| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hey all,
I saw numerous threads like, "Is slavery now legal in PFS?" I even found a couple that mentioned slavery as example to the overall tone of Pathfinder vs. say D&D or other game systems. Finally I saw slavery mentioned in a good vs evil thread calling out slavery as an evil practiced by good nations.
Let me start with this:This thread has nothing to do with any of that.... The whole good vs evil in our own society has been settled for over 100 years now.
Slavery existed in one form or another for thousands of years here on planet earth. It is therefore, appropriate that Paizo acknowledge the fact. Sentient beings have a penchant for placing each other in bondage when one group becomes more powerful than another.
The question I want to pose to the persons that respond to this thread is:
Here's a fascinating discourse about slavery that a role-playing group of Pathfinders had about slavery in a PFS scenario recently. . PFS slavery discourse
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
For us it's the same as nazis in philosophical discourse - a thing that everyone can just agree is indefensibly evil without having to get bogged down in minutiae.
If I want the PCs to know that the NPC is a true villain, I make sure they deal in slaves or own lots of slaves or whatever. It's a quick shorthand to stop the party spending hours debating whether the NPC is just misunderstood.
If I want shades of grey, I make the putative villain a petty thief or something.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Labels them a bad guy, so i cam enjoy my characters turnimg a sentient being imto bloody red mist
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Labels them a bad guy, so i cam enjoy my characters turnimg a sentient being imto bloody red mist
Yeah. That's a simpler way to say it. :)
How my groups "deal with it" pretty much depends on the characters and the situation. Not all of them are going to single-handedly take on the entire slavery issue as it exists on the planet. For many it's simply not an item on their "to do" list.
And it does not exist in the same way in all areas. Some nations use their slaves for labor, others for food as well. Some have varying standards on how slaves are treated.
Question to OP:
Is this question directed to the massive campaign that is Pathfinder Society, or to the Pathfinder RPG as a whole?
If it is to the Society, then there are, by rules of the campaign, no evil characters.
If it is for the Pathfinder RPG, the answer could be as varied as the stars in the sky.
Parameters are... kind of important on this question?
Oh yeah. I didn't realise this was in the PFS section.
Labels them a bad guy, so i cam enjoy my characters turnimg a sentient being imto bloody red mist
LOL what about your players do they ever immerse themselves in their roles and expand on this discussion? We've a lawful good cleric in our group that thinks slavery is a somewhat acceptable practice because it is sanctioned by the state (Qadira).
Have your players ever roll-played any of this out? I only ask this because I recently was in a role-playing situation where this very topic came up among a diverse group of Pathfinders from different nations and different factions. It was completely immersive as each player, roll-played his character as if he were actually from said land, and did favor one faction's policies over the others.
. It was one of the most singularly enjoyable role-play dialogues I've ever been a part of. Frankly, I don't know if you could have this kind of role-play dialogue anywhere but play-by-post. I think people around the table tend to "freeze-up" in these kind of moments in live play.
It was one of the most singularly enjoyable role-play dialogues I've ever been a part of. Frankly, I don't know if you could have this kind of role-play dialogue anywhere but play-by-post. I think people around the table tend to "freeze-up" in these kind of moments in live play.
The bigger problem with live play is that there is a very tight window to interact with folks and it sometimes *very* hard to have a roleplay discussion of any sort with a time-table ticking away.
In PbP it's a bit different -- if players have a day to post, they can look at the discussion, take a step back, get into their character headspace, and come up with a response without delaying/slowing the game.
However, that being said, the question I've asked has not been addressed. Is this aimed at PFS in specific or Pathfinder as a whole?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Everyone agrees Slavery is Evil, the trouble is just Lawful Characters.
Firstly, this is an uncomfortable topic that the GM should cut slack for and not penalize Lawful Good Characters for.
Secondly, Lawful Characters don't have to follow the rules, they just have to promote general order. So they could free a slave, and help them get to Andoran to become upstanding citizens.
Paladins only have to respect legitimate authority.
A lot slavery in our days had slaves being able to buy their way out of freedom. Might be able to do something fancy there.
|
I currently have a somewhat long-running Mummy's Mask game where I am the DM.
I depict slavery in Osirion as not being fundamentally different than being a commoner in an agricultural society anywhere else in a medieval or classical society, so normally they don't do anything about it.
As they explored the Parched Dunes, I rolled a random encounter of four efreet, who I depicted as having illegally raided a nearby Pahmet dwarf village for slaves. They attempted to negotiate for their sale with the intent to free them. Unfortunately they missed the signals from the efreet that they wanted the party to make the first offer, and combat broke out.
Of the only party members who might be against slavery, there is a neutral Chelaxian halfling of uncertain origin (no one knows if he was a slave at one point or always free) who does not like slavery but isn't going to rock the boat over it.
There is also a chaotic good character, but chaotic good is really just some words on his sheet. He mostly plays the character as chaotic neutral of the "I'm only interested in my own personal freedom" variety.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
P.S. (last second edit) I guess I am primarily focused on PFS characters and particularly how slavery plays a role in Pathfinder society no mater how much it's shunted out of the way. I mean if your going to have it exist in your fantasy campaign world; it would only make sense that, different characters would have different opinions about the subject! I find it particularly fascinating how each faction would choose to deal with the subject.
I mean, wouldn't/shouldn't the exchange be pro slavery? How would they deal with members of liberties edge? It can be a real catalyst for role-play when u view it from these lenses.
Unless it has something to do with the mission, it IS a topic that's "shunted out of the way" if that's the way you choose to put it. Especially if the scenario is being played in a 4 hour convention slot.
Home games and PBP have a lot more flexibility to deal with offtrack issues.
But keep in mind that slavery is not the only issue for either Liberty's Edge, or the Exchange. The former faction does not expect it's members to engage on suicidal crusades on the issue. And the latter has more than one area in which it pursues trade and profit. Generally you're much more likely to see the slave trade being pursued by the Aspis Consortium than the Exchange.
Unless it has something to do with the mission, it IS a topic that's "shunted out of the way" if that's the way you choose to put it. Especially if the scenario is being played in a 4 hour convention slot.
Agreed I hadn't really thought about the lack of time, in a live game, to engage in such immersive topics. As I mentioned above, the roll-playing session I eluded to, was on a PbP forum. If I really think about it, almost any subject can be fleshed out more completely on a Play by Post forum, as opposed to live games (particularly time sensitive games such as PFS.)
I suppose I'll close my thoughts on the subject by just declaring, "particularly sensitive topics can lead to very immersive and expressive roll-playing. Perhaps it's because these topics walk a fine line between fantasy world perceptions, and real world concerns that inevitably some of our personal dogma is exposed."
Maybe these topics are too much, to be addressed in a 4hr game session...
Which begs the question;
"Why have them at all?"
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Its an almost guaranteed derail of the plot, we have one player who is almost guaranteed to pursue stamping slavery and slavers out with a single minded efficiency only seen on "maximized dpr build" threads regardless of current adventure or quest.
I suppose I'll close my thoughts on the subject by just declaring, "particularly sensitive topics can lead to very immersive and expressive
roll-playing. Perhaps it's because these topics walk a fine line between fantasy world perceptions, and real world concerns that inevitably some of our personal dogma is exposed."Maybe these topics are too much, to be addressed in a 4hr game session...
Which begs the question;
"Why have them at all?"
Which in turn asks other questions...
"What is the OP's interest here?
Is it in seeing in-depth role-play of *any* topic?
Is it in stirring the embers of controversy?
What do we all learn from this topic?
Is there a 'safe' way to have this discussion without veering into corrosive methods?"
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
LOL what about your players do they ever immerse themselves in their roles and expand on this discussion? We've a lawful good cleric in our group that thinks slavery is a somewhat acceptable practice because it is sanctioned by the state (Qadira).
We have some old school (one room schoolhouse old) role players for whom slavery = you're the bad guy, you have a target on your head.
we have some roll players that haven't given it much thought, beyond "the role players won't complain if i murderhobo these guys because they're slavers". There's never been an incentive to monetize opponents, so they wouldn't try to do that.
Have your players ever roll-played any of this out? I only ask this because I recently was in a role-playing situation where this very topic came up among a diverse group of Pathfinders from different nations and different factions. It was completely immersive as each player, roll-played his character as if he were actually from said land, and did favor one faction's policies over the others.
Yay. Role play.
.
I don't think even being from andor lets a paladin go full on john brown the way most PCs do. My andoran adorable bundle of fluffy deaths standard speach is "I will not guarantee your life, but i will guarantee your freedom for the rest of the life, TAKE UP ARMS AND FOLLOW ME TO THE SLAUGHTER! FOR GORUM!"
I would think it detects as evil except for custom spells.
Shackles of submission effective against any, evil.
Shackles of submission effective only against accused or convicted criminals, lawful neutral.
|
Hey Luckless,
I've had different groups in a certain scenario react very differently to the presence of slavery. The first time I GMed it, I had two Liberty's Edge and one Silver Crusader who immediately took up arms to start a revolution the moment there was even a hint of slavery. They had a great in game conversation with the Sovereign Court guy who was worried about the political ramifications, but then the group came to a consensus and kicked off the revolution!
My next group through it was a bunch of Grand Lodge, Dark Archive and Sovereign Court people. They saw the slavery, decided it was an integral part of the society, and saw no reason to rock the boat. They also had a great in game discussion of the matter though.
These were both face to face groups. One of the things that I find interesting about the setting is that it does have moral murkiness, and that can help characters have things to react to as they decide who they are and what they stand for.
One of the things that I like about the society is that we get to travel through a complex and diverse world, learning things about ourselves and our characters as we go!
Hmm
PS As an online venture officer, I am really tickled that you're having such a great time GMing PbP!
|
I would think it detects as evil except for custom spells.
Shackles of submission effective against any, evil.
Shackles of submission effective only against accused or convicted criminals, lawful neutral.
would this reasoning also apply to other magic items?
(+1) Great Sword - effective against any (no special abilities), evil.
(+1) Evil Outsider Bane Great Sword, more effective only against Evil Outsiders, Good.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Go see the movie Amistad. You haven't seen it enough times.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Engaging question, the topic of slavery in scenarios have served as good character development moments. Really gave me moments to think of my character as someone that comes from a place, has a history, and has some preconceptions about the world instead of being just a set of stats.
For example, when my true neutral Mwangi elf played the Slave Ships of Absalom I made the snap decision to head canon that the Mwangi tribes have their own codified version of slavery and that he had not been exposed to the recent Aspis introduction of 'inner sea type' slavery. So the entire scenario he did not understand why we were interfering in the affairs of others and why the other agents were so invested in this mission. It was a great opportunity to develop and role-play that characters alien moral structure.
Another scenario I played had slaves that were about to die, it looked like saving them would compromise the mission. One of the characters at the table stated that the mission be damned, he was saving them. My character then got to assess what his priorities were now that a decision was forced, abandon his companion and continue the mission or band together for Good and fail their mission. Another step away from a line of stats toward being real character with their own motivations.
I'm glad there are scenarios this these that let us explore how the characters feel about the world they have found themselves in.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Eh. Not something I'd touch with a 10' pole, unless it was a group I knew really well (and, it has to be stated, knew that the discussion wouldn't turn into a big honking mess).
Because the big thing to me is a huge chunk of the pathfinder countries , and therefore their people see slavery as a cultural norm that isn't a big deal. They wouldn't see it as the moral outrage of 21st century Earth, any more than an ancient Roman landowner would, because to their social norms it isn't. It also isn't at all an alignment question, just a matter of societal custom and tradition.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It also isn't at all an alignment question, just a matter of societal custom and tradition.
...
Eh. Not something I'd touch with a 10' pole, unless it was a group I knew really well (and, it has to be stated, knew that the discussion wouldn't turn into a big honking mess).
Because the big thing to me is a huge chunk of the pathfinder countries , and therefore their people see slavery as a cultural norm that isn't a big deal. They wouldn't see it as the moral outrage of 21st century Earth, any more than an ancient Roman landowner would, because to their social norms it isn't. It also isn't at all an alignment question, just a matter of societal custom and tradition.
Even so, that doesn't mean a good character in any of those cultures has to embrace the practice. Rather, I think it's likely they accept they don't have the personal power to change the institution on the societal level, nor the wealth or might to free every slave they encounter either by purchasing them or by force on the personal level.
To be honest, I only run Pathfinder in my own settings so "Slavery" is a topic I can generally avoid by making chattel slavery a thing that happened in the past, but the world has largely put in the past/replaced it with more socially acceptable systems that more or less accomplish the same result.
Even when I ran a game in the Fallout (like the video games, there were tabletop rules) world I didn't have "slavers" per se, the people in the setting largely seeing this as impractical since people will kill themselves to get free. Whereas if you simply control their access to food and water and you set the rates they are paid for their labor or what they scavenge, you get more or less the same result only people aren't trying to get away all the time. Think the conditions Rey was under at the beginning of Star Wars: TFA.
So I'd much rather have issues where slavery takes the role of debt slavery, "the company store", or the prison-industrial complex than the kind with chains and whips and the like. I don't honestly trust myself to do a good job with the latter, and am more interested in telling stories about how people have managed to convince themselves that subtler or less visible forms of oppression are okay.
If I have to have "outright slavers" I would prefer it to be in the context of pirates press ganging, or similar terrestrial enclaves of bandits, and not anything large scale with mainstream social acceptance. This is a signal that it's okay to reduce everybody around who isn't in chains to a fine red mist.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
It also isn't at all an alignment question, just a matter of societal custom and tradition....More a matter of historical norms clashing with modern alignment assumptions. I wouldn't start a game in a Classical Greek inspired setting by telling the players that their characters are all evil unless they play anti-slavery activists - whatever that would even mean in Classical Greece.
Similarly, slavery is widespread in Golarion, not just in the explicitly evil nations.
Partly why I'd prefer to leave it out entirely or restrict it to definite bad guy societies.
I wouldn't start out a game in Classical Greece by telling players that their characters were evil unless they objected to it, but I sure as hell wouldn't let them have a G in their alignment.
The "well, it was a different time" is a cop-out. Persia tried multiple times to abolish slavery, various Greek philosophers recognized that it was wrong (even if they didn't think it could be abolished immediately without society collapsing), etc. We didn't invent empathy in the 20th or 21st centuries.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Even when I ran a game in the Fallout (like the video games, there were tabletop rules) world I didn't have "slavers" per se, the people in the setting largely seeing this as impractical since people will kill themselves to get free. Whereas if you simply control their access to food and water and you set the rates they are paid for their labor or what they scavenge, you get more or less the same result only people aren't trying to get away all the time. Think the conditions Rey was under at the beginning of Star Wars: TFA.So I'd much rather have issues where slavery takes the role of debt slavery, "the company store", or the prison-industrial complex than the kind with chains and whips and the like. I don't honestly trust myself to do a good job with the latter, and am more interested in telling stories about how people have managed to convince themselves that subtler or less visible forms of oppression are okay.
Indentured servitude is akin to slavery and was not always to the complete detriment of individuals involved in the system.
Similarly, not all slaves (not thinking of the American slave system but rather ancient civilizations that kept slaves)were terribly mistreated.
The rights and roles of slaves has varied over time.
Slavery in Rome was different from more modern slavery.
I only bring this up to say that slavery for me isn't an instant evil (though it is absolutely never good).
I also think of things in the context of the Aiel from Wheel of Time, in which one could become a "slave" by being touched in combat by an enemy instead of being killed. It was then required you work for them for a year and a day. But you were treated well, given ample food and water and were not to be killed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wouldn't start out a game in Classical Greece by telling players that their characters were evil unless they objected to it, but I sure as hell wouldn't let them have a G in their alignment.The "well, it was a different time" is a cop-out. Persia tried multiple times to abolish slavery, various Greek philosophers recognized that it was wrong (even if they didn't think it could be abolished immediately without society collapsing), etc. We didn't invent empathy in the 20th or 21st centuries.
Are you also saying you wouldn't allow a player to play a good character in Cheliax, Molthune, the lands of the Linnorm Kings, Qadira, Katapesh, the Mammoth Lords, Irrisen, or... oh hell, a large part of Golarion? Somehow I doubt the campaign was written to preclude characters from those nations from being Good. Imposing that kind of guilt by association seems like a dick move to me.
I also think of things in the context of the Aiel from Wheel of Time, in which one could become a "slave" by being touched in combat by an enemy instead of being killed. It was then required you work for them for a year and a day. But you were treated well, given ample food and water and were not to be killed.
It was also 100% voluntary (something Aiel chose to do to preserve their own honor/ego), which prevents it from being comparable to real-world slavery.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wouldn't start out a game in Classical Greece by telling players that their characters were evil unless they objected to it, but I sure as hell wouldn't let them have a G in their alignment.The "well, it was a different time" is a cop-out. Persia tried multiple times to abolish slavery, various Greek philosophers recognized that it was wrong (even if they didn't think it could be abolished immediately without society collapsing), etc. We didn't invent empathy in the 20th or 21st centuries.
Are you also saying you wouldn't allow a player to play a good character in Cheliax, Molthune, the lands of the Linnorm Kings, Qadira, Katapesh, the Mammoth Lords, Irrisen, or... oh hell, a large part of Golarion? Somehow I doubt the campaign was written to preclude characters from those nations from being Good. Imposing that kind of guilt by association seems like a dick move to me.
There are characters in every one of those societies who protest slavery. And there are things that get loosely called slavery (e.g. voluntary indentured servitude with a finite term of service) that aren't slavery in the sense of being the property of another person in some of those societies. (Chattel slavery is actually illegal in Qadira--which doesn't stop people from practicing it, but is not the same as having a society that monolithically accepts it.)
If you are part of a society that is built on slavery, and you do nothing to change that, it's not "guilt by association." You are profiting from it.
So no, in my games, if you are from those societies and you're fine with people enslaving and owning people who've had no say in the matter, you do not get a G in your alignment. I consider the "dick move" in that situation to be so lacking in basic empathy that you consider arguing that you should have one to be anything but insulting to everyone present.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you can look at the modern age and not see evil, in the treatment of women, in the way race is used to mark people out for cruelty, in the treatment of immigrants right here, right now, you're not paying attention.
I don't condemn everything in world prior to the modern age as evil--there are plenty of things in older societies we could stand to learn from, and we're in a glass house. Which doesn't change that things like slavery are wrong, in any age.
There are characters in every one of those societies who protest slavery. And there are things that get loosely called slavery (e.g. voluntary indentured servitude with a finite term of service) that aren't slavery in the sense of being the property of another person in some of those societies. (Chattel slavery is actually illegal in Qadira--which doesn't stop people from practicing it, but is not the same as having a society that monolithically accepts it.)If you are part of a society that is built on slavery, and you do nothing to change that, it's not "guilt by association." You are profiting from it.
So no, in my games, if you are from those societies and you're fine with people enslaving and owning people who've had no say in the matter, you do not get a G in your alignment. I consider the "dick move" in that situation to be so lacking in basic empathy that you consider arguing that you should have one to be anything but insulting to everyone present.
I think it's highly unlikely everyone who isn't directly opposed to it is profiting from it. Even in the pre-Civil War South, only about 8% of the population were slaveholders and large numbers of southerners had little contact with the slave economy. Why would a fantasy world be so different?
Or the way many campaigns develop, with PCs moving around or being caught up in some other overall plot (that may not be related to opposing slavery), you'd hold lack of opposition to slavery in their home nation against them?| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Arghh..
Not my intention at all to go this direction with this topic. I just wanted to point out that I recently had a cool RP session where the topic of Slavery (in Golarion) was the catalyst. My second point if, I had any, was to give some props to Paizo for having the courage to address such hot topics.
Instead I got overly cute. Crossed a line.. and generally started the exact type of thread I hate (intermingling real world problems and topics with those of a fantasy world).
Again, I profusely apologize for the off color remark I made earlier. I do so with no caveats.
I do wonder why the developers choose to include these types of controversial .. um situations..er.. if they didn't want the fans to engage with them?
I think it's probably just a mater of,"it's our sandbox, we make it how we want." Either that or, the controversy helps to differentiate and sell more material.
Wei Ji the Learner had the right of it. He questioned why start this thread at all? There is really no safe way of discussing this or any other more adult themed topics present in Golarion. I wish I could say I miss the days of an orc, a 10x10 room, and a treasure chest, but, I truly do enjoy the more gritty, roll oriented version of the modern game.
However, I've learned my lesson about walking too close to the fire. I wish this thread didn't exists and I could somehow pry my foot out of my mouth.
I'm not sure you understand how an economy works.
There are characters in every one of those societies who protest slavery. And there are things that get loosely called slavery (e.g. voluntary indentured servitude with a finite term of service) that aren't slavery in the sense of being the property of another person in some of those societies. (Chattel slavery is actually illegal in Qadira--which doesn't stop people from practicing it, but is not the same as having a society that monolithically accepts it.)If you are part of a society that is built on slavery, and you do nothing to change that, it's not "guilt by association." You are profiting from it.
So no, in my games, if you are from those societies and you're fine with people enslaving and owning people who've had no say in the matter, you do not get a G in your alignment. I consider the "dick move" in that situation to be so lacking in basic empathy that you consider arguing that you should have one to be anything but insulting to everyone present.
I think it's highly unlikely everyone who isn't directly opposed to it is profiting from it. Even in the pre-Civil War South, only about 8% of the population were slaveholders and large numbers of southerners had little contact with the slave economy. Why would a fantasy world be so different?
Or the way many campaigns develop, with PCs moving around or being caught up in some other overall plot (that may not be related to opposing slavery), you'd hold lack of opposition to slavery in their home nation against them?
Eh, despite only 8% of southerners owning slaves, those 8% owned enough slaves that in virginia (a state that actually didn't have the highest ratio of slave to free population) slaves made up about 30% of the population prior to the civil war.
There's basically no chance that people who weren't directly opposed to it didn't profit from it. You have to feed, house, and clothe 1/3 of the state and its going to bleed into basically every other industry.
Even the people who weren't employed in some way feeding, clothing, or housing the slave population were likely dealing with the paperwork of property, or processing/shipping the goods gained from slave labor.