12-17-2004, 05:08 AM | #1 |
Join Date: Sep 2004
|
Slaves
Slavery is going to be present in my fantasy campaign.
I was assuming that the default disadvantages for a slave would be: Status/-4 [-20 pts] Social Stigma (Valuable Property) [-10 pts] Poverty (Dead Broke) [-25 pts] but would they have a duty? How would an indebtured servant differ? How would slaves under say the Vikings, Roman or Greeks differ from each other and from that of the early Americans? |
12-17-2004, 05:15 AM | #2 | |
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Helsinki, Finland
|
Re: Slaves
Quote:
__________________
Vampires vs. Werewolves >=) |
|
12-17-2004, 05:23 AM | #3 | |
Join Date: Dec 2004
|
Re: Slaves
Quote:
Duty (Involuntary) would be common. I'm not sure you can reduce status below -2. Indentured Servants could buy off their disadvantages more easily, and might have smaller Duties. Many slaves will have a whole array of Mental and Physical Disadvantages. Slave Mentality, Wounded, and Phobia come to mind... Also, most slaves will be built from a small number of character points (not much opportunity for self-improvement in those conditions!) |
|
12-17-2004, 12:02 PM | #4 |
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Berlin/Germany
|
Re: Slaves
Starting with a 'hello' to everyone.
One might also consider Patron (..with Unwillingly and/or Minimal Intervention limitation..) as a more or less typical slave trait. As the owner most likely will provide shelter, food or even real help in critical situations.. it well depends on the type of slave. Also, a slave doesn't necessarily have a low status.. harmonizing with the status of the onwner and the general duties of the slave. A good example is some kind of ancient roman star-gladiator. Undoubtly a slave but possibly with a high status. He might even be wealthy. |
12-17-2004, 12:24 PM | #5 |
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: San Francisco native
|
Re: Slaves
Yes, slavery in the ancient world, while abhorrant, was not generally like slavery in the new world.
Slavery in the new world treated them like animals in many regards. Ancient world slavery is more like what new world indentured servitude resembled - save the indenturement came with a set time limit or debt to be paid off limit. Indentured servitute is how most whites before the 19th century came into the Anglo portions of the Americas - rather than as freemen. It was only ended in mass when political thinking of the day find it morally abhorrant to have a white be in the same low status as a blackm and later fully ended save for against native americans by the 13th Amendment. Technically slavery ended then, but even the slave auction in downtown San Francisco (where Embarcadero BART stands today) sold 'Indian Children' up until just around the 20th century. Slavery puts you under the control of an owner, making your status one of property. The society may or may not limits on your treatment. Commonly these limits deal with fines for killing or maining you, and making such illegal. In much of the ancient world it was acceptable to castrate the males, but in other times and places they might be left 'as is' for breeding, though often slave women could be bred with free men - that last notion is why even as far out as American Slavery a child who's mother was a slave would also be a slave, but if the mother was free the child would be free. In Rome, I do not know if a general slave could be maimed or killed with impunity, but we do know you could do such to gladiators, and that slaves were killed to make plays 'realistic' - an early form of special effects. Even in American slavery slaves could have money, but in American slavery they had no right to keep it whereas they did in most other forms in the world. Indentured Servitute by contrast did allow the keeping of income. Shaping out how slavery works in your society would set what kinds of disads it might grant. |
12-17-2004, 12:50 PM | #6 | |
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Lexington, KY
|
Re: Slaves
Quote:
Patron is only appropriate if the slave gets unusual treatment, which will depend on the culture and individual owner. In most cases, I imagine that the slave would need to have some special talent or skill (master craftsman, virtuoso entertainer, rare magic skils, etc.) to justify the Patron's interest (or have juicy blackmail material, for an Unwilling Patron). An owner who is inclined to let a slave earn his freedom (and perhaps encourages him to do so) would probably be the best candidate for a Patron; freedom wouldn't necessarily end the relationship in that case. |
|
12-17-2004, 02:34 PM | #7 | |
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Berlin/Germany
|
Re: Slaves
Quote:
Well, it all depends on your game world and its general owner-slave-relationship. OK. Unwillingly doesn't really fit because an owner is most unlikely to try to get rid of his/her 'property'.. i mean without a specific reason. Again, I'm not talking about the nice sort of Patron. But as the slave is in many ways depended on his/her owner, you might as well say the owner is a Patron of the slave. The owner doesn't need to like the slave at all to feel responsible for the slaves survival/comfort or actions. Last edited by Cpt Clean; 12-17-2004 at 02:35 PM. Reason: minor changes |
|
12-17-2004, 03:27 PM | #8 | |
Join Date: Sep 2004
|
Re: Slaves
Quote:
I don't have racial slavery, that is all races are eligible for slavery equally. I agree with you on the status being limited to -2 (according to Basic Set)but GURPS Fantasy lists Status/-4 for common slave (not sure if this is a hold over from 3e or something omitted from Characters book). I think involuntary duty will work fine, especially applying extremely hazardous and nonhazardous as per the role of the slave. Gladiators and soldier slaves probably have extremely hazardous, while artist and domestic slaves probably have nonhazardous. The source material I am adapting says that slaves can buy their freedom (though it is pretty rare that this happens), but I find that weird given that I can't see a slave getting a wage or being able to keep property except at the whim of his master. |
|
12-17-2004, 03:41 PM | #9 |
Join Date: Dec 2004
|
Re: Slaves
They usually couldn't keep property unless the master let them, but letting them is a good incentive. Pay can come from renting out slave entertainers, craftsmen, etc. sometimes with a promise of letting them keep a part of their wages.
I think pretty much everything has been covered. What slavery is like depends on who can be a slave, why, and what they are usually used for. |
12-17-2004, 03:52 PM | #10 | |
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: San Francisco native
|
Re: Slaves
Quote:
In most historical slave systems slaves could own property and have right to keep it. The new world system is an unusual form of slavery, not a norm. Most slavery is more akin to what the new world model called indentured servitude. |
|
Tags |
slavery |
|
|