>party is hired to assist in suppressing of a slave revolt
Is there better way to check if players can get into the character and mentality of the setting without metagaming their anachronistic current day sentiments?
>party is hired to assist in suppressing of a slave revolt
Ask your players their favorite system. If they say D&D or Pathfinder, the brainrot is probably too deep to fix.
Make the slave revolt leader an antagonistic and unreasonably arrogant tyrant.
I agree with . Make the slave leader a Hitler like character. Maybe let the slaves come from a rape and canibal culture that genocided other tribes and want to again.
Otherwise maybe give them so many penalties and problems that when they dont fight the slaves they die instantly. How about the slavers death means chtulu being will be set free.
> Otherwise maybe give them so many penalties and problems that when they dont fight the slaves they die instantly. How about the slavers death means chtulu being will be set free.
They will accuse him of railroading.
>racist slaves
>sexist slavers
Who wins?
Figures, slaves become tyrants when they get the opportunity. And leading a revolt sounds like one hell of an opportunity.
Everybody becomes a tyrant when given the opportunity. A former slave would also have quite a chip on his shoulder.
>Everybody becomes a tyrant when given the opportunity.
Incorrect.
It's just that the adequate rulers don't get any mention since they're just doing their jobs competently (and/or let competent underlings do their jobs) and nothing happened.
Slaves revolt when treated poorly. When they revolt and gain power, they use it the way their previous master has thaught them. Its kind of cycle of abuse.
Make all the slaves ex prisoners - rapists, murderers, etc, that have taken over the prison that held them and all are now on a rampage across the kingdom. Have the party come across a few despoiled villages and caravans - innocents tortured, burnt on pyres, disembowelled, raped, even eaten. Have the player characters recognise some of the victims - old friends, family members, etc. When they reach the rebels, have the rebels laugh about what they did. Make the players REALLY hate them. If the players are woke and insist on inserting it into the game, make the rebels out to be the worst fascists ever, or the other way around if needed. Give them a big fat target and the players will aim at it.
Emotional railroading.
>Oooh, Good or Evil is bad, everything has to be shaded!
Frick of zoomer.
>a moral dilemma, eh? Well, what if they killed your mom and killed your dad and kicked your dog and they were really rude and mean and nasty and they stiff you for payments and they never call back and they chew with their mouths open
>do you still think it's ethical to return that shopping trolley now?
People that can't be steered by reason need to be steered by emotion.
Don't use the word 'slave'. Use a substitute word that won't trigger your players' reflexive response.
Alternatively, ask your players out of game if they are willing to play as someone with a historically-accurate support or neutrality of the setting's slavery system. As in, they don't act like white Southern plantation caricatures outside of settings that explicitly call for them.
Not really, no, but it helps to ask. To some extent everyone's concept of good and evil is going to be based on their current day sentiments, and you're inviting discussion of good and evil when you play in any epic fantasy setting (with or without alignments).
92095736
This thread is gayest of the threads.
Congratulations
most people envision their PC as fighting for the weak against the strong so they would naturally side with rebels anyway
then they will perish
Even in the height of slavery, there were people - quite a lot of them - who wanted nothing to do with slavery, or who at the very least abhorred certain aspects of slavery. The uptick of dirkas abducting and brutally enslaving Christians actually helped to kick the European abolitionist movement in the butt.
>party is hired
The first thing I would do is quit. There are much better ways to profit from a slave revolt.
Most of those are reserved for people that already have.wealth and influence to leverage the opportunity into gaining even more wealth and influence.
If you mean stuff like plundering for your own gain and blaming it in the revolting mob, that might work.
Jeff Wayne's Spartacus is 50% of a good musical and the other 50% is terrible romantic songs so I don't know who to support.
>he thinks opposition to slavery is a CURRENT YEAR concept
Lightswitch brained moral crusaders are the issue at hand. The context is just a blacklight
We could come up with others to analyze just as well you disingenuous, unhygenic cretin.
Some things are immutable anon. Might as well ask people to not side with the humans.
I wouldn't start with the slave revolt being in full swing. If anything the slave revolt should happen after some stuff first to give exposition to why the slaves need to be put down. Having the story start after a previous revolt would give some weight to what is about to happen. Because a slave revolt doesn't have much context on what to expect without knowing how those things work. Having some survivors from that time would put the next revolt into context.
It is east to say that the slaves dindu nuffin if you only know that they were enslaved. It is a bit harder if you have first hand accounts from people who survived what was in essence a genocide. Even meeting freed slaves who sided with the slavers because they established families with members of the slaver's ethnic group. Hell, if you want you can even add former abolitionists who did a 180 on their beliefs because of the shit they saw.
Maybe before the revolt the slaves didn't deserve what was happening to them, but now they deserve everything that happened to them and more.
>"Sorry, chief. If you're too much of a shitb***h to keep from being killed by people you own as property, that's kind of proof that if I wanted your money, there isn't a lot you could do to keep me from taking it. So, you know, fork over the cash or I'll fricking kill you."
This is always my answer to this quest prompt. If a GM is too precious with their npcs to accept that someone who projects violence from a position of weakness is a pathetic rat who deserves to be killed, then they're the one who doesn't understand premodern morality.
I can actually respect that answer. Only stupid and desperate turn towards mercenaries against a slave rebellion. It's almost as stupid as Napoleon trying to use Polish troops, who all signed in to fight for their brothers' freedom, to fight Haitian slaves.
Napoleon III learned that lesson and bought slaves to fight the Mexicans.
That's a bold move, considering the chief in question may be outsourcing the violence out of convenience, rather than necessity.
>/tg/'s 999845 slavery is good thread
When we hit 1000000 Hiro said he would throw us a pizza party
>setting without metagaming their anachronistic current day sentiments
You can't, it's nearly impossible. 90% of people can't understand second order consequences, and lack the mental framework to understand that the slave revolt tearing down what is more than likely an otherwise functioning and normal society isn't a good thing.
>90% of people can't understand second order consequences,
[citation needed]
>and lack the mental framework to understand that the slave revolt tearing down what is more than likely an otherwise functioning and normal society isn't a good thing.
historically, in countries with slavery, some people are against it. usually on moral grounds. and i'm obviously not just talking about the slaves.
>[citation needed]
People will see a functioning society where injustices happen, and believe that tearing down the system to resolve that injustice will mean things will carry on as normal just sans that injustice. Look at Haiti, Robspierre's France, look at Bolshevik Russia; the death toll and deprivation of material wealth by "liberators" far outstripping the taskmasters. Do you really think all those "revolutionaries" gunned down by the firing squads thought THAT would be the bright and sunny future waiting around the corner? The tale of one giving up something steady for a chance at greatness, and failing, is one as old as time.
>Evil deserves to be destroyed along with those who participate in it.
And you're proving my point exactly. OP specified "without metagaming their anachronistic current day sentiments". By your argument, nearly every human society on the face of the planet prior to the 18th/19th century should have been razed to the ground. Not even the Bible forbade slavery. A significant number of people lack the ability to perform the dissonance needed to decide something as people who are used to, or at the very least haven't been brought up in an education system where one of the greatest evils in the world is, slavery.
>This means that the idea of bunch of random mercenaries being sympathetic to rebelling slaves isn't so far fetched.
Please give me ONE reason, beyond "we have enough money" that mercenaries/sellswords would side with literal penniless, property-less slaves over a paying government.
>Please give me ONE reason, beyond "we have enough money" that mercenaries/sellswords would side with literal penniless, property-less slaves over a paying government.
Assuming our initial premise of players party, a small band of arguably highly capable specialists, and my statement about them being sympathetic to rebelling slaves, not necessarily joining them but at least refusing to fight them, we can have several angles for refusal:
>Personal conflict with whoever wants to hire them. Plain and simple, they don't like the employer. Maybe he slighted them. Maybe he's untrustworthy and therefore not worth risking their skins for. Either way, the mere fact of him trying to hire mercenaries for dealing with a slave rebellion casts doubts on his validity as an employer.
>Some sense of kinship with slave population, be it religious or ethnic. Of course, it depends heavily on party's composition, but it's fully possible to have a party say something in style of "We are Westerlings. We aren't fighting Westerling rebels for some Southron noble.".
>Party supports this particular rebellion because it aligns with their ideals. Arguably, that's what happened to Napoleon on Haiti with Polish troops deciding that the slaves were in the right.
>Please give me ONE reason, beyond "we have enough money" that mercenaries/sellswords would side with literal penniless, property-less slaves over a paying government.
Sometimes you want to first make the problem worse so that you can then charge more for solving it.
Because sometimes people care about things other than money.
Evil deserves to be destroyed along with those who participate in it.
I don't quite follow, are you in favor or against suppressing the slave revolt?
To expand
's point, the other thing is that slave revolt implies that either the society is weakened enough to lose control of the slaves or that their treatment of slaves has become bad enough that the large group of them has decided to rather die fighting than continue living in the bondage. Probably a combination of both. This means that the idea of bunch of random mercenaries being sympathetic to rebelling slaves isn't so far fetched.
NTA, but that guy was obviously speaking about how any society condoning slavery is evil by virtue of collectively participating in an evil act.
>It's another "OP argues in favor of slavery to satisfy his Magical Realm and doesn't like it when people go against his boner" thread
Next
92095946
Holy shit, (you) are a supreme homosexual.
"As a Paladin of justice and honour, there is no honour or justice in slavery, even if they're evil. Relinquish your ownership of these men and mete out proper justice to them, whatever they may deserve, be it death or freedom, or by my honour you will meet my blade!"
>Slavery is legal in the setting or region the campaign takes place
>You're now breaking the law and committing the unjust and dishonorable act of thievery by trying to deprive the slave master of his property
Fricking dummy the character most likely to put down a slave revolt is some lawful stupid paladin
A paladin has no loyalty to evil laws. If they did, then they would get in trouble for opposing devils and your typical evil chancellor or other lawful evil races/groups.
>Slavery is evil.... Because the left says so okay!!!
troony opinion aside, youve clearly never read Gygax's own interpretation of lawful
Surely then you would have no problem being a slave yourself then? Society demands it afterall, and the gods are in favor of it so says the rulers and common people. It is thus your destiny to stay that way and submit to your betters and never fight and all harm and suppression brought to bear on you is thus justified.
lawful good absolutely means they follow the laws and expectations of their society. look it up.
no, that's just Lawful.
Looked it up. First result is
>Lawful good characters promote the greater good, while following established procedures or rules.
Second:
> A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. He combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. He tells the truth, keeps his word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished.
Third:
>A lawful good character typically acts with compassion and always with honor and a sense of duty. However, lawful good characters will often regret taking any action they fear would violate their code, even if they recognize such action as being good.
Got a better result? Say it.
So letting an evil chancellor do his thing in not Lawful Good. Though someone who is Lawful Good instead of Good would try to find a way to remove said chancellor lawfully.
You're thinking of Lawful Neutral, not Lawful Good. Big difference.
You would have to make the argument that slavery is inherently evil now.
If your mom was enslaved would you shrug your shoulders and accept it? Or would you have a response that might not suit the laws of the land?
I'd do whatever it takes to keep myself and my next of kin safe, for entirely selfish reasons, but then I've never claimed to be Good.
I don't know, why was she enslaved? Because she broke the law and is now in jail doing unpaid work as restitution? Because she was in debt and she was enslaved to work off that debt? Context matters.
Context doesn't matter to most people though. You're not convincing most people that slavery is good for the same reason why you generally can't convince people to root against other humans in a fantasy setting.
I mean it doesn't matter because most people don't even realize slavery is commonly practiced in most countries. Prisons regularly utilize slave labor.
I would not.
All I need to know is if this specific instance of slavery is evil, not slavery in general.
Slavery is legal according to the laws of the kingdom, or the laws of the paladin god? I'm not talking about lawful stupid here. If the slaves are truly evil like people have been talking about in this thread, I presented a paladin that would rather put the revolting slaves to death. Especially since failure to execute villains who committed evil acts would be evading justice by putting them to work instead out of greed.
>dude just make the slaves evil and reprehensible, making the choice easier on the players
homosexual shit. So glad I play with my friends and not normiescum so we can be sexist and openly perform racist genocidal acts without fear of some troon complaining
Meanwhile my normie players were laughing their asses off at the slaves and the black guy was the first one to crack the whip on the slaves. It was an Eberron game, fun.
Dude I can't even get my players to not scoff and judge me at the thought of a Master/Servant social relationship like Samwise and Frodo. It's just so outside their zeitgeist to comprehend a society in which that is a good and noble thing. I know, without a doubt, they would immediately side with the slave class with zero considerations of the cultural implications or interpersonal reasoning for revolt.
It's telling that when they *do* have hirelings, they treat them like chaff and cattle or resources to expend without repercussion.
>It's telling that when they *do* have hirelings, they treat them like chaff and cattle or resources to expend without repercussion.
Easier to teach a fish how to ride bicycle than to teach somebody growing up under capitalism that there used to be regimes that weren't exclusively organized around money.
I make characters that come from non-slave owning cultures normally. Unless all our party is from a culture that is slave-based I see no reason for us to want to get involved with this. Unless we're of course helping the slaves. This isn't even modern morality. Lots of medieval cultures weren't keen on slavery.
I mean, slave revolts always end with massacres. Look at Haiti, the first thing they did was to kill all the whites, even the ones who supported them. Right now the country is basically real-life GTA.
So yeah, kill all the slaves.
Man you should see my party. The group's noble-loving half-elf sorceress threw the first fireball at a peasant revolt, she would have gleefully slaughtered slaves for getting in the way of the beautiful elite.