's doubtful that slave owning would been seen as 'evil' and freeing slaves as 'good' in such a culture... but an individual slave owner's treatment of his or her slaves would certainly mark the character as 'good' or 'evil'.
A 'good' character, in such a context, is likely to treat his slaves as family and friends, people in their own right, and would certainly allow them to earn some coin for themselves, and discuss their buying their freedom, or even just freeing them for nothing, if they wanted - but would feel a responsibility to make sure that the person involved was safe and secure for the future as well (making sure they've got a trade or skills so that they can set themselves up in business, for example, the 'slave owner' likely even funding the set-up costs out of their own pocket). The master's responsbilities in caring for and looking after the interests of the slave would be key for such 'good' characters... those who didn't feel qualified to have such responsibility over another's life would likely choose not to own slaves.
An 'evil' charcter sees his slaves as his property, nothing else.
It's similar to being a good boss or a dick... ;)
As for specific game rules...
Well, the Adventurer's Armory lists 'slave, 75gp, 175lbs', 'hard labour slave, 100gp, 200lbs', 'household slave, 50gp, 130lbs', 'slip (halfling slave), 100gp, 39lbs', and 'specialized slave, 500gp, 160lbs'. Specialized slaves are specifically called out as spellcasters or teachers, as examples, whereas it notes that old or infirm slaves may cost half, healthy and attractive slaves many times more.
So... what does that all mean?
Well, the weights are going to be generalisations, at best, but we can at least infer (for example) that a 'hard labour slave' is a muscular male, whereas a 'household slave' is more likely to be a more feminine type of person.
If I had to rule on such a thing, and didn't want to go into the complexities of full NPC design, I'd look at table 14-6 (page 453 of the Core book) and suggest that a 'hard labour slave' would have a 'melee NPC, basic' set of ability scores (focused on Strength and Constitution), whereas a generic 'slave' would have 'skill NPC, basic' (probably employed for their Craft skills or similar), and a 'household slave' would have 'divine NPC, basic' (Wisdom for Profession skills, and a slightly higher Charisma for social interactions). A slave with the 'heroic' Ability Score array would be in the 'healthy or attractive' range, costing 'many times more' than a 'normal' slave... whatever the DM feels that means.
Whether one can figure out an individual's Class Levels or not, for the purposes of valuing that individual for sale as a slave, is a matter for debate, but assuming that those who trade in slaves are quite good at that sort of thing, I'd also suggest that the basic slave prices gets you a level 1 Commoner. Any other class will be straight into the 'specialized slave' cost. I'd also suggest that, if such individuals are available as slaves at all, that the base price is per character level (so a level 10 character costs you 10x as much) - for some sense of game balance, if nothing else. Slaves with levels in PC classes need, of course, the heroic Ability Scores, and the 'many times more' price which goes with them.
So, based on all that, I guess a suggested price for (as an example) a level 10 Warrior as a bodyguard would be 5,000gp.
Of course availability of slaves is completely in the hands of the DM - a huge percentage of people in the game world are Commoners (hence the name of the class...), and most are pretty low level, so finding a higher level slave, let alone someone with PC class levels who's managed to get themselves into such a sorry state of affairs, is going to be challenging, to say the least...
But generally I'd re-iterate my earlier advice to use the whole thing as a way to get an interesting NPC, interesting role-play, and probably a sub-plot or two into the game. Oh... and read Arabian Nights... ;)
To the OP: No leadership needed. Leadership gets you some automatic trust, where you can purchase a person without this feat insured trust. If you have the coin, you can get yourself a slave. If they will be 100% cooperative is the real question. As others have said, they would be fairly reluctant at an order like "Kill the dragon"
Please do not let me derail this excellent and suprisingly level-headed mature discussion. Just an interesting observation regarding slavery in-game.
From the Advanced Races stuffs, it looks like humans could potentially be the best slavers or traders.
"Eye for Talent: Humans have great intuition for hidden potential. They gain a +2 bonus on Sense Motive checks. In addition, when they acquire an animal companion, bonded mount, cohort, or familiar, that creature gains a +2 bonus to one ability score of the character's choice. This racial trait replaces the bonus feat racial trait."
Although this does not give a bonus on general people selected, the simple implication that humans have a natural capacity for judging and selecting prime creatures has interesting implications. When looking for that loyal slave cohort, some humans just have an innate ability to judge the slaves in this way and will essentially make better selections than other races. It is a very unusual ability.
-------
As for getting a slave to act as you request, I suggest diplomacy, bluff, and intimidate with a healthy dose of sense motive. Lets see, I am trying to envision some rough guidelines for this stuff. Sure, it will be complex but after all going out to make a purchase is potentially a whole session of gameplay, or even several sessions.
The following is both rough and rambling. Ignore it and you will be no worse for having not read this. I probably have included some deeply offensive idea I am totally unaware of in the effort to wrap some rules up or make something a little more, playable.
Slave base cost of 200gp is essentially to obtain a common player race, commoner NPC class, indiffrent attitude, all stats are 10, and no bearing on slave's skills or feats. (Am I the only one who noticed that in the NPC gallery, even the village idiot seems to have roughly the elite array?)
"A city typically has full-time military personnel equal to 1% of its adult population, in addition to militia or conscript soldiers equal to 5% of the population." as per Enviroment. Pre-trained combatants are rare, roughly fiver percent warriors and one percent fighters, of a given population and will be significantly more expensive because of this in spite of the nature of combatants frequently being taken prisoner. This is sorta a rough model for increasing price for more skilled classes.
Casters will be essentially impossible to find in this condition unless they are trained to be casters while in captivity. As heroic casters pose much more of a threat to their captors, there is likely no reasonable way they would be taken or kept as slaves in any large scale except in the most magic saturated of enviroments. Adepts would be more manageable, as their low number of spells at the various levels would mean their likely death should they use them to attempt escape or otherwise "abuse" their magic.
Given the conversion for 3.5 to Pathfinder, we get one XP is worth roughly five gold. Although not expressly stated, I will act as though this is for heroic character XP and 2.5 gold will represent NPC class XP. Part of the point is the potential, and well warriors have less potential than fighters. Yes, this does get exceedingly expensive. Look at magic items as a base. My initial estimations were very high, and I lowered them due to the bar of settlement base limits for magic items and the slave being at full chance to betray the party/buyer. The commoner slave is functionally a talking, walking carry capacity
Base costs
200 gp for a commoner.
300 gp for an expert.
500 gp for a warrior.
800 gp for an adept.
1,000 gp for a known base class character
Elite Array Stats.
+100 gp.
Extra Levels
No idea. +20% total base price per level, compounding? That is too mathy to be smooth.
Alright, now here can be part of the trick in this when the RP meets rules, there is a bit of a duel going on between the seller, slave, and buyer. The slave may use bluff on the seller, sense motive opposed, to change their catagory, iconically a rogue wishing to get a less dangerous job and pretending to be an expert or commoner.
The slave can use bluff on a buyer to attempt to make themselves seem like a better or worse deal, opposed by appraise or sense motive (I have no idea which, or both for individual details). The effect would be as though the appraise failed by the margin the buyer'r roll failed. Essentailly the arena master can come by and Dave the Unfortunate can make himself seem totally inappropriate for what the arena master is looking for. When the rich fellow comes by, Dave the Unfortunate can make himself seem to be the perfect butler and a steal at his price of 300gp as an "normal stat expert", while the rich buyer gets revealed an appximation of worth of him as the 1,100gp character he is or more if Dave the Unfortunate gets significantly better results than the rich buyer. This assumes the slave gets any interraction with the buyer at all. He will of course attempt to seem friendly or even helpful as well to further sweeten the deal, while being unfriendly or hostile can make him seem totally wrong for some jobs he would not want.
The buyer is looking to accurately judge the prospective slaves and would have to make a number of diffrent diplomacy, sense motive, and even appraise checks. He is also, through bluff or diplomacy possibly, going to try to haggle for a better price when he finds a suitable person to buy.
The seller, through the use of bluff, is going to try to distract the buyer and convince him to pay significant markup and will probably start his selling price higher than the actual base price. (Always imagined that the same was true for most transactions in the game, but it seems so frequently market keepers are honest people when it comes to the value of their wares.) probably within that 0%-20% margin that a failed appraise check will result in.
Confusing, somewhat, but it does create a dynamic and skill based foundation for the act.
In the end, the dynamic breaks down as such.
The buyer is looking to pay what he sees as the correct cost or lower if he can haggle it. He must assess the slave for himself to determine the cost for himself, otherwise haggle with the seller only.
The seller is looking to sell the slave for more than the base cost by as much as possible. He needs to assess the slave accurately to set a correct base cost to work from.
The slave is looking to hide as much information from the seller as possible most likely to make his cost enough fit to be sold into a hopefuly safe or otherwise desired position. When an undesirable buyer is near, he will try to make himself seem worth less than normal to make it look like the seller is trying to cheat the buyer on this slave. When a good buyer is present, he will try to make himself look worth more than his cost so that the buyer is encouraged to select him. Further control can be established by trying to only show partial skills, like a fighter trying to seem like he is only a warrior so that he is not chosen for super dangerous things like front-line duty, or else only showing that he knows a few things about smithing so that he may be placed in that sort of role.
He wants to get some say if ever possible, even through his very reduced position. I am thinking Hogan's Heroes, how Hogan always manages to butter up the Germans to improve his conditions while still being a prisoner, or the droid HK-47 in KotoR offering to kill the shop keeper for you as a discount targeted at his desired evil prosective master.
-----------------
As for general behavior, I would probably rule that for the most part no diplomacy check is needed for the diffrent requests that have less than a +10 diplomacy DC modifier. They will help you don you armor, they will walk with you and carry your stuff. Long and complex aid is part of the job. When asking for dangerous aid, use bluff to make the job sound much less dangerous. When asking for that important secret, let them know it isn't important. Basically bluff is needed to make demanding jobs sound less demanding. This is not a good plan, long term. This usually devolves into intimidate being used instead of diplomacy, as eventually the willingness to listen goes away which is needed for diplomacy. For the bodyguard type, pushing someone away from their owner is not dangerous aid. Going on an adventure is dangerous aid. Failure to convince them on this act would likely lead to their escape during the adventure.
-----------------
Upkeep is handled by the cost of living provided
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/gamemastering.html#cost-of-living
Essentially you provide the cost of living payment. Poor is probably the most common status, with extra pay given as rewards but not significant enough to improve their conditions to the next catagory of standard of living. Anything provided less than poor will quickly start to make the slaves go unfriendly and hostile as their initial attitudes. On the other hand, providing higher standards of living could possibly improve their initial attitudes as well, as a significant portion of the population will have much worse conditions than their own.
-----------------
|
|
Well, slaves are property, right? Human chattel? What other game rules do we have for people trying to get their property to do what they want? Horses, riding dogs, animal companions, etc. We have the "Handle Animal" skill. [Note: I am in NO WAY suggesting that humans or other intelligent beings are in any moral way equivalent to animals; I'm just saying that this is the closest game-rule parallel we have to an owner trying to command his or her property.] Sounds like the corresponding master/slave skill would be "Handle Person," AKA, Intimidate. I would suggest that, just like a person with an animal has a small set of things they can expect their pet to do reliably all the time, and for anything beyond that, they must make a Handle Animals check with varying DCs, a slaver owner would probably be able to expect basic service from a slave and anything beyond that would require constant Intimidate checks.
You can use Intimidate to force an opponent to act friendly toward you for 1d6 × 10 minutes with a successful check. The DC of this check is equal to 10 + the target's Hit Dice + the target's Wisdom modifier. If successful, the target gives you the information you desire, takes actions that do not endanger it, or otherwise offers limited assistance. After the Intimidate expires, the target treats you as unfriendly and may report you to local authorities. If you fail this check by 5 or more, the target attempts to deceive you or otherwise hinder your activities.
This gives the slave some potential credit for higher HD and Wis, and represents the constant hostility a slave is going to feel for his or her owner. At some point, if your going to "push" your slave and demand more than simple chores, you are going to have to constantly Intimidate him/her, be constantly watching your back, and be willing to resort to more and more draconian and brutal methods to keep him/her in line.
While it may be shocking to think of using the rules for handling animals to represent dealings with human beings, that is what slavery is - treating humans (or other intelligent beings) as animals. Potentially offensive to anyone who identifies with those held in captivity, sure, but even more degrading to anyone who would, even for a minute, consider keeping another person in bondage. And you can see how controlling another person's life through constant fear, intimidation and brutality can lead nowhere but down the slippery slope toward Evil.
What's the rules for a player who wants to have a slave follow him around as a body guard?
I admitt...I did not read though this thread...as I started to see politic brought up...
Anyway three ways I would deal with this.
1)If the player could get another player to actualy play his slave as a character. That could work...depending on the players involved.
2) He has a slave...it is 1st level warrior....and stays a 1st level warrior. Not very effective at higher levels. Use to discourage the PCs owning slaves.
3) You could run it as a NPC...gets a share of the exp...levels up etc. If he treated well might be loyal...than again might not be. You could use this as a major plot hook.
4) He has to wait till 7th level to get a completely loyal to him slave that will level accordingly.
5)You could just ask him nicely not to do this in your game if you are having problems with it.
I'm running Legacy of Fire adventure path. I have a player who always plays something a little bit odd...usually evil. We gave him a hard time about it and challenged him to play something good. He played a paladin and wanted to run around Katapesh putting an end to slavery. That's not where the party wanted to go (or me...they have more important matters), and it got into a big argument over what a paladin would/could not do.
So the paladin died, and his next character idea was a magic user that played with dead things...had a few zombies and skeletons following him around all the time. Some people had a problem with that.
So now his new idea is a slaver magic user...he wants to have one of the slaves to follow him around being a body guard.
What's the rules for a player who wants to have a slave follow him around as a body guard?
I think leadership can be used to simulate a slave-master relationship. Leadership is a very general feat and does not specify what the other character is.
I think you very much could simulate some harsh bodyguard slave that is mentally trained to obey the master even if they have the capability to kill or hurt the master. Since your guy is a wizard, the slave would most likely fear him if he is a melee.
And you can even toss in occasional roleplay scenarios if the PC travels to a non-slave owning society where his henchment is lured away or freed from slavery. If the player chooses to have his henchmen be a slave, he has to live with the roleplaying repercussions of it including possibly being killed his slave if he is ever lying at negative hit points with the slave having power over him.
I'd let a character choose Leadership and take a slave. If that PC ever was at negative hit points, I'd probably have his slave slit his throat, steal his stuff, and run off. If the other party members feel like helping the PC keep his slave in line, that is up to them. But they may very well let the slave kill the PC and leave.
I'd go with the concept. Could be interesting for you as a DM to roleplay. Don't let any player dictate to you their henchmen. If you let them take Leadership, they need to write you a full background. At the end of the day the henchment is an NPC, you the DM decide what he does in situations where severe moral conflicts exist. He's not a mindless automaton with no personality, but an NPC fleshed out by the player and run by the player, but ultimately the DM controls the NPC within the parameters given by the PC.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don´t see any problem with slavery in Golarion, or playing a wizard who wants a slave (if he treats his slave well, he will be neutral-aligned, not evil). Every wizard can use dominate or charm spells. I think this kind of magic is worst than slavery, because rapes your mind. Enchantment magic is ok, but slavery not? Is the same.
|
|
+1
Very good discussion how not all slaves are alike. We in the US have a particular history with makes the term mean a specific thing, which isn't what it's always mean or could meant for all cultures in all times. However, because we got this history, might be better to use a differnt word to talk about a differnt kind of condition. There are "serfs", "endentured servants", "thralls" and lots of other terms describing people who are to lesser or greater degrees not free and can have their services bought and sold by a master who owns them.
Slightly OT, but for the record, I'm from the U.S., and indeed, have never been further from it than Canada. I'm just dual-majoring in History and Psychology and have just had a bunch of classes in American and World History that actually discussed (at least tangentially) the distinction between antebellum slavery and, well, every other kind ever.
And unfortunately, all of those other terms come with some serious baggage of their own (serfs can't be sold, indentured servants aren't indentured for life, and thralls implies a very specific cultural milieu) that doesn't really apply to slavery in Katapesh.
So i wanted to play a wizard that is a slave-trader.
That's fair enough by the RAW. However, slave-trader can mean many things - it can mean middleman, broker, slave-taker (goes out capturing people to sell them into slavery), bounty hunter (captures escaped slaves), etc. It can mean someone who trains slaves to make them valuable property and cares for them, or someone who captures free people and abuses them mercilessly to break their spirits before selling those that survive on. Which type is he?
I have not read that Katapesh (sp) has had slave revolts, so i figured that they have trained them to be complient. I wanted a gaurd for my character in case it got to bad.
There is a BIG inherent assumption in that statement. There were no notable large-scale slave revolts in the Seep South plantations either, but that does not mean that the slaves were happy and compliant either, they were not - they just didn't have guns. All slave-taking societies either fear revolts or have them.
I find slavery one of the most abhorent things possible, and i to find it odd to discuss it, but we are playing a module where it exists. I deny the charge of wanting to push anybodies buttons. I want to play a character that is a benefit to the party.
I agree, it exists and people should not be surprised at players wanting characters that own slaves. It is how the characters treat their slaves, and how those slaves became slaves that matters. Most penal codes in Western democracies have prisoners performing work - in the USA they have chain gangs, for example - which by the strictest definition is a form of slavery, but we don't revile it as such because the 'slaves' became slaves as result of their own actions, and they are relatively well treated.
As to how your bodyguard would be ... well, Leadership is one way to do it mechanically. Whether you were have raised the slave from childhood and he or she looks on you as a father-figure they love and protect, or whether you may have saved the life of a character that then pledges their life to you makes no difference here, they are devoted to you and that's it.
Another way is to buy a slave - but a slave with that kind of mentality and training is hard to find and train, and will cost a small fortune even if you can find one for sale. Plus you will have to equip them out of your own pocket, which will not be cheap. I would put the cost at, say 1gp per 2-3xp the slave requires.
Lastly, the better you treat the slave, the better job they will do. I can't see many bought slaves of reasonable intelligence and that level of ability being willing to actually die for you though, and their actions should be determined by the DM, not you if you did not use a feat to get them.
I'm running Legacy of Fire adventure path. I have a player who always plays something a little bit odd...usually evil. We gave him a hard time about it and challenged him to play something good. He played a paladin and wanted to run around Katapesh putting an end to slavery. That's not where the party wanted to go (or me...they have more important matters), and it got into a big argument over what a paladin would/could not do.
So the paladin died, and his next character idea was a magic user that played with dead things...had a few zombies and skeletons following him around all the time. Some people had a problem with that.
So now his new idea is a slaver magic user...he wants to have one of the slaves to follow him around being a body guard.
What's the rules for a player who wants to have a slave follow him around as a body guard?
I would say no problem. Allow it.
... and if he does have leadership the slave will not be very loyal. If has has leadership - secretly make check intimidation check before each gamesession to see how willing the slave is to serve him. Since the slave don't serves out of his own free will.
It he wants 100% loyal slave tell him to make an enchanter.
... but the necromancer could be more fun.
At one time I was in a role-playing group in in which one player played a necromancer who had an undead crow as familiar. It was very funny cause undead crow has a eye that continued to fall out all the time.
The way I would handle it as GM is that the player can have a "hireling" who is actually a slave. This slave would be a level 1 commoner and would cost 1sp/day to take care of. The Core Book has Untrained Hirelings costing 1sp/day. It is assumed that this goes to the hireling but in this case, it would just be general upkeep.
If the player wants anything more than a level 1 commoner, then the Leadership is going to be needed. My reasoning, for my games, would be that I don't want someone playing 2 characters unless there is some cost involved. If the primary character wants to train the slave in something other than general tasks, then he is going to have to invest. The Leadership feat does not have to be a die hard cohort. It could be a loyal slave. There were loyal slaves in many parts of the world, including America. Their reasons for being loyal were not always because they loved their master(s).
Read Frederick Douglass's Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave.