Depictions of Slavery in Golarion


Lost Omens Campaign Setting General Discussion

151 to 200 of 454 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Toxicsyn wrote:
MindFl*yer98 wrote:
The fact that there are living people in Geb bred as food for the ruling undeads is something very unique about the nation, and a logical consequence to its fundamental premises. So, do you think they will fix it with some sort of "artificial substitute for meat/blood", they will have "vegetarian vampires" Twilight-style, or they will just ask us not to think too hard about it?

In Starfinder, they grew flesh farms in Eox using necromancy. Undead didn't like eating them, but it was their version of fast food. We could be seeing a introduction of flesh farms in Geb in PF2, and Geb does have connections with Eox.

No slaves needed.

Just artificial magic flesh and blood grown in farms. Of course there is gonna be those evil undead that are anti-GMO.

You think they might take the artificial substitute route then? It could be interesting as an innovation, maybe even something to create an undead class divide, but unlike what happens on Eox the living can survive in Geb, so why would powerful and evil undead settle for this option when the original item is right there?

Kobold Catgirl wrote:

Also, I'm not sure Gebbite slavery is really going to be conflated with chattel slavery. They might not even refer to them as slaves, since they're, you know, not there for labor, they're food. You could as easily call them "captives" or "hostages".

Still dark, still scary, but not clumsily misappropriating and stepping on a source of collective trauma for a racial group that has historically been given ample reasons not to feel comfortable with the company's actions.

A company that is almost entirely staffed by white people, by the way. The kobold said, quite racistly.

If words are the only problem, just call Cheliaxan halfings "servants" or "involuntary farmers" and you are golden right? Also i don't think that the use the undead masters make of slaves is particularly relevant here. Manual labour is done by mindless undead in Geb, this is canon, but i would not consider a person bred, owned and exploited by another "not a slave" regardless of circumstances or use.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

I get what you're saying, but Cheliax has been focused on way, way too much to retcon the slaves into servants. Which is kind of the whole problem--Paizo has had an unhealthy obsession with slavery for a while. Geb has had way fewer stories told about its practices of slavery, so it's easier to tweak them.

Evil Horse wrote:

Are they going to remove the spell Dominate?

Legit question.

I doubt it. The issue isn't loss of autonomy in general, it's specifically the overemphasis on slavery as a plot device. Slavery in the United States is primarily associated with white supremacist chattel slavery, and its effects linger to this day, making it a uniquely unpleasant issue. Again, compare it to how Pathfinder does not feature a lot of content focused on sexual assault, or on genocidal death camps.

The technical definition of "slave" is a lot less important than the coding. Slave auctions, particularly featuring Black slaves and white slaveowners, have very, very direct connotations. Pathfinder has featured that sort of content extensively already, so if you're keen on it, go back and play Serpent's Skull.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Catgirl wrote:


I'd be very curious if Newton gave up all the riches he earned by investing in slavery. It's easy to regret what you've done after you've made bank doing it.

interestingly, Assassins Creed touches on this.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Inqui wrote:

And how is the skin color of the owners in any way relevant if complains about their handling of a topic is bad? Or the colour of the one making the complain?

Maybe its another American thing, but if someone would dismiss complains made by black people because of their colour he would rightly be called a racist. But so would someone who would dismiss complains because the one complaining is white.
Yet from KC's post it looks to me they are doing exactly that, looking at the skin colour of the ones complaining and the owners of Paizo and then deciding if the complain is valid or not.

So I can only speak from my own experience here, as well as what's been related to me and what I've read in our annals of history. Racism has kind of had a big past in America, and you'll find entire generations of people living in this country who remember vividly the time when white people were forcibly segregated from black people. Overt racist behavior is rarer these, and less accepted (yet still very present), but there is still a significant disparity in wealth, capital, influence and proximity to social progression that's a carryover from these darker times. There are also unique obstacles a lot of black people have to deal with that white people don't, which are not codified in law but nevertheless continue to be a factor (longer and more frequent incarceration rates, application acceptance, harassment, etc). There's a lot of real pain and distrust, and consequences from the events that caused this pain, that affect many black communities today -- which white people, who come from backgrounds unaffected by these unique events, are thus unable to truly understand and relate to.

Coming from different experiences as white and black people in this country do, it's important for us to listen to each other to correct patterns of behavior earned from the unethical attitudes of past generations. When a black employee tells you, a white employee, that you are being callous by sensationalizing the pain inflicted by slavers upon people, it's a good idea to listen. Institutions can change, but as long as the attitudes of people who make those institutions don't, the same poison can seep from them and wound people all the same. We have the responsibility to use the power we wield to build and empower, not burn.

That's about as sparknotes as I can get with this right now.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

assassins creed more like asshat's greed amirite


3 people marked this as a favorite.
NECR0G1ANT wrote:
TheGoofyGE3K wrote:
Plus, countless adventuring parties have been fighting slavers in multiple adventure paths for multiple years. Perhaps that's enough dominoes toppled that we've finally seen some results!

Erik Mona specifically said this change wasn't the result of anything player characters had done or will do. In fact, the author of the open letter fiercely criticized Paizo for writing adventures in which setting changes happen, like PFS 9-00.

This change is happening because Erik Mona, and presumably others at Paizo, took to heart a criticism of how LO handles slavery. It's not to involve players.

A) the letter... doesnt do that? It mentions them and that they did a pitiful job of it. But fiercely condemn? Not really

B) I'm not saying it's caused my players. Im pointing out that if you need a story explanation, it's not a stretch to find one


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Ian G wrote:
TheGoofyGE3K wrote:

Fair. But not everyone watches Star Trek. Sometimes you want deep philosophical TV. And other times you just want to watch something that doesnt go as deep into that. Having the option to go deep without having it be all deep all the time is what they've said they're doing.

They want to cut back on how much they write slavery into their setting. Isnt that good?

I think that the way they're doing it is poor, especially considering how hilariously virtue-signally it is after they made a big deal of abolitionist NPCs and protagonist factions, have done so for a while, and have had slavers to kill and slaves to free in several adventure paths.

Totally Not Gorbacz wrote:
They're not copies, they're inspired expies. Which means they're not copies of our world's history and developments. If they were, female adventures would be super rare, because the notion that a woman is fully in charge of her own career and personal decisions and can fulfill any job or role a man can is relatively new in our world.
You're forgetting the presence of magical powers that can occur in anyone. In this world, it makes sense for, for example, Arcadia to have tech parity with Avistan, and for women to have equal rights with men, because of the equalizing effects of magic.

So what if it is? Maybe they had more to say with slavery-based stories. That doesnt make them less tone deaf, nor does it change that their I mentioned before that they kind of treat slavery as an element of a fantasy race and. Ot a terrible thing with lasting repercussions

Basically, they've moved slavery into the part of the CRB where they mention checking with your players before adding this instead of having it as default setting. Which is honestly where it belongs

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

The Pathfinder wiki isn't exactly an official source but it does a great job of summarizing things from the lore and many sourcebooks and even includes book sources where applicable which both these terms have included. Linkify

The Chattel is quite literally the word they choose for the lowest of the three castes and is described as mindless undead and living beings bred to be used as livestock and for trade.

Changing the wording to appeal to sensitivities is probably going to be far more problematic as it would represent "softening" language to describe in more passive language the abhorrent culture of treating living sentient creatures as possessions.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Catgirl wrote:

I get what you're saying, but Cheliax has been focused on way, way too much to retcon the slaves into servants. Which is kind of the whole problem--Paizo has had an unhealthy obsession with slavery for a while. Geb has had way fewer stories told about its practices of slavery, so it's easier to tweak them.

Yeah, that is kind of the problem here. Changing the word Geb, or any other country, uses for "Slave" but not the actual institutions strikes me as nonsensical, a non-solution that borders on insulting. Now i do not envy the position Paizo is in. Changing course when you have such a beloved and well established world is hard. But trying to just avoid the issue , especially when in less than a year there is an AP coming out in a nation where slavery of the worst possible kind is an important feature is not a good way out. Paizo will have to come back to Cheliax or Katapesh or Quadira eventually, since they are very popular regions. And trying to just...not mention slavery is not a good way to handle this particular can of worms.

Grand Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

How much is the world of today like the world of ten years ago?

Why would you expect Golarion not to do the same in the same amount of time?


9 people marked this as a favorite.

I’m hearing a lot of reasons for the setting to pivot out of the Inner Sea and to new regions :P

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

So maybe we are talking about an entire region that is reformed but unless this is something that has already been set in stone by way of the Book of the Dead which is already off to the printers...

That leaves a few options:
1) The AP doesn't actually address this at all and instead presents a version of Geb where the lowest of the classes no longer includes ANY living beings while at the same time following the chosen direction of intentionally NOT addressing or explaining it.
2) The AP would involve Geb as a nation that has completely collapsed where no societal structure survives whatsoever.

Erik said they're not going to take time or space to explain any of the changes so altering the way things ARE there so it's going to leave plot holes as to how the undead citizens survive with nothing to eat which, I guess, is probably the only way forward from what I see even if it's unsatisfying.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
keftiu wrote:
I’m hearing a lot of reasons for the setting to pivot out of the Inner Sea and to new regions :P

Yeah, like Arcadia for example. I would love to learn more about the culture of the owl people that live there, i heard they are so cultured and refined!


Kobold Catgirl wrote:
I doubt it.

I'm pretty sure they did expunge some stuff though at least in that case it was less about slavery and more the rape connotations.


Themetricsystem wrote:

So maybe we are talking about an entire region that is reformed but unless this is something that has already been set in stone by way of the Book of the Dead which is already off to the printers...

That leaves a few options:
1) The AP doesn't actually address this at all and instead presents a version of Geb where the lowest of the classes no longer includes ANY living beings while at the same time following the chosen direction of intentionally NOT addressing or explaining it.
2) The AP would involve Geb as a nation that has completely collapsed where no societal structure survives whatsoever.

Erik said they're not going to take time or space to explain any of the changes so altering the way things ARE there so it's going to leave plot holes as to how the undead citizens survive with nothing to eat which, I guess, is probably the only way forward from what I see even if it's unsatisfying.

I think there’s basically zero chance Blood Lords reflects this policy.

Sovereign Court Director of Community

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Removed a few posts and quotes. Quite a few were personal attacks/responses to attacks. One removed post questioned changes in the forum guidelines. There is no change. Advocating for slavery breaks community guidelines on harassment, malicious speech, and potentially illegal activity and will not be tolerated. Real-world discussions that cross into politics will also get removed. Lots of the removed posts fell into the real world bucket and I removed them as being off-topic/political.
The original post is about depictions of slavery in Golarion that exist. Discussing those representations in light of Paizo's stance on slavery is on topic. If we can't stay on topic in a manner that is respectful and civil, we will need to close the thread.
**edited because I had missed some quotes and needed to remove them as well.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

It is worth considering why "slavery" comes up much more frequently in discussions about Golarion than discussions about similar fantasy settings.

Then consider "this isn't really desirable" and then do something about it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tonya Woldridge wrote:
moderation

Could you please explain why my post was removed from this thread? Sorry to post in the thread, but the Paizo forums don't appear to have DMs. I had no personal attacks. I had no advocation for slavery. I kept my post related to Golarion.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

It is worth considering why "slavery" comes up much more frequently in discussions about Golarion than discussions about similar fantasy settings.

Then consider "this isn't really desirable" and then do something about it.

From my reading on lore, I thought that from the start Paizo/Golarion was all about the idea of Freedom being something you actively strive for.

* Rise of Runelords has freedom, and liberating people as a sub theme for quite a while. Specially as you get closer to the second half.

* The entire Cheliax APs are a struggle of people against and for hell having control. Which inherently makes it about freedom vs slavery. Which as seen by the consequences Hell won that fight.

* Kingmaker is similar in that it's all about the party having the freedom to make their own kingdom. Or fall under the rule of someone else as the party fails to protect their city-state.

You can even see it with deities. Most of the good deities have freedom of some kind as one of their key parts. Evil deities tend to have some type of forced control as part of their key parts. While neutral deities tend to saddle the line, either not getting involved or action as a neutral 3rd party to the conflict (Ex: Pharasma distributing souls to where they belong).

********************
For all that is why I think that straight up going silent on slavery to be a disservice to the lore and spirit. To me going quiet on slavery with not even an in world reason for it is the equivalent of evil winning. Yeah it's not mentioned, but then the reason why you fight against slavery is lost. "Oh you still can fight for freedom" some might say. But I ask how do you fight for freedom if the worst evil against freedom is immune from even talked about?

Fighting for prisoners? That hardly seems like freedom and more like fighting against the government.

Fighting against undead? That is hardly different to just fighting against the extension of life. It's close but it lacks the same gravity.

Idk, I just wanted to give my 2 cents to answer Possible Cabbage and the over all topic. Probably will get yelled at, but meh.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

In Baldur's Gate 2 one of the first things you do at the Copper Coronet Inn Tavern is bust a slaving operation. It feels good.
We have slavery in our setting, as a thing that happens the same as other horrible stuff happens, and they are happy to kick in doors and free slaves - it is afterall one of the most virtuos actions in history that any human should be proud of; working towards the abolition of slavery.

Personally, I would prefer a close to history portrayal of the setting.

However Paizo's problem here is that they have no way to control that outcome, neither to make sure they arent providing a platform for those unwanted fantasies. So they just ignore it, less pr problems.

-----
Now for the critique part.
It feels dumb that in a setting with mind bending magic, horrors provided by savage gods like Lamashtu, war torn sceneries, public executions like Mzali, literal piracy nations, and much more, the problem is that you wrote slavery somewhere. Over-reaction, but also a product of the society we live in where some horrible things are more taboo than others.
Total War / Warhammer video game, when you play as the Dark Elves your economy revolves around capturing slaves - and it contrasts well with Game Workshop's later statements that they broker no tolerance to any form of discrimination. A mature stance. But not everyone wants to deal with the PR, so fine.

And for a bit of a jump...American (USA) media is more sensitive to this than others, or/and perhaps more scrutinised too. RPG (at least Pathfinder folk) seem even more so.

PS. And now we end up debating slavery - which is perhaps exactly what they do not want. But a world without discussion so we can understand why they are wrongs, not just what they are, is absolutely necessary, and ignoring it completely is not constructive. However it is also not their responsibility for humankind to not be complete idiots, so they took the easy road this time.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

It is worth considering why "slavery" comes up much more frequently in discussions about Golarion than discussions about similar fantasy settings.

Then consider "this isn't really desirable" and then do something about it.

I believe this is simply due to the audience. Paizo forums skew heavily left compared to most places on the internet, so there is more scrutiny on Golarion than on the Forgotten Realms or Eberron. Or, if we move a little further, the still very popular world of Warhammer.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
MindFl*yer98 wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

It is worth considering why "slavery" comes up much more frequently in discussions about Golarion than discussions about similar fantasy settings.

Then consider "this isn't really desirable" and then do something about it.

I believe this is simply due to the audience. Paizo forums skew heavily left compared to most places on the internet, so there is more scrutiny on Golarion than on the Forgotten Realms or Eberron. Or, if we move a little further, the still very popular world of Warhammer.

It’s worth saying that it’s an audience they’ve cultivated with some intentionality. Paizo has deliberately branded themselves as “the progressive D&D” in the last few years.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Kobold Catgirl wrote:

I will note that the Hook Mountain Massacre

** spoiler omitted **

does not involve chattel slavery or racism in any way, and yet I rarely see people call it "sanitized". Weird. I guess the ogres are SJWs.

OMG that made me laugh out loud! Thank you for that! :D


3 people marked this as a favorite.
keftiu wrote:
MindFl*yer98 wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

It is worth considering why "slavery" comes up much more frequently in discussions about Golarion than discussions about similar fantasy settings.

Then consider "this isn't really desirable" and then do something about it.

I believe this is simply due to the audience. Paizo forums skew heavily left compared to most places on the internet, so there is more scrutiny on Golarion than on the Forgotten Realms or Eberron. Or, if we move a little further, the still very popular world of Warhammer.
It’s worth saying that it’s an audience they’ve cultivated with some intentionality. Paizo has deliberately branded themselves as “the progressive D&D” in the last few years.

Which is why here i can read a discussion about slavery without wanting to rip my eyeballs off after the first page. Things are good here. Especially when put in perspective with the rest of the TTRPG world.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

It is worth considering why "slavery" comes up much more frequently in discussions about Golarion than discussions about similar fantasy settings.

Then consider "this isn't really desirable" and then do something about it.

The thing I noticed reading the different lore books over the years for Golarion compared to other settings is that it just kinda...sticks slavery in places and tags it as part of several lawful neutral societies. Someone mentioned the practices of the dark elves in Warhammer but that's treated as a reason to oppose them. Slavery is commonplace in 40k, but there's no "good guys" in 40k and its just another signifier that "yup, everything is a crapsack".

Golarion has a bunch of nations that just do slavery and its treated as being fine and at least one PFS scenario where you're expected to go and just negotiate with slavers rather than anything to oppose their activities. Given how Paizo works hard in other areas to knock down some of the sketchy tropes born from the genre, its always felt like slavery's portrayal boarders on someone's special interest inclusion.

I don't think slavery can't be portrayed or used as a plot element. I think treating it as a recurring element in non-evil societies is a lack of creative writing. Golarion is knock-off Earth and they just copypasted slavery into their corollaries and treated it as something the setting handles with indifference.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Errant Mercenary wrote:

In Baldur's Gate 2 one of the first things you do at the Copper Coronet Inn Tavern is bust a slaving operation. It feels good.

We have slavery in our setting, as a thing that happens the same as other horrible stuff happens, and they are happy to kick in doors and free slaves - it is afterall one of the most virtuos actions in history that any human should be proud of; working towards the abolition of slavery.

Personally, I would prefer a close to history portrayal of the setting.

See the problem is you can't have both of those. If we're "close to history" and in the sort of vague historical periods Golarion is vaguely based on, kicking in doors and freeing slaves will just get you on the run from the authorities. Not just in the evil empires, but basically everywhere. The problem is that it's legal and institutional and has that institutional support.

If you want to fight slavery, you're either
1) dealing with underground railroad type approaches, which might be fun but would never make a dent in the problem,
2) playing politics, probably over decades
3) Overthrowing major governments.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
keftiu wrote:
I’m hearing a lot of reasons for the setting to pivot out of the Inner Sea and to new regions :P

As I said in the other thread, I think the time has come to leave behind the "world history class with magic" approach to campaign settings. It's time for something else.


Oragnejedi42 wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

It is worth considering why "slavery" comes up much more frequently in discussions about Golarion than discussions about similar fantasy settings.

Then consider "this isn't really desirable" and then do something about it.

The thing I noticed reading the different lore books over the years for Golarion compared to other settings is that it just kinda...sticks slavery in places and tags it as part of several lawful neutral societies. Someone mentioned the practices of the dark elves in Warhammer but that's treated as a reason to oppose them. Slavery is commonplace in 40k, but there's no "good guys" in 40k and its just another signifier that "yup, everything is a crapsack".

Golarion has a bunch of nations that just do slavery and its treated as being fine and at least one PFS scenario where you're expected to go and just negotiate with slavers rather than anything to oppose their activities. Given how Paizo works hard in other areas to knock down some of the sketchy tropes born from the genre, its always felt like slavery's portrayal boarders on someone's special interest inclusion.

I don't think slavery can't be portrayed or used as a plot element. I think treating it as a recurring element in non-evil societies is a lack of creative writing. Golarion is knock-off Earth and they just copypasted slavery into their corollaries and treated it as something the setting handles with indifference.

I would like to point out that a lot of those neutral places are either:

* Small, meaning that they would not be able to enforce anti-slavery laws if they wanted.

Or,

* Highly political, meaning that it's a very complex topic as to why they still allow it. Remember that just because a country is neutral does not mean that the people in charge are all neutral.

It's part of why Absalom had slavery until relatively recently when all fighting slaves where freed during the Fiendflesh Siege. Which led to the abolition of slavery afterwards.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I imagine the editors are in charge of making sure some lines are not overstepped, but that is an inmense job in volume alone (thanks for bringing up the PFS scenenario Oragnejedi42, great example of mishandling the topic), and a mistake (that shouldve been addressed and corrected) is likely to happen at some point.

Golarion has a lot of lack of creative writing, perhaps from a necessity to fill in space fast? They are doing a decent job lately, if the Mwange Expanse is an indication, in making the knock-offness interesting and respectful.
Most times I've come accross slavery in PF it hasnt been problematic to tell that it was an evil deed. Perhaps the grayest one I found was in the Shackles AP.

I think painting in general strokes will bring along criticism too. The tendency we expect in society is that when something like slavery is mentioned, it is also followed by a condemnation of it, which if describing 24 nations in 3 short paragraphs, is bound to not happen sometimes. The customer's expectations are perhaps what needs a hard look :P


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Errant Mercenary wrote:
The customer's expectations are perhaps what needs a hard look

I suspect that taking a hard look at customer expectations is precisely what led to Mona's post.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

There's also a meaningful difference between things like "the local crime syndicate forces people to work for them through threats and violence" or "various forms of prison labor" or "vampires are predators, they literally eat people and this is less than consensual" or "what this one group gets up to in the hinterlands" and something like "an international slave trade" or "the systematic enslavement of a certain kind of person." That's not to say that things in the former category are good or permissible, but they're the forms of slavery that persist into the 21st century on Earth so talking about them in a fantasy game is less out of bounds.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I like this. Sometimes it felt a little too omnipresent in certain parts of Golarion in a way that's uncomfortable and demands attention that a lot of players don't want to give it.

I hope they consider making changes like this for other areas of the game too, like the misogynistic undercurrents in some of the lower planes lore.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:

How much is the world of today like the world of ten years ago?

Why would you expect Golarion not to do the same in the same amount of time?

Because human civilisations in Golarion historically endure and are recognisable for a lot longer, on average, than human civilisations on Earth? (Which is what happens when you take Plato's timing for the fall of Atlantis as a core element of your setting, I suppose.)

Then again, the question of how much Golarion is still sorting out the consequences of the death of Aroden is complex, so some bits changing drastically and others not at all, and a lot of change that appears sudden but comes from a bunch of more complicated factors, would work for me even if there weren't PCs running around messing with load-bearing elements.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:


If you want to fight slavery, you're either
1) dealing with underground railroad type approaches, which might be fun but would never make a dent in the problem,
2) playing politics, probably over decades
3) Overthrowing major governments.

Quite a number of APs deal with the potential or actual overthrowing of major governments.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Oragnejedi42 wrote:


The thing I noticed reading the different lore books over the years for Golarion compared to other settings is that it just kinda...sticks slavery in places and tags it as part of several lawful neutral societies. Someone mentioned the practices of the dark elves in Warhammer but that's treated as a reason to oppose them. Slavery is commonplace in 40k, but there's no "good guys" in 40k and its just another signifier that "yup, everything is a crapsack".

Golarion has a bunch of nations that just do slavery and its treated as being fine and at least one PFS scenario where you're expected to go and just negotiate with slavers rather than anything to oppose their activities. Given how Paizo works hard in other areas to knock down some of the sketchy tropes born from the genre, its always felt like slavery's portrayal boarders on someone's special interest inclusion.

I don't think slavery can't be portrayed or used as a plot element. I think treating it as a recurring element in non-evil societies is a lack of creative writing. Golarion is knock-off Earth and they just copypasted slavery into their corollaries and treated it as something the setting handles with indifference.

I may be in the minority here, but i do not see a problem with neutral societies condoning slavery. Mostly because it is shown, times and times again in many lore and monster manual books that "Neutral" can mean "does a lot of terrible s**t but is not mean about it". One of the aforementioned terrible s**ts is looking at evil and doing nothing. With all due respect to Desmond Tutu, in the world of Golarion he is wrong. Cosmologically wrong. Neutrality in the face of oppression does not make you evil, it makes you neutral. There are many beings made of pure Law,Neutrality or Chaos that spend their entire immortal existence watching oppression and doing nothing, and not a molecule of Evil enters their bodies. And that's without looking at the genocides they carry out on the regular, while still mantaining their perfect neutrality (looking at you Imot and Fulgatis). So a society that is not dependant on slavery, that does not specifically target people to be slaves, but is just apathetic towards it? Where slaves are just another item on the market? Perfectly neutral according to the working definitions of allignments. The very existence of neutrality is probably the most egregious example of disconnect between real world morality and Pathfinder's alignment system.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
MindFl*yer98 wrote:


I may be in the minority here, but i do not see a problem with neutral societies condoning slavery. Mostly because it is shown, times and times again in many lore and monster manual books that "Neutral" can mean "does a lot of terrible s**t but is not mean about it". One of the aforementioned terrible s**ts is looking at evil and doing nothing. With all due respect to Desmond Tutu, in the world of Golarion he is wrong. Cosmologically wrong. Neutrality in the face of oppression does not make you evil, it makes you neutral. There are many beings made of pure Law,Neutrality or Chaos that spend their entire immortal existence watching oppression and doing nothing, and not a molecule of Evil enters their bodies.

This is the problem with calling your cosmic polarities Good and Evil rather than, say, Celestial and Fiendish; rather many people get the impression they have to map onto good and evil as understood by characters, or as accepted by players, and it is problematic if they don't. Personally I find it makes for a more interesting character development possibilities in games where good and Good, or evil and Evil, do not necessarily match exactly; I want to see genuinely good characters grapple with Infernal Healing (to pick a hopefully non-sensitive because purely fictional example) being both a good act from a humanist perspective and an Evil one by cosmic fiat.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
MindFl*yer98 wrote:


I may be in the minority here, but i do not see a problem with neutral societies condoning slavery. Mostly because it is shown, times and times again in many lore and monster manual books that "Neutral" can mean "does a lot of terrible s**t but is not mean about it". One of the aforementioned terrible s**ts is looking at evil and doing nothing. With all due respect to Desmond Tutu, in the world of Golarion he is wrong. Cosmologically wrong. Neutrality in the face of oppression does not make you evil, it makes you neutral. There are many beings made of pure Law,Neutrality or Chaos that spend their entire immortal existence watching oppression and doing nothing, and not a molecule of Evil enters their bodies. And that's without looking at the genocides they carry out on the regular, while still...

The problem with the idea that their apathy is their neutrality is that they aren't apathetic. If they were apathetic, it wouldn't be enshrined into law or protected by these states if they were just "neutral" or "apathetic" about it. These nations systemically allow and uphold it. Doing nothing would mean doing nothing, but they've done a thing. If they were really neutral and the Bellflowers rolled up and sprung a bunch of slaves, they'd just shrug. That would be apathy. However, they enforce it violently. Which isn't apathy or neutrality. It's picking the side of owning a sentient being with the threat of violence and that side is evil.

Cosmic neutral entities, to know knowledge, don't typically start from a structural basis of "it's okay to own mortals". They're disconnected from it because mortals are bugs and they can't be bothered. Nation-states are made of people and are bothered when someone starts prodding about why owning people is okay.. That is not neutral.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Catgirl wrote:


I do think that "opt-in" is a good idea at this point, if only because so many APs have already focused or delved into subjects of slavery and oppression.

I am entirely in agreement about "opt-in", and that we already have plentiful material in place for players who would find it empowering to punch slavers in the face.

A thing I learned from the debate over Folca was that there are kinds of content out there, that I would never previously have considered including in a game of mine on the grounds that I personally find them vile, that it could be a powerful thing for people who had direct RL experience of that particular kind of vileness to have in a game where they could triumph over it in some meaningful way, and that therefore opened my eyes to the existence of potential positives to having that content exist.

I do feel that, as a considerate GM, being mindful of my players' preferences and enaging with them in a session 0 or other such prep, and ensuring that everyone is on board and comfortable with the general theme and tone, includes being open to suggestions of what evils they might find empowering to confront and overcome, as well as not forcing content on people who do not want it; the balance between escapism and empowerment, as you were talking about in the thread this split off from, feels to me to vary so widely between people and groups that talking that through feels an essential part of the process.

I also feel that, as someone born in Ireland and now living in Canada, who has spent maybe a total of one year of my life in the US out of nearly fifty, race in the US is a huge, complex thing which is fundamentally not my story to tell. I'm well aware that around the moral basics there will always be specific details that are powerfully emotive to many people, that are no more clearly intuitive to me than "Would you be perceived as Catholic or Protestant in Belfast?" is to most of my USAn friends and acquaintances; that latter is a model for powerfully emotive ethnic conflict that I am actually familiar with enough to be confident I can handle it respectfully. So if I were confronted with a situation where someone's preferences in empowerment fantasy involved punching equivalents of US slavers in the face, I'm going to look for content provided by someone more familiar with that reality than I am, as a matter of respect and mindfulness.


Oragnejedi42 wrote:


The problem with the idea that their apathy is their neutrality is that they aren't apathetic. If they were apathetic, it wouldn't be enshrined into law or protected by these states if they were just "neutral" or "apathetic" about it. These nations systemically allow and uphold it. Doing nothing would mean doing nothing, but they've done a thing. If they were really neutral and the Bellflowers rolled up and sprung a bunch of slaves, they'd just shrug. That would be apathy. However, they enforce it violently. Which isn't apathy or neutrality. It's picking the side of owning a sentient being with the threat of violence and that side is evil.

Cosmic neutral entities, to know knowledge, don't typically start from a structural basis of "it's okay to own mortals". They're disconnected from it because mortals are bugs and they can't be bothered. Nation-states are made of people and are bothered when someone starts prodding about why owning people is okay.. That is not neutral.

Apathy does not mean "Doing nothing", it means "Feeling nothing".

That is were the difference between CN and LN comes in. In the Shackles if your slaves kill you and free themselves no one cares, they are free. Same with Numeria, if you can't keep the slaves from escaping you are just not strong enough to have them.On the other hand, if someone is strong enough to enslave you, tough luck.

LN on the other hand keep the law because it is the law. The law allowing slavery may have been pushed by evil individuals, but once it is law, unless good people find a way to lawfully eliminate it, it is going to stay because it is law. THe slaves will be punished if they escape because the law says so, regardless of the feelings of the judge (which may not have any on the matter, because to him this part of the job). LN societies see the commerce of slaves like the commerce of zucchini. Just another part of the market. On the other hand there are rules on how and why you can be made a slave (see Osirion)

Again, on Earth, you have to pick a side. There is no neutrality. In Golarion, the universal, objective rules of morality say that a third way exists. The Theletos (Thelethoi?) literally fight to protect slavery sometimes, and they are N in 1e, LN in 2e

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

That this discussion continues repeatedly over time is a waste of breathe.

One side does not object to the depiction of slavery in the narrative. In fact they encourage it because it creates additional avenues for storytelling and depictions of good vs evil. If you don't like it, you can opt it out of your game. They do not want to see slavery actually exist in the modern world.

The other side objects to the depiction of slavery in the narrative. There are plenty of other avenues for storytelling without the addition of slavery. If you don't like it, you can opt it into your game. They do not want to see slavery actually exist in the modern world.

The only difference between the two that I see is the source of the narrative. Either the slavery comes from the creatives who write all the other stuff or it is created by the GM for their own campaign. Which method is "better" is subjective. The only real power the community has over this topic is either buying Paizo's products thereby endorsing the content, or telling Paizo where they can stick their campaign.

The choice is yours

EDIT--the addition of alignment analysis to the topic is even more ludicrous given that it has been discussed for more than 50 years by people smarter than any of us in the forum and still cannot come to a unified theory of alignment. That people think they can define the alignment system is hilarious.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

One side doesn't really care about Erik Mona's announcement or generally supports it, the other is extremely offended and has been wasting everyone's time for two days straight now.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote:


This is the problem with calling your cosmic polarities Good and Evil rather than, say, Celestial and Fiendish; rather many people get the impression they have to map onto good and evil as understood by characters, or as accepted by players, and it is problematic if they don't. Personally I find it makes for a more interesting character development possibilities in games where good and Good, or evil and Evil, do not necessarily match exactly; I want to see genuinely good characters grapple with Infernal Healing (to pick a hopefully non-sensitive because purely fictional example) being both a good act from a humanist perspective and an Evil one by cosmic fiat.

That is a really good hook, i never tought about it this way. i usually just eliminate allignement from my games when possible, but this is giving me ideas.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

So what is going to happen to the Firebrands? They are, after all, a major organization in PF2 whose sole purpose is the abolition of slavery.

Grand Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
MindFl*yer98 wrote:
i usually just eliminate alignment from my games

^^^^^THIS^^^^^


David knott 242 wrote:


So what is going to happen to the Firebrands? They are, after all, a major organization in PF2 whose sole purpose is the abolition of slavery.

Perhaps less content will focus on them in the future. Only time will tell.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
David knott 242 wrote:


So what is going to happen to the Firebrands? They are, after all, a major organization in PF2 whose sole purpose is the abolition of slavery.

Is that it? I thought their purpose was rebellion against tyranny and oppressive rule - and looking good doing it.

I’ve never liked them, personally. They’ve always felt underbaked, from the pretty flat name on down.

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
David knott 242 wrote:
So what is going to happen to the Firebrands? They are, after all, a major organization in PF2 whose sole purpose is the abolition of slavery.

They win Pathfinder!!!!

151 to 200 of 454 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Lost Omens Campaign Setting / General Discussion / Depictions of Slavery in Golarion All Messageboards