PCs owning slaves: Do, or Don't?

[Lawnmower Boy]

Re: PCs owning slaves: Do, or Don't?

 

Actually, in Early Modern European slavery, emancipation was the general rule. But there's a catch.

 

The catch was that this was a deferential society, and a freedman had huge obligations to his master, who now became his patron. You voted for your patron (where this was relevant), attended his church and joined his confraternity, took on the apprentices and wife that your master recommended, gave his daughter a huge gift at her wedding, substituted for him (or followed him) in a military call up...It has been suggested that the benefits of having some ex-slaves amongst your clients was one of the most important reasons that Europeans were taking slaves by the mid-1400s.

I come to this, by the way, from the unlikely direction of a recent biography of Henry the Navigator. It seems that historians of Early Modern Europe are so reluctant to discuss slavery in this society that, except when they're confronted with an actual slave trader, they just ignore it.

[Lucius]

Re: PCs owning slaves: Do, or Don't?

 

Slave in Athens were far better treated than many places,: rape, severe beatings and murder of a slave were all illegal (though forcing a slave to work in a brothel was not considered rape...)

 

Not that I doubt this was the legal situation, but I have trouble reconciling it unless being forced to work in brothel meant working in the kitchen or sweeping the floor or perhaps laundering the sheets.

 

After all, wouldn't this mean that if a master owned a slave and had his way with her against her will, this was considered a crime, but if he sold her to a brothel - or gave her to a brothel in return for a free pass for her use - he could have his way with her regardless of how she felt about it, and this would be okay?

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary notes that law is often absurd, in any era.

[DusterBoy]

Re: PCs owning slaves: Do, or Don't?

 

I don't think I'd want to own slaves in any campaign. Unfortunately, the slave trade is alive and well and looks set to overtake the drug trade in terms of profitability. It's just had to (mostly) go underground.

[Markdoc]

Re: PCs owning slaves: Do, or Don't?

 

Not that I doubt this was the legal situation' date=' but I have trouble reconciling it unless being forced to work in brothel meant working in the kitchen or sweeping the floor or perhaps laundering the sheets.[/quote']

 

Ummmmm ... no. Alas.

 

After all' date=' wouldn't this mean that if a master owned a slave and had his way with her against her will, this was considered a crime, but if he sold her to a brothel - or gave her to a brothel in return for a free pass for her use - he could have his way with her regardless of how she felt about it, and this would be okay?[/quote']

 

"Rape" in context of the time, didn't mean "non-consensual sex". It meant "aggravated assault with a sexual component". Basically, "no permanent damage, no foul". Likewise, it wasn't illegal to beat your slave - just illegal to beat him/her until they were maimed: indeed, a little beating from time to time was considered a good thing. In this situation, "How she felt about it" really wasn't an issue they considered (I mean come on, we're talking about slavery, fer pete's sake! I doubt many slaves looked positively on their situation). I suspect that any athenian jury (which would, of course be all-male and almost certainly all-slave-owning) would have no problem declaring not guilty a brothel owner who had beaten or starved a slave who "wouldn't work". For that matter, much of the same attitude carried over into sexual relations between free persons: a wife who would not submit to her husband, could also be beaten. Again the rule was "Don't be unseemly" not "Don't take by force".

 

The palindromedary notes that law is often absurd' date=' in any era.[/quote']

 

The palindromedary is correct.

[Shadowsoul]

Re: PCs owning slaves: Do, or Don't?

 

And then there were those strangest of slave castes, the Mamluks, and later the Janissaries, of the Islamic world. Slave soldiers who could gain great power and influence and in some cases simply took over the kingdoms that had enslaved them.

 

The idea of slave owners arming slaves has always puzzled me. I know what I'd want to do to someone who'd enslaved me. Or any slaver for that matter.

 

Apparently the idea was to create a standing army that was 'loyal' to the local ruler, rather than the chieftains/nobility that nominally served him, and that consisted of soldiers who could be brutally punished without reprisals. Of course these military slaves had far greater prospects and status than most slaves in the classical or modern worlds. In modern terms this might be considered closer to conscription than 'slavery', though that doesn't justify it.

 

Having PCs enslaved in such a way would make for an interesting campaign. Do the PCs seek their freedom and battle their oppressors? Or do they take the chance to gain wealth and power by serving their slavemasters? Probably depends on how long their home region/s have been providing slave soldiers to their conquerors.

[Captain Obvious]

Re: PCs owning slaves: Do, or Don't?

 

The D&D setting al-Qadim had mamluks as a...not a class...a kit?...an option for fighters. I don't remember if the description said they were slaves, and I'm almost certain it didn't say they were castrated (another part of being loyal to a ruler is not having kids to pass a dynasty on to), but one of the drawbacks to the class was that they were subject to orders at all times. Higher level guys had fewer possible people issuing those orders, but unless the character maxed out his level and took over the kingdom, there was always someone to tell them what to do on pain of death.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: PCs owning slaves: Do, or Don't?

 

Hmmm...how different is swearing an oath of fealty to the Crown, to one's Order, to one's Church, etc. and being a slave of that person/organization...

 

I suppose you chose to swear the oath, but still...

[assault]

Re: PCs owning slaves: Do, or Don't?

 

and I'm almost certain it didn't say they were castrated (another part of being loyal to a ruler is not having kids to pass a dynasty on to)' date='[/quote']

 

The historical Mamluks, Janissaries and Ghilman typically weren't castrated. On the other hand, they tended to notionally be celibate.

 

The Janissaries eventually declined into something more like a bureaucratic sinecure rather than a military unit, before being suppressed. They weren't either slaves or celibate by that stage.

 

The children of Mamluks were generally organised into separate military units, since they were considered inferior to their fathers.

 

And I've already linked to an article explaining the implications of the term "Ghilman".

[assault]

Re: PCs owning slaves: Do, or Don't?

 

Hmmm...how different is swearing an oath of fealty to the Crown, to one's Order, to one's Church, etc. and being a slave of that person/organization...

 

I suppose you chose to swear the oath, but still...

 

Historically, "freedom" was an exceedingly relative state.

 

Even without feudal or other ties, a "free" person would still have often have a relationship with their family/clan, which could involve subordination to the head(s) of that group.

 

Then there are relations to religious bodies. There was a reason why "freedom of religion" was such a big deal.

 

Even "free" (wage) workers weren't "free" in a modern sense. Sure, as propertyless vagabonds they were free, but once they became employed, they were servants, and their status vis-a-vis their masters was distinctly subordinate.

 

There were unfree warriors in medieval Europe too, by the way.

[Enforcer84]

Re: PCs owning slaves: Do, or Don't?

 

I haven't played a slave-owner, but considering some of the guys I gamed with, I am surprised they didn't. I suspect it was something the GM didn't approve of, or it never fit the setting.

[Ragitsu]

Re: PCs owning slaves: Do, or Don't?

 

Well, a fantasy setting needn't follow our history.

[Markdoc]

Re: PCs owning slaves: Do, or Don't?

 

Just a comment, the slave soldiers like Mamluks and Jannisaries were possible because their owners (the work Mamluk actually comes from classical arabic for "owned") selected them from foreigners (who weren't much liked by the locals), gave them privileges that made the locals even less impressed with them and then set them up in mutually balancing factions. They also typically recruited them as children and trained them up from youth.

 

So yeah, you could take a sword to your owner (and actually, that did happen on occasion) but if you did, you were hundreds if not thousands of miles from home, probably not exactly clear in where home was to start with, surrounded by a populace who hated your guts and rival slave soldier factions who also hated your guts!

 

If, on the other hand, you put up with it, you were fed well, housed well and protected by your owner, plus you had an esprit de corps that gave you trusted comrades. It doesn't sound like a great deal to us, but in the context of the time, it clearly worked ... well, most of the time.

 

The German Ministerales are a bit of a different case. They weren't in any sense of the word slaves, and we know that some aristocrats voluntarily became ministerales. They were weren't free - but they were still considered gentry, and had extensive legal privileges and protections. They're a good example of how convoluted (to our eyes) medieval society could be.

 

cheers, Mark

[Orion]

Re: PCs owning slaves: Do, or Don't?

 

To me, it only depends on the campaign world. If in ancient Egypt or Rome, a well-to-do character is going to be expected to have a slave or ten. There's an equal chance at least one of the characters is a slave. I don't try to enforce modern sensibilities onto the game - I'm more interested in emulating a time period or setting from a book. Personally, I won't run a campaign in which the characters are working towards something that would be considered evil for that setting. In Traveller, that means no sexism or slaves. In my fantasy campaign, sexism is a given, and while there aren't many slaves around, there are mistreated serfs and war captives. I think it's the difference between wanting historic fantasy and high fantasy.

 

For those that don't allow slavery...do you also ban looting old graves, disallow any thieving activities, and prevent fighters from taking over a nearby town/manor/country because that isn't a nice thing to do? If not, what is the difference?

[Orion]

Re: PCs owning slaves: Do, or Don't?

 

Of course they can. If in ancient Rome or Egypt, rich characters would be expected to have slaves. There would be an equal chance some of the other characters would be slaves. In some cultures, you were better off being a slave than a serf.

 

I won't run an evil campaign, but this is judged by the setting, not by modern day morality. If we are doing Vikings, then piracy, pillaging, and taking slaves is the norm, and female warriors are not allowed. When doing Amazons, all the characters would be expected to be female, and to look down on men.

 

For those that refuse to allow slaves in an appropriate setting, do you also ban pirates, tomb robbing, raising the dead, and killing others (human or monster) just to take their treasure? If not, why? Seems to be an equal level of evilness to me, so why is one more acceptable than another?

[Enforcer84]

Re: PCs owning slaves: Do, or Don't?

 

Good question. Most likely answer is there are some things we didn't think about when we did fantasy.

Pirates? Sure. Killing things and taking their loot is classic and there's always a good reason.

 

But other things my groups never really dealt with either because we didn't care or think of it.

We had female "viking" warriors all the frickin' time. Don't think we played an amazon campaign but we had plenty of ladies that would have qualified.

 

We didn't worry about slavery or some other nasty things that happen - we were having fun slaying dragons and taking their stuff. Or running from crazy little exploding goblins - who didn't have stuff.

 

Of Course we didn't play historical fiction role playing either.

[Mister E]

Re: PCs owning slaves: Do, or Don't?

 

In STAR-WARS, I always play droids named FU-2.

 

Every version of FU-2 has a "Moses-complex". That is to say, he hates droid haters... ("We don't allow their kind in here.")... and he generally does whatever he can to disrupt the possession of droids in the galaxy.

 

I always wanted to RP a droid exodus.

 

Of course I've been owned by other PCs.

 

In one game, in order to introduce me to the campaign, I was even discovered in an ancient Jedi temple and claimed as loot.

 

In another game, in contrast, I played a free Assassin droid who ran with a dept-bonded wookiee (Big "D" McBacca).

 

Every time it was fun! IMHO, PC ownership of other PCs is really just more fuel for role-playing.

 

OT: FU-2 does not believe in the significance of midi-chlorians. He is a 'truly' Quixotic Jedi Knight, with no force-powers, who wears the standard male hooded robes common everywhere on Tatooine, but claims they are actually Jedi robes.

 

... Killing things and taking their loot is classic and there's always a good reason...

 

Yes! Most classically played D&D PCs, if converted into WHFRP, would be Bone Pickers & Tomb Robbers!

[Manic Typist]

Re: PCs owning slaves: Do, or Don't?

 

I'm not a fan of the same name being used for various PCs in different campaigns, in different genres. It gets confusing when you want to talk about different characters.

[Mister E]

Re: PCs owning slaves: Do, or Don't?

 

I'm not a fan of the same name being used for various PCs in different campaigns' date=' in different genres. It gets confusing when you want to talk about different characters.[/quote']

 

Yeah, I know what you mean. Plus, the name "FU-2" is kind of... well...

 

I got the name from a patient I once had who called his IV-pole, "FU-2. R2-D2's little brother." IIRC, this man's son (a fan of STAR-WARS) had been shot as a soldier in Vietnam, survived, became a school teacher, then was killed on the side of the road by a bolt of lightning!

 

Believe it or not, that's what I was told, and there was no humor in the telling.

 

I justify using essentially the same character over & over again in different campaigns with my internet knowledge of IG-88. IG-88's extended story includes 'one' of his many consciousnesses being down-loaded into the whole of the second Death-Star before it was destroyed in "Jedi".

[Vondy]

Re: PCs owning slaves: Do, or Don't?

 

Tangent Alert!

 

When doing Amazons, all the characters would be expected to be female, and to look down on men.

 

Unless, of course, your PCs name is Hippolyta. Or the visiting NPCs name is Heracles. The modern Paradise Island stereotype of Amazon attitudes isn't fully supported by the often self-contradictory myths that inspired the concept in the first place. The Amazons greeted Heracles warmly. And Hippolyta took Theseus as a lover and proudly bore him a son. Despite the fact that some myths say Theseus cast Hippolyta aside for Phaedra, others say he waited until she died to court his new love. And, their patron was Hera, who while she had issues with Zeus' behavior - and that of cheating men as a whole - was still venerated as mother, protector of women, and wife. So, while some contempt of men may be normative, the myths provide a more equivocal baseline.

[Vondy]

Re: PCs owning slaves: Do, or Don't?

 

If the setting emulates a historical culture that practiced slavery then including said bedrock socio-economic institution is entirely apropos. For me, the real question is how you deal with it at the game table. You need to know your group, their level of maturity, and their personal sensibilities. And, to dredge up my old mantra: communicate, communicate, communicate! Think about the issues that could crop up and hash them out. Discuss how you, as a group, will handle the institution. Also, make sure everyone understands the period and culture. Slavery differed in practice and form from culture to culture.

 

 

As for PCs owning slaves there are two questions in play: 1) group sensibilities and player decency, and 2) plot disruption. A lazy player may be inclined to have his slaves do plot-important tasks his character should be doing. Its generally better, unless its a trusty companion (purchased as a follower), or another PC, for slaves to be incidentally referenced as dealing with mundane (not plot important) details that free the PC up to "adventure" - or have a plot wherein the slave is story-relevant.

 

 

A bigger issue, to my mind, is PC slaves. Such a PC is in a vulnerable position, is more restricted than free characters, and playing one requires a real bond of trust between player, GM, and other players. It can work, but you really have to engineer a situation where the slave has autonomy to affect the plot - and you have to have a real brass tacks talk about what the player is comfortable with for their character's treatment. It requires a bond of trust and GMs, or another player who owns the PC slave, need to be judicious and tread lightly.

[Ragitsu]

Re: PCs owning slaves: Do, or Don't?

 

Yeah, it can be disturbing.

[Balabanto]

Re: PCs owning slaves: Do, or Don't?

 

Well, I run a FOrgotten Realms game where the PC's are slaves. In Thay. It's the biggest ball of sucktastic for the heroes ever, but that's the way the ball bounces.

 

The Bad

 

1) The characters are slaves to an evil abusive master. And he DOES abuse them.

 

2) Hope is almost nonexistent.

 

3) Evil really IS everywhere. Don't play a paladin in this game.

 

The good

 

1) The goal of the campaign is different. It's not to "Kill the bad guys," or "Save the princess." IF the characters escape from Thay, they win. That is victory.

 

2) Characters have requisition lists for magic items. Ordinarily, they don't have any. This puts the onus of selecting gear on the PC's while the GM plans the adventure and whatever dastardly things the master is going to do.

 

3) Skills matter, and I mean really matter. When you can't rely on combat to save you from a gnoll because he has a sword and armor and you have a loincloth, you really have to think about how you're going to handle situations.

 

We play the game sparingly, because otherwise it eats your brain, but when we DO play it, it's very tough, and very challenging.

[DusterBoy]

Re: PCs owning slaves: Do, or Don't?

 

Well' date=' I run a FOrgotten Realms game where the PC's are slaves. In Thay. It's the biggest ball of sucktastic for the heroes ever, but that's the way the ball bounces [snip'] We play the game sparingly, because otherwise it eats your brain, but when we DO play it, it's very tough, and very challenging.

 

And therefore, very rewarding?

 

It sounds like a goldmine for role-playing, though.

[Ragitsu]

Re: PCs owning slaves: Do, or Don't?

 

I had an idea kicking around for PCs that are slaves on the Elemental Plane Of Earth.

[Drhoz]

Re: PCs owning slaves: Do, or Don't?

 

Vitus would - his home, the Samurian Empire on Aura, were certainly slave owners, and had explicit permission from the gods to be so. Indeed, the gods and the society would be horrified by anybody that wanted to overthrow the system by emancipating the slaves.

 

Vitus never owned any, not because of anything as ridiculous as moral qualms, but because he was never settled anywhere long enough to make the investment in self-propelled property worthwhile. He fully approved of the Roman and Tanashim slave-keeping as well, when he visited.

 

This caused a few problem when he moved from AD&D to Champions - for some reason the people in the modern-day United States were aghast when he acquired 3 as a concubine, and didn't see anything wrong about owning her.

 

Of course, now he's migrated again, to be an NPC in 1920s Cthulhu, and although it was slightly trickier to arrange, it supposedly being illegal, he has picked up a few slaves from Ethiopia. They perform the domestic chores at his lair outside Cairo, and live in dread of the inhuman sorcerer they work for. He does treat them relatively kindly, however - they're well-fed, well-dressed, and he's considering setting them free when he finds a way home. Of course, if they were of his species they'd be required to warm his bed as well.