[QUOTE=cdr248;42867953]Why does everyone follow this whole Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil type stuff? I never played DnD so unless it is apart of the character creation then I don't get why everyone does it.[/QUOTE]
It's part of character creation.
[QUOTE=cdr248;42867953]Why does everyone follow this whole Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil type stuff? I never played DnD so unless it is apart of the character creation then I don't get why everyone does it.[/QUOTE]
Honestly my biggest problem with the D&D verse is that instead of good or evil / law or chaos being subjective and complicated concepts like they are, instead they're basically laws of physics for actions
Like, the universe has arbitrarily declared, in addition to gravity and thermodynamics, actions or things can somehow be aligned
it makes sense from a gameplay perspective to simplify all the heavens and hells and planes and whatnot, a bit, but from a greater universe standpoint it's kind of hard to imagine how society could function in any way even approaching something you can understand when you could say, cast detect evil on everyone once every few months and probably catch most criminals long before they could do anything yet this basically never bloody happens
Except that they are subjective. Go read Goblins.
[QUOTE=cdr248;42867953]Why does everyone follow this whole Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil type stuff? I never played DnD so unless it is apart of the character creation then I don't get why everyone does it.[/QUOTE]
Well, it is part of character creation. And it is part of gameplay - spells like "detect evil" or "protection from chaos" exist.
I like it because it is a good way to describe a character's ethics without getting too complex, but still being more than "evil"/"not evil". You can (at least in theory) have as much conflict between chaotic good and lawful good characters as between lawful good and lawful evil characters.
Personally, I'm not fond of giving beasts seemingly-random alignments. Why is a manticore lawful evil instead of chaotic or just plain evil? But for actual NPCs, it's a very nice system.
As long as you don't interpret it too literally and give characters room to be flexible. This is the first time I've had to tell a player to change their alignment, and I'm pretty sure anyone will agree that was a reasonable situation to do so.
[QUOTE=SiberysTranq;42867978]
it makes sense from a gameplay perspective to simplify all the heavens and hells and planes and whatnot, a bit, but from a greater universe standpoint it's kind of hard to imagine how society could function in any way even approaching something you can understand when you could say, cast detect evil on everyone once every few months and probably catch most criminals long before they could do anything yet this basically never bloody happens[/QUOTE]
Also because being evil isn't a prosecutable offence in most places. Hell, lawful evil characters loathe to break any law because it undermines the protection the law grants them. 3/10 commoners are evil in most D&D worlds. Being evil doesn't necessarily mean you're a criminal.
[QUOTE=Oliolio;42867987]Except that they are subjective. [B]Go read Goblins.[/B][/QUOTE]
No need, this about sums it up.
[img]http://i.imgur.com/HANs53t.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;42868199]No need, this about sums it up.
[img]http://i.imgur.com/HANs53t.jpg[/img][/QUOTE]
that
is the funniest thing relating to that comic I've ever seen
Chaotic Good doesn't mean you go around killing innocent guards who are doing their job and then cut off their dick and balls...
Sounds like a troll not someone who's there for the adventure.
You know I knew that mutants and masterminds was essentially a box of legos as far as character creation options go, but looking through the actual rulebook and goddamn this shit is more flexible than flubber. I'm sure it can be broken/cheesed easily or whatever, but that's a deficiency that requires players to enable it.
This is now the theme for my Campaign.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zapVzkKbrKA[/media]
God there are so many archs I can go down, TOO MANY
[QUOTE=cdr248;42867953]Why does everyone follow this whole Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil type stuff? I never played DnD so unless it is apart of the character creation then I don't get why everyone does it.[/QUOTE]
It affects how a lot of divine magic works, evil clerics channel negative energy which hurts living things and heals undead, while good ones channel positive energy which heals people and damages undead.
Spells like Protection from Good/Evil/Law/Chaos are affected by alignment, and some enchantments, an anarchic weapon does extra damage against lawful creatures, and they lose a level if they try to use it.
[QUOTE=SiberysTranq;42867978]Honestly my biggest problem with the D&D verse is that instead of good or evil / law or chaos being subjective and complicated concepts like they are, instead they're basically laws of physics for actions
Like, the universe has arbitrarily declared, in addition to gravity and thermodynamics, actions or things can somehow be aligned
it makes sense from a gameplay perspective to simplify all the heavens and hells and planes and whatnot, a bit, but from a greater universe standpoint it's kind of hard to imagine how society could function in any way even approaching something you can understand when you could say, cast detect evil on everyone once every few months and probably catch most criminals long before they could do anything yet this basically never bloody happens[/QUOTE]
Detect alignment doesn't work that way, you need to either be extraplanar, a divine spellcaster, undead or level five and above to have a detectable alignment. 90% of normal people are effectively neutral or don't have an alignment.
Personally at this point my preferred way of viewing alignments is more of an explanation for why your character acts the way they do, not a guideline for how they should act.
EG A lawful good character does good for the sake of extinguishing evil and helping others, NG is good for the sake of making the world a better place, CG is good for the sake of changing the order of the world as it is(IE abolishing governments/laws/etc that make life difficult for the majority). LN follows the law to the letter rather than the spirit, TN acts without regard for what their actions may cause, CN disregards the law for the sake of their own freedom. LE is evil for the sake of spreading evil to others, NE is evil for the sake of helping themselves, CE is evil for the sake of extinguishing good and making others suffer.
I look at alignment as a general idea of how your character would act under completely normal circumstances. I'm trying not to bring up the age old alignment argument, but I really dislike having characters actions and personalities governed by one of nine terms.
A lawful good paladin may take the life/cause the death of an innocent in order to ensure the survival of the greater good, for example. A chaotic good character may be more inclined to knock over people as an obstacle during a chase, wheer as a lawful good guy might not (but still might be able to.)
It just comes down to who you're playing with. Good players and roleplayers tend to roleplay their characters well enough that their actions are justified beyond "I am x y, so I will do x y."
[QUOTE=Rents;42870628]Detect alignment doesn't work that way, you need to either be extraplanar, a divine spellcaster, undead or level five and above to have a detectable alignment. 90% of normal people are effectively neutral or don't have an alignment.[/QUOTE]
depends on the edition you're playing
[QUOTE=elowin;42872191]depends on the edition you're playing[/QUOTE]
I'm assuming 3.5 or PF, since most people here play that.
[QUOTE=elowin;42872191]depends on the edition you're playing[/QUOTE]
it's not like anybody plays anything other than 4th edition anyway.
Cancer Mage has to be one of the best classes ever.
so uh, if anyone happens to be playing a game of pathfinder or 3.5 online, could i possibly sit in (as in watch)?
i wanna try to get into this, but literally no one I know has played or has any interest of playing
[QUOTE=Rents;42872353]I'm assuming 3.5 or PF, since most people here play that.[/QUOTE]
It actually doesn't work like that in 3.5 FYI, it'll just give off a faint aura.
[QUOTE=DeeCeeTeeBee;42872355]it's not like anybody plays anything other than 4th edition anyway.[/QUOTE]
hahahahahahha
[QUOTE=elowin;42874120]hahahahahahha[/QUOTE]
yeah i challenge you to find a single person who would play any edition but 4th edition after playing it
all the bad things people say about it are just blatant lies. they're smoke and mirrors created by the publishers of pathfinder in order to leech customers to their heavily flawed and generally inferior ruleset and lore.
[editline]15th November 2013[/editline]
fatal creators did 9/11
[QUOTE=TrannyAlert;42872428]Cancer Mage has to be one of the best classes ever.[/QUOTE]
Book of Vile Darkness had some of the coolest classes, really
even if it was generally way too silly and out there about it's evilness
On the subject of alignments in Pathfinder I have a question of curiosity to you all if you're willing to read this post that became entirely too long.
There's a person in my group that is CN, his character for the most part acts "good" with some minor dabs of potential evil. As an example he doesn't kill needlessly nor enjoy the act itself, but if he's on a mission of importance and a local (good) guard is preventing him from completing it the PC will kill the guard if no other options remain and will regret the wasted loss of an innocents life. He even does a little ceremony after the adventure to honor the innocent life(s) he (may have) slew -- it won't stop him from making the choice again if need be though; [I]"The world will not sit idly and wait while fools with good intentions allow disaster to occur"[/I] an all that.
Now my question isn't about the guard killing, as far as I'm concerned he's roleplayed the character well enough for me to pass that off and not slap an evil sticker on him; it's about slaves. He owns 10 slaves he bought from a criminal underworld figure that he's had in his contacts. He uses them almost exclusively for setting up the parties camp, cleaning equipment, occasionally helping him or the other party members craft items (they don't actually provide any bonus, it's just for RP aspects). He doesn't pay them a wage obviously, and he hasn't freed them. He does however treat them with much respect (such as having dinner with them every night at the camp so as to better know them as an individual, taking great pains to ensure they're out of harms way during adventuring, ensuring they're properly clothed in decent ware and on the whole being very courteous with them) and whenever the group is back in a town or city he'll give them each a good chunk of gold to buy whatever they wish for themselves, as reward for serving so well. The player has told me that eventually when the party starts their own empire (a long-term goal for them at the moment) he will free them and offer them prestigious positions in the empire if they wish to accept.
As the DM I typically control the slaves actions since we consider them separate NPCs and not pets or cohorts of the PC. I have as of yet not had them attempt to flee (most likely to be done in a city with all the gold the PC gives them, they could easily get transportation and leave) because, frankly, they live a better life than most non-adventures at the moment. Our game world is heavily based in reality in the sense that the outside world is scary and dangerous and money actually matters. With all my spreadsheets and calculations the average commoner would earn maybe a dozen copper a day at most. I don't remember the exact value off-hand at the moment but it's something like a commoner would make the same amount of gold in one year that a PC can potentially make from a single CR1 creature. Those are the numbers complied from the last 10 years or so of people doing the heavy math for the public, and it matches well with our campaigns feel so I haven't changed much of the status of wealth in our game.
With that lengthy bit of information done I'll get back to my point. The slaves live like kings compared to the average person; they in essence get paid for their service (out of goodwill, philosophically different than having a job and keeps them as slaves still) for far more than they would make in many years of hard work otherwise. They enjoy many of the luxuries of the wealthy such as regular bathing, fine clothing, fine food, and the PC has taken to educating them on the higher arts of academics (I should note that the slaves aren't stupid or wholly uneducated, they're just average people -- the PC(s) is not and thus has much to offer them in the ways of skills and higher arts).
Now there's nothing stopping the slaves from leaving; no collar attached to a led ball or any magical means of keeping them around and the PC has made no promise of vengeance if they ran away (truthfully he could just buy more from his contact, but the player has told me his character would be too distraught at the loss of people he is coming to think of as friends (his character places his friends in high esteem and seldom lets people become one, so emotionally for his character the slaves mean a lot to him now) to bother). You could ask why he doesn't just free them and ask them to stay; his PC grew up in a clan orientated family and heavily believes in serving your role with conviction and honor (as an aside his parents believed that fair treatment brought the best out of people under your position and thusly ingrained into him to treat servants and others with respect). He bought the slaves as slaves to be slaves (more like personal servants than typical slavery imagery) and that is their assigned role. His plan as I have said is to create an empire and then free them for having fulfilled their role, and as reward for doing such an honorable job -- and for being people he considered friends -- offer them that prestigious place in the new empire so that they may now begin their own destiny.
So two questions, as I'm curious for peoples opinion on the matter.
1) Should I bother to have the slaves attempt to leave? I have thus far seen no reason; the slaves know what awaits them out in the world, they'll almost assuredly end up dead or living like a peasant forever. The PC has spent so much time with them working the roleplaying magic (we Play-By-Post for non-combat situations so there's plenty of time for fluff) that I honestly don't think they would hold much resentment over technically being his slaves still.
2) Does owning the slaves constitute as an evil act on part of the PC? Casting aside the general "slavery is always evil" moniker (politically, in our gaming world, slavery is not an illegal or evil act universally across all empires, cultures, religions and deities), I'm wondering if given these specific circumstances presented the act can still be labeled as harshly as an evil act at this point. The PC has improved their lives better than they probably would ever have been, but they're still technically slaves if only in title now.
smells more like chaotic good from what you've described him as being.
and the slaves are genuinely more like indentured servants than anything else.
Slaves also, if they aren't freshly caught, tend to be VERY beaten down and crushed so the thought of escape or rebellion might be there but it would be an act of desperation. Also determine whether they actually like the character back, or if it's just one sided. If they don't like him despite his treatment of them, of course they would want to be free.
[QUOTE=Axznma;42874753]On the subject of alignments in Pathfinder I have a question of curiosity to you all if you're willing to read this post that became entirely too long.
There's a person in my group that is CN, his character for the most part acts "good" with some minor dabs of potential evil. As an example he doesn't kill needlessly nor enjoy the act itself, but if he's on a mission of importance and a local (good) guard is preventing him from completing it the PC will kill the guard if no other options remain and will regret the wasted loss of an innocents life. He even does a little ceremony after the adventure to honor the innocent life(s) he (may have) slew -- it won't stop him from making the choice again if need be though; [I]"The world will not sit idly and wait while fools with good intentions allow disaster to occur"[/I] an all that.
Now my question isn't about the guard killing, as far as I'm concerned he's roleplayed the character well enough for me to pass that off and not slap an evil sticker on him; it's about slaves. He owns 10 slaves he bought from a criminal underworld figure that he's had in his contacts. He uses them almost exclusively for setting up the parties camp, cleaning equipment, occasionally helping him or the other party members craft items (they don't actually provide any bonus, it's just for RP aspects). He doesn't pay them a wage obviously, and he hasn't freed them. He does however treat them with much respect (such as having dinner with them every night at the camp so as to better know them as an individual, taking great pains to ensure they're out of harms way during adventuring, ensuring they're properly clothed in decent ware and on the whole being very courteous with them) and whenever the group is back in a town or city he'll give them each a good chunk of gold to buy whatever they wish for themselves, as reward for serving so well. The player has told me that eventually when the party starts their own empire (a long-term goal for them at the moment) he will free them and offer them prestigious positions in the empire if they wish to accept.
As the DM I typically control the slaves actions since we consider them separate NPCs and not pets or cohorts of the PC. I have as of yet not had them attempt to flee (most likely to be done in a city with all the gold the PC gives them, they could easily get transportation and leave) because, frankly, they live a better life than most non-adventures at the moment. Our game world is heavily based in reality in the sense that the outside world is scary and dangerous and money actually matters. With all my spreadsheets and calculations the average commoner would earn maybe a dozen copper a day at most. I don't remember the exact value off-hand at the moment but it's something like a commoner would make the same amount of gold in one year that a PC can potentially make from a single CR1 creature. Those are the numbers complied from the last 10 years or so of people doing the heavy math for the public, and it matches well with our campaigns feel so I haven't changed much of the status of wealth in our game.
With that lengthy bit of information done I'll get back to my point. The slaves live like kings compared to the average person; they in essence get paid for their service (out of goodwill, philosophically different than having a job and keeps them as slaves still) for far more than they would make in many years of hard work otherwise. They enjoy many of the luxuries of the wealthy such as regular bathing, fine clothing, fine food, and the PC has taken to educating them on the higher arts of academics (I should note that the slaves aren't stupid or wholly uneducated, they're just average people -- the PC(s) is not and thus has much to offer them in the ways of skills and higher arts).
Now there's nothing stopping the slaves from leaving; no collar attached to a led ball or any magical means of keeping them around and the PC has made no promise of vengeance if they ran away (truthfully he could just buy more from his contact, but the player has told me his character would be too distraught at the loss of people he is coming to think of as friends (his character places his friends in high esteem and seldom lets people become one, so emotionally for his character the slaves mean a lot to him now) to bother). You could ask why he doesn't just free them and ask them to stay; his PC grew up in a clan orientated family and heavily believes in serving your role with conviction and honor (as an aside his parents believed that fair treatment brought the best out of people under your position and thusly ingrained into him to treat servants and others with respect). He bought the slaves as slaves to be slaves (more like personal servants than typical slavery imagery) and that is their assigned role. His plan as I have said is to create an empire and then free them for having fulfilled their role, and as reward for doing such an honorable job -- and for being people he considered friends -- offer them that prestigious place in the new empire so that they may now begin their own destiny.
So two questions, as I'm curious for peoples opinion on the matter.
1) Should I bother to have the slaves attempt to leave? I have thus far seen no reason; the slaves know what awaits them out in the world, they'll almost assuredly end up dead or living like a peasant forever. The PC has spent so much time with them working the roleplaying magic (we Play-By-Post for non-combat situations so there's plenty of time for fluff) that I honestly don't think they would hold much resentment over technically being his slaves still.
2) Does owning the slaves constitute as an evil act on part of the PC? Casting aside the general "slavery is always evil" moniker (politically, in our gaming world, slavery is not an illegal or evil act universally across all empires, cultures, religions and deities), I'm wondering if given these specific circumstances presented the act can still be labeled as harshly as an evil act at this point. The PC has improved their lives better than they probably would ever have been, but they're still technically slaves if only in title now.[/QUOTE]
If your setting has established slavery as the norm then it is reasonable for a neutral character, or even a good character, to own slaves. Their treatment of the slaves may differ, but not everyone in Rome was evil. On the other hand, if you had a setting where there is no slavery, and people were being forced into slavery not as part of any norm or standard, it would typically be an evil act. If you had a game based in the 18th century and the PCs started enslaving people to work in their mines, it would probably be evil. It depends on the setting and context.
Obviously, slavery is wrong, but when creating a fantasy setting you can't judge everything based on reality.
As for the slaves running away, it depends on the culture - if society is based around slavery being commonplace, and the slaves have been slaves for a long time (or born into it), they probably wouldn't consider fleeing. At that point they would have accepted their fate, and may even bond with their owners in a way, especially kind ones. There are obviously some exceptions. If it's a setting where slavery isn't common, they'd probably dream of escaping at the first opportunity.
[QUOTE=Axznma;42874753]So two questions, as I'm curious for peoples opinion on the matter.
1) Should I bother to have the slaves attempt to leave? I have thus far seen no reason; the slaves know what awaits them out in the world, they'll almost assuredly end up dead or living like a peasant forever. The PC has spent so much time with them working the roleplaying magic (we Play-By-Post for non-combat situations so there's plenty of time for fluff) that I honestly don't think they would hold much resentment over technically being his slaves still.
2) Does owning the slaves constitute as an evil act on part of the PC? Casting aside the general "slavery is always evil" moniker (politically, in our gaming world, slavery is not an illegal or evil act universally across all empires, cultures, religions and deities), I'm wondering if given these specific circumstances presented the act can still be labeled as harshly as an evil act at this point. The PC has improved their lives better than they probably would ever have been, but they're still technically slaves if only in title now.[/QUOTE]
1) I would perhaps have one of them run away, perhaps stealing some gold while he's at it, but having a mass slavebreak doesn't seem logical.
2) The way he is treating them, definitely not evil. I wouldn't necessarily call it good (I'd wait until he actually follows through on the "free them" plan), but it's clearly not evil.
Look beyond the label being applied to it: he is overall helping them, but in a way that is intrinsically selfish. That's classic chaotic-neutral/chaotic-good stuff right there.
I wouldn't have the slaves run away randomly after such a long period of time. The PCs have obviously built up some sort of relationship with them, they're treated well, and they've been promised some position of influence in whatever world the PCs are trying to create, so they really have little motivation to leave.
If you absolutely need to deal with the slaves somehow, you should do it more creatively than just yanking them away. How about creating some sort of inner conflict between the slave where a moral judgement has to be made by the PC about what to do with his slaves. I'm assuming maybe you've created some group of random races or backgrounds for each slave. They could have some connection to world events, something to cause infighting where his group couldn't hold together and they begin to affect how efficiently the party operates. Eventually, he might have to dissolve his group, or it would at least give more reason for a few slaves to run away during the night. And then what does he do with the rest of the slaves? Keep a tighter grip on them? It could affect him in the long run.
Just my thoughts.
[QUOTE=lintz;42874808]smells more like chaotic good from what you've described him as being.[/QUOTE]
I've been tempted to switch him to CG but he has done things that I don't feel are particularly warranting. For example has an on-going business agreement (with the same underground criminal figure mentioned previously) in which he creates and sells deadly poisons to assassins and bounty hunters as a means to gather funding for future endeavors (one of his current party members was in fact an assassin that was a regular customer). He has a tendency to want good in the world, but isn't opposed to simply committing evil acts if its an easier/logical option or one that is otherwise unavoidable. If the "good" path involved years of bone crushing effort, and an "evil" path ended up achieving the same thing but in a few weeks I suspect he wouldn't hesitate for the evil path. Then again, the characters are roleplayed as if they exist in a virtual world, so they're not thinking about the glory or loot the good path would offer but what is logical within the context of their perceptions in the world.
It's not a big deal in anycase, in the end he's still fighting for the over all benefit of the universe so I doubt he'll end up slipping into anything unless the player decides to make some dramatic changes to his character. As campaigns progress and their field of influence increases from worldly realms to cosmic ones, I very much doubt having a few slaves will tip their scale in any side; whether they allow planets to be glassed or not will probably be the bigger concern for their alignments. :v:
[QUOTE=Chronische;42874887]Slaves also, if they aren't freshly caught, tend to be VERY beaten down and crushed so the thought of escape or rebellion might be there but it would be an act of desperation. Also determine whether they actually like the character back, or if it's just one sided. If they don't like him despite his treatment of them, of course they would want to be free.[/QUOTE]
These aren't freshly caught, they've gone through a long process of slave training to get where they are. Their previous owner always carried the implied and very real threat of tracking them down and killing them if they ever escaped; with his network of spies it was always assumed it wasn't an empty threat. He lived a life of grandiose self importance however and, much the same as the current PC, provided very well for these slaves. The major difference is the PC treating them on more equal ground and being concerned for the individual more than for their simple services. He certainly doesn't carry the implied threat of killing them for leaving, though as a Ranger he probably could -- not that the slaves know what a "Ranger" is anyway, he's just a guy that's really good with a bow and keeps the company of large monsters, drunken Barbarian Warforges and Swashbuckling Dwarves among others. Maybe that alone is reason enough to stay.
[QUOTE=Glent;42874959]If your setting has established slavery as the norm then it is reasonable for a neutral character, or even a good character, to own slaves. Their treatment of the slaves may differ, but not everyone in Rome was evil. On the other hand, if you had a setting where there is no slavery, and people were being forced into slavery not as part of any norm or standard, it would typically be an evil act. If you had a game based in the 18th century and the PCs started enslaving people to work in their mines, it would probably be evil. It depends on the setting and context.
Obviously, slavery is wrong, but when creating a fantasy setting you can't judge everything based on reality.
As for the slaves running away, it depends on the culture - if society is based around slavery being commonplace, and the slaves have been slaves for a long time (or born into it), they probably wouldn't consider fleeing. At that point they would have accepted their fate, and may even bond with their owners in a way, especially kind ones. There are obviously some exceptions. If it's a setting where slavery isn't common, they'd probably dream of escaping at the first opportunity.[/QUOTE]
As I said it's not universally legal or illegal. Different empires and cultures treat the subject differently. Good and evil are difficult subjects for me to focus down to points for my campaign world because it's comprised of many different worlds. With so many different cultures potentially clashing it takes the question away from typical views and calls into question the philosophy. In the the PCs home city slavery was not an evil practice and was expected of the wealthy clans; though different clans treated their slaves differently it was considered in bad taste to needlessly mistreat them however, as the owners are supposed to be above petty displays.
[QUOTE=gman003-main;42875382]1) I would perhaps have one of them run away, perhaps stealing some gold while he's at it, but having a mass slavebreak doesn't seem logical.
2) The way he is treating them, definitely not evil. I wouldn't necessarily call it good (I'd wait until he actually follows through on the "free them" plan), but it's clearly not evil.
Look beyond the label being applied to it: he is overall helping them, but in a way that is intrinsically selfish. That's classic chaotic-neutral/chaotic-good stuff right there.[/QUOTE]
At this point I wouldn't have a mass break on the grounds of ruining his roleplaying experience. He's put a lot of time and effort into them and they have become a major part of his game play. Since we play PnP primarily for roleplaying (and thus Play-By-Post to maximize this) this would be an unfair punishment and might (almost assuredly) degrade his experience. Temporary loss because they were kidnapped or something might be a scenario to run later, but we're too far to simply take them all away. Each player has their "thing" they like to spend their time roleplaying with; the spellcasters always have their magic, doing fun little pointless fluff with it among other things, and the other players have found their own attachments. This guy chose his pets, and by extension his slaves. Perhaps one or a couple could try something, though I'll have to really think of a good reason as the player has made a very precise point of taking time to get on friendly terms with all of the slaves and to not favor.
[QUOTE=Alxnotorious;42877049]I wouldn't have the slaves run away randomly after such a long period of time. The PCs have obviously built up some sort of relationship with them, they're treated well, and they've been promised some position of influence in whatever world the PCs are trying to create, so they really have little motivation to leave.
If you absolutely need to deal with the slaves somehow, you should do it more creatively than just yanking them away. How about creating some sort of inner conflict between the slave where a moral judgement has to be made by the PC about what to do with his slaves. I'm assuming maybe you've created some group of random races or backgrounds for each slave. They could have some connection to world events, something to cause infighting where his group couldn't hold together and they begin to affect how efficiently the party operates. Eventually, he might have to dissolve his group, or it would at least give more reason for a few slaves to run away during the night. And then what does he do with the rest of the slaves? Keep a tighter grip on them? It could affect him in the long run.
Just my thoughts.[/QUOTE]
I believe much the same, it's too late to make them run away now, especially with the amount of times they have had the chance to easily hire a ship or wagon and leave in the cities.
There's no problem with the slaves and I really have no intention of taking them away at this point, I just wanted to hear peoples thoughts on the matter and maybe use some of that feedback for possible future decisions. More of a discussion for the sake of having one than anything. Anyways, I have had a few ideas running around in my head about them that would cause strife between them, and would also create trouble for the PC and his relationship with the criminal figure. Possibly one of them being a spy sent by the criminal to keep an eye on his business partner, and one of the slaves figures it out and is thus killed by the spy; the PC and the remaining slaves now wonder which slave is the spy and murderer, distrust abound. I have plenty of time to think about it and flesh it out more should I go that route.
In any case thank you all for the feedback and insights provided -- I love a good discussion.
good god so much text
[QUOTE=Axznma;42879213]As I said it's not universally legal or illegal. Different empires and cultures treat the subject differently. Good and evil are difficult subjects for me to focus down to points for my campaign world because it's comprised of many different worlds. With so many different cultures potentially clashing it takes the question away from typical views and calls into question the philosophy. In the the PCs home city slavery was not an evil practice and was expected of the wealthy clans; though different clans treated their slaves differently it was considered in bad taste to needlessly mistreat them however, as the owners are supposed to be above petty displays.[/QUOTE]
This doesn't make the question much more difficult - just consider where the slaves are from and how long they have been slaves, and also who they were taken as slaves by. Free men from Gallia or Germania taken as slaves might be difficult at first, but they'd quickly be forced to adapt to a society where slavery is common, and it wouldn't necessarily be all bad if their owners were decent people. Their previous owners might also effect things - if they had exceptionally cruel owners in the past, they might be bitter and dream of escaping, or even murdering their owners, depending on how severe the baggage is. As for whether or not it's an evil thing, it just depends on where the player character is from and their culture, so it sounds like your player in question is good or neutral to me.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
